I've been visiting an Episcopal church in my area occasionally, and I intend to visit it more often in the future. It's a beautiful church with a loving community. I wish there were more young people, but I've come to realize and accept that if I want more young people to come to the Episcopal Church, I have to be the first.
I just started to attend an Episcopal church, my reverend said that the main demographic of members joining the church are in their mid-late twenties up into their thirties. We are making our way back into the faith, and we can only create a presence in the church by being the presence in the church.
I believe the only reason our generation isn't flooding the Episcopal church right now is that they don't know what it is. When most Americans think "Christian," they think "Southern Baptist." Most have probably never even heard of Anglicanism. And it seems a lot of Episcopalians are either exvangelical or ex-Catholic. I'm exvangelical myself, and if I meet any members of either group, I will invite them.
Outstanding lecture; thank you. Cradle Episcopalian here. Still go to church, but I'm an atheist and nobody gives a darn. How can one turn away from a stunning choir, our massive organ, and a hilarious priest? It's like a free opera.
I was on staff at a mid sized United Methodist Church for over 30 years. Retired in 2017 and was confirmed as an Episcopalian in 2019. Love my parish, such a blessing.
Keith, your post is not only unpleasant but also judgmental, obnoxious, offensive, arrogant, and not very Christian. Remove the log from your own eye first before removing the speck from someone else's eye, the Bible says. I will not engage in a debate with you. The Episcopal Church is a wonderful church. End of story. @@keithpritz1347
@@keithpritz1347 And who is more immoral than fundamentalists? Hate blacks, browns, gays, women's rights, foreigners. If you think it's your job to judge others.....
My wife and I were raised southern baptist in an area dominated by baptist churches, and I thank God we were able to find a home in a small, wonderful Episcopal church near our town. As someone who did not have the opportunity to grow up in the church, these videos are extremely helpful in growing my understanding equal to my age of the church and her history. Thank you for these videos, information like this is what led me to the church to begin with!
As an ex-Catholic I am at a loss as to why someone would go from a Baptist church, even Southern Baptist, to a sacerdotalist church. There is no salvation in the sacraments, the church, church membership, ministers, priests and salvation is not a process, it is an instantaneous, permanent, FREE, gift received by grace alone through faith alone.
@@barrypatrickius Thomas Cranmer wrote himself that salvation is still by grace through faith. The difference in the belief system merely boils down too the baptist idea of a point of decision being an emphasis. I can't speak for all Episcopalians/Anglicans, but my understanding is a covenantal baptism that defines you as Christian the same way circumcision does as Jewish. The Bible does state repeatedly that baptism is for the remission of sins, and it is constantly tied into the word salvation/saved. I would argue that our beliefs on whether or not someone goes to heaven is the same, but the focus of the theology more in lies with fully becoming a Christian and continual growth than isolating a single moment as the defining experience. I have many other reasons, mostly Biblically based for the differences in belief, but constantly I have found that we are never as far off as it seems at the beginning of the discussion
barrypatrickius - I hope to continue to get out videos in this series on "What Does the Episcopal Church Teach?" That means that I'll eventually address the topics of Justification by Grace through Faith and the Sacraments. But here's a (very) brief preview. The Episcopal Church, in particular, and the Anglican Tradition, in general, affirm Justification by Grace (alone) through Faith (alone). But we follow Martin Luther's understanding of this rather than Huldrych Zwingli / the Zwinglian Reform and Anabaptist interpretation. That's to say, if Faith is the passive reception of Justifying Grace-the open hand that receives the gift-then the Sacraments are the means by which the Grace is given to us. Think about how you receive love from a parent or child or spouse. Indeed, do you even know that the other person loves you? You wouldn't know that the other person loved you unless they told you and showed you by doing something like embracing you or giving you a tangible gift or inviting you to a meal, etc. Both of these ways of knowing and receiving love are corporeal because we are embodied creatures: You either hear or read through the use of sight (i.e., the body's empirical senses) the words, "I love you" and the physical actions that convey that love are also always received through the body's senses. So, it is with Grace-God's gift of Love obtained for us in and through the person and work of Jesus Christ, which Justifies us. According to Martin Luther (and the Catholic and Orthodox tradition that preceded him), this Grace comes in the Word of Promise together with a Physical Action that both signifies the Grace and gives the Grace it signifies. As the 16th century Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker preached in his sermon on Justification by Grace through Faith, the Faith by which we are Justified is not a faith in our own ability to believe the doctrine of Justification by Grace through Faith. That would be solipsism. Rather, our Faith is in the Grace of God won for us in and through the person and work of Christ and given in the Word and Sacrament. Another good way to think about this is to employ Luther's distinction of Law and Gospel. If Baptism and Eucharist are Ordinances-things we do because Christ ordered us to do them-then they are Law (which only has power to convict us of our own sinfulness). However, if Baptism and Eucharist are Sacraments-the Word of Promise combined with the Physical Act or Material Gift which both signifies and is the means by which we receive Grace-then they are Gospel.
@@austinblankenship7631 I have read through the Bible many many times and have never seen that baptism is for the remission of sins. I have seen a couple a of passages which might have been possible saying that, the way Colossians saying Christ is the firstborn of all creation MAY be saying he's not God, but in context, Colossians is NOT saying that, so when I looked at the baptism scriptures in context they said nothing of the sort. And salvation is NOT process, their IS moment of salvation when salvation and eternal life and justification from sin is permanently imparted to the believer; THEN the process of the sanctification of the permanently saved person begins. There is no "fully becoming a Christian" any more than there is fully becoming pregnant. A person has either become pregnant and the process is now in progress or they are not pregnant and a person is either saved and the process of sanctification has began or they are not saved, period. Any thing else is works, self achievement and blasphemy. When I deal with Arminians, I find they that (mis)treat the scriptures about baptism, communion and salvation as badly as the Jehovah's witnesses treat the scriptures about the deity and Godhood of Jesus Christ and the Trinity and Arminians are as far apart from eternal securitists/once saved always savedists as hippopotamuses are from butterflies.
Great video. Thank you. Perhaps it can be said that nothing spoils faith so well as religion. Not in a church? Belief without doubt. Go into a church? Well. We’ve seen a couple examples here.
Good morning, Father Nicholas. I just watched this video with great interest. I was wondering if you have a "Discussion 2" of this subject or plan to record such. I am an ELCA Lutheran, but am exploring other churches' beliefs. Familiar with you through my affiliation with Three Priests. I really enjoyed this video. I am also interested in the doctrinal or dogmatic differences between the Episcopal and Anglican churches, apart from their countries of origin.
Thanks for the comment! I am working on more videos in this series. In fact, I'm just finishing filming of the second video and then onto the editing. I had hoped to get these out much sooner, but other responsibilities took precedence. This summer, I'll be taking a three month sabbatical from my priestly and pastoral duties as Rector of the Fork Church. So, that should give me the time to get caught up on this series of videos. With regard to the doctrinal or dogmatic differences between the Episcopal and Anglican churches," it all depends on how one is using the word, "Anglican." The traditional (and more widespread) use of the word refers to the worldwide body of Churches that trace their origins to the Church of England and are still in communion with the Church of England. This is the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a member. So, in that sense, Episcopalians are the Anglican denomination in the United States (as well as some other countries, including Haiti, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Taiwan, etc). However, to make things more confusing, in North America, there are some churches that broke away from the Episcopal Church at various times in history and have reorganized themselves into several smaller denominations, and they typically call themselves "Anglicans" to differentiate themselves from the Episcopal Church. These include the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), the Anglican Church in America (ACA), and the Anglican Province of America (APA-which split off from the ACA). None of these "breakaway" or "continuing" Anglican denominations are part of the worldwide Anglican Communion or in communion with Church of England. So, from a global, historical, and traditional perspective, none of these "Anglican" churches are truly Anglican. I won't be addressing their doctrine and dogma, but I may say a few things about the very slight differences between the Episcopal Church and the Church of England in the third discussion/video.
@@NicholasForti I Am Changing My Religion To Episcopal And Since I Have A Genetic Disposition To Alcholism I Cant Drink Wine Could I Drink Unfermented Could I Still Do The Eucharist Do They Have Unfermented for People Who Cant Drink Alchol Because Of Disposition To Alchol .
@@purpleeuphoric8917 - The Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer speak of "Bread and Wine" as the proper elements of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist (BCP 407-408). The Rubrics, however, don't specify what counts as "bread" and what counts as "wine"-(probably because this was simply just assumed to be a matter of common sense). But since the time that the current Prayer Book first came out (1979), we've become more aware of gluten-allergies and celiac disease, which have brought up debates about whether rice wafers or gluten-free bread count as Bread. Similarly, it seems pretty clear that grape juice doesn't count as Wine, but what about de-alcoholized or non-alcoholic wine? Currently, this is a matter left to the discretion of each bishop and (when the bishop allows) each priest. I, personally, have no problem with both gluten-free bread or rice wafers and de-alcoholized/non-alcoholic wine. I have used both when presiding at Holy Eucharist. So, you'll need to talk to your local parish priest to determine where they (and their bishop) stand on this question. Other options (if non-alcoholic wine isn't available or offered) are to either intinct the consecrated bread/wafer slightly into the consecrated wine or to receive only the consecrated bread. Although the rubrics of the Prayer Book require both the consecrated bread and wine be offered, only one element needs to be consumed for the fullness of grace to be sacramentally received. This is called concomitance. The fulness of the Real Presence of Christ-his Body and Blood given as grace-is sacramentally available in each element, fully in the consecrated bread and fully in the consecrated wine. So, one only needs to receive the consecrated bread alone to have fully received the sacrament and the grace it signifies and effectually conveys.
I'm not sure what the audio problem is. Admittedly, I am using the most basic of equipment (Macbook and iPhone) to record. Still, I have no trouble with the sound when I play it back on RUclips, and no one else has complained about the sound level. Is it possible the sound level problem is on your end? Have you checked both the volume control on your hardware (laptop, tablet, or smart phone) AND the volume control on the RUclips Player/App? If the volume on one of those two is turned down, even if it is all the way on the other, you may have trouble hearing the content.
When researching whether to become Episcopal, something you can uncover but will not find promoted, is their official position on Biblical inerrancy. The Episcopal church asserts that the Bible may have errors in "what it teaches about God and God's will for human salvation" presumably because it has passed through the hands of mankind. This allows them to create doctrine as they wish since they can decide something in scripture is a mistake or something more nefarious. Ironically, their doctrine making process is by definition passing the Word of God "through the hands of mankind". You can find it in the glossary of terms on their official website, but I'll quote it here: Inerrancy, Biblical The belief that the Bible contains no errors, whether theological, moral, historical, or scientific. Sophisticated holders of this theory, however, stress that the biblical manuscripts as originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inerrant, but not those that are presently available. Some more conservative scholars are reluctant to speak of inerrancy, but choose to speak of biblical infallibility. They mean that the Bible is completely infallible in what it teaches about God and God's will for human salvation, but not necessarily in all its historical or scientific statements. Biblical inerrancy and infallibility are not accepted by the Episcopal Church. See Fundamentalism.
While the Episcopal Church (often abbreviated as "TEC") is a member Church of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the hub of which is the Church of England, it maintains its own autonomous oversight and ecclesial jurisdiction. This is true of all the member Churches of the Anglican Communion. If you are familiar with the concept of Autocephaly in Eastern Orthodoxy, the relationships of the member Churches within the Anglican Communion is very similar. Each member Church of the Anglican Communion is autocephalous, but we are bound together by our shared origin, tradition, and continued communion with the Church of England (and specifically the See of Canterbury). But whatever deference we may pay to the Archbishop of Canterbury, his role in the Anglican Communion is not analogous to that of the Pope in Roman Catholicism. He exercises no episcopal oversight outside of his own diocese and no ecclesial authority outside of the Church of England. Similarly, though the English monarch has a role in the Church of England, that role does not extend beyond the Church of England to the Episcopal Church. So, what is the role of the monarch in the Church of England? When Henry VIII removed the Church in England from the ecclesial jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in 1534, he did so by having the Act of Supremacy passed in Parliament. With the Act of Supremacy, the monarch of England was declared to be Supreme Head on Earth of the Church in England (under Christ). Later, in 1544, the title "Defender of the Faith" (originally bestowed on Henry VIII by the Pope in 1521) was added to this inheritance. After the death of Henry, and then the boy king, Edward VI, Mary Tudor had the Act of Supremacy repealed. Following Mary's death, Elizabeth Tudor passed a new Act of Supremacy in 1558. Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy altered the language of her father's original so that the monarch was named Supreme Governor of the Church of England (to clarify that Christ alone is the Head of the Church). These titles-Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith-have been passed down from monarch to monarch from then until now (with the exception of the Interregnum of 1649-1660). For the most part, the monarchs have held these roles in a mostly symbolic and ceremonial manner, leaving the actual oversight and governance of the Church of England to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops of the realm. The monarch does play a small and final role in the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury and other diocesan bishops in the Church of England, but this occurs only after a process begun within the leadership of the Church puts forward the candidate(s). Similarly, the Parliament-which includes the Lord's Spiritual, consisting of Diocesan Bishops-continues to play a role in the Church of England. For example, the Parliament must approve any new edition of the Book of Common Prayer for use in the Church of England. Although a new edition was proposed in 1927 and 1928, they were rejected by the Parliament, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer remains the official Prayer Book of the Church of England. (The Church of England found a work-around by producing alternative, supplemental liturgies that weren't meant to replace or supersede the Book of Common Prayer, and these are currently used in addition to the 1662 BCP under the title, "Common Worship"), The English Monarch and Parliament have absolutely no jurisdiction nor even a ceremonial role in the Episcopal Church. When the Episcopal Church gained autocephaly from the Church of England after the American Revolutionary War, it cut all ties to the British monarchy and government. TEC produced its own Book of Common Prayer in 1789, removing all prayer for the monarch and changing Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion to be about "the Power of the Civil Magistrates" rather than the Act of Supremacy. In the Episcopal Church, the diocesan bishops exercise episcopal oversight and ecclesial authority in their own dioceses in accordance with the Liturgies, Offices, Prayers, and Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Any changes to the Book of Common Prayer or the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church must be made at the General Convention of TEC. General Convention is the legislative body of the Episcopal Church, which meets every three years. General Convention is a bicameral body consisting of a House of Bishops and a House of Deputies. The House of Bishops includes all bishops in the Episcopal Church, whether in active ministry or retired. The House of Deputies consists of four member of the clergy (priests or deacons) and four members of the laity from each diocese (elected at their own diocesan annual conventions). The House of Deputies is presided over by an elected President. The House of Bishops (and the whole of General Convention) is presided over by the Presiding Bishop. While the role of Presiding Bishop was once held simply by the senior bishop in the House of Bishops, it is now an elected position with full-time duties year round. However, the Presiding Bishop does not exercise authority over their fellow bishops except as presiding officer at the General Convention. The current Presiding Bishop of the EPiscopal Church is the Most Rev'd Michael Curry.
16:45 As long as they are in good standing with their own denomination? Hmm. Except in rare circumstances (e.g. the person is at the point of death and there is no Catholic priest available), a Catholic who receives Communion in an Episcopal Church is not in good standing with his own denomination. So do Episcopalians prohibit Catholics from receiving Communion? And how does the Episcopal Church judge who is in good standing in another denomination?
Good questions. The short answer is: No, the Episcopal Church as an institutional body (and its clergy as members and representatives thereof) do not prohibit baptized Roman Catholics from receiving Communion. We generally leave it to the individual communicant and their own conscience to determine what it means for them to be "in good standing with their own denomination" and whether or not they meet that qualification. To expand on that, the "in good standing" clause is meant to address the situation of excommunication. In other words, if someone has been excommunicated by their own church/denomination, they shouldn't be coming to the local Episcopal church simply to receive the sacrament they're denied at their own church while maintaining membership in that other church without any intention of joining the Episcopal Church. That is to say, receiving the the sacrament in an Episcopal Church should never be treated as a loophole or a work-around to avoid adhering to the doctrine and discipline of one's own church or denomination. Even still, we typically leave that discernment to the individual and their conscience before God. Of course, any parish priest worth their salt will take the time to get to know a new person who has been attending and communicating at their church and offer pastoral guidance based on their unique situation. So, the "in good standing" clause is not directed specifically to the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on the reception of communion in churches not in communion with Rome. And I suspect that generally Episcopal clergy don't feel that we have a responsibility to know and enforce the canon law and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church for its laity (or, for that matter, the doctrine and discipline of any other denomination). Again, it is the responsibility of the member of the other church of denomination to know their own denomination's doctrine, discipline, and canon law and to abide by it (or not). I hope that helps clarify things.
Open Communion as a practice is open to all Catholics whether Orthodox Catholic, Roman Catholic or Protestant Catholic. Thus you have to subscribe to the beliefs outlined in the 3 Catholic Creeds. It is also meant to be an ecumenical event. Roman Catholics are under no circumstances prohibited since we unlike the Roman Catholics do not believe we are the only Catholic Christians out there. Our definition of Catholic is more along the lines of Open Knowledge (since Catholic is the opposite of Gnostic) rather than Worldwide power as Roman Catholics use it.
How is the Episcopal CHURCH know who is in good standing and who isn't? Do the members that are not in good standing wear a uniform that says I'm Bad? I think that receiving communion is between God and the individual. I'm Episcopal and my friends say that I belong to Catholic Lite.
for myself, the question has not been the question of God, but the claims of the Christian church. judaism has a concise set up beliefs, and it is rather coherent. When it comes to Christianity, it claims to be a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. I admit to not being intelligent enough to come to conclusion that Jesus is in fact, the Jewish Messiah. as I understand Judaism, the Messiah, as opposed to a Messiah, they are looking for is a human being, who will appear after universal peace has been established, and the whole of the world seeks to learn about God from the Jews. I have respect for Christians that are sincere in their faith. If anyone does not mind taking a moment to help me in this understanding, I would be very appreciative.
As an Anglican Priest I am shocked that a fellow priest can beat about the bush rather than clearly point to the 39Articles of Religion. To be an Anglican has nothing to do with your personal beliefs and tastes. Even much less to do with what you know or do not know. Anglicans are those who subscribe to the 39 Articles of Religion either generally or particularly. As to all the analogies and Bertrand Russel and CS Lewis it does not mean much. I was shocked in Seminary to know that the lecturer on the Anglicanism course had not ever read the 39 Articles which I had read in Junior High. I demanded we read through it and he was visibly shocked to learn things that he had never considered. And this was an alumni of my seminary who had gone on to do his Masters in an American Seminary. So kindly read and understand the 39 Articles and stay humble.
I had to jump in before finishing the video to let you know this: The first two minutes of the video is a bit of a strip tease. Haha. “You can leave your hat on.” Important stuff. Anyway, back to the informative content…
The short answer is that we don't interpret the bible from a standpoint of legalism. "The letter kills but the SPIRIT gives life" (2nd Corinthians 3 : 4 through 6). JESUS told us "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Mathew 11 ; 28 through 30). Marriage isn't supposed to be a prison. These three examples should help you understand our position on divorce: 1. When the relationship is physically or emotionally abusive, or 2. there is criminal activity by one spouse staying together will be too heavy of a burden. 3. Keeping a marriage together may be dangerous. It is up to the individual and not the church to decide when it is time to go.
@@Episcopalianacolyte Thank you for your feedback. Not sure what you mean by the term "legalism" since many of today's laws are written based on the Bible. Thou shall not murder, steal, bear false witness, etc. To clarify my comment about divorce, yes, I agree there are many reasons for divorce. However, many people remarry a 2nd or 3rd or more times. At what point do you agree legally or non legally when Jesus says; "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery". Luke 16:18 and with similar verses in Matthew 19:9, and Mark 10:11. "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Matthew 19:6. Also, supporting verses are found elsewhere in the Bible such as; Romans 7:2, 1 Corinthians 7:39, Hebrew 13:4, etc. The Bible and your own BCP (pg 870 or so) clearly defines Holy Matrimony as a Christian marriage, in which the woman and man enter into a life-long union. Question: At what point does a minister, episcopal or otherwise, say; "Sorry, I cannot condone this marriage because in the eyes of God, you are still married to someone else"? Question: Along with ignoring what the Bible says, do you also ignore your own BCP? Question: When Jesus tells the adulterous in John 8:1; "go, and do not sin again", is there a non legalistic 'loop hole', to suggest it's okay to continue in adultery?
@John S Since I am an acolyte, and not involved in marriage counseling, I am not qualified to answer your questions. I have never been married. I don't know anyone who has been married more than three times. What I do know is "the letter kills but the SPIRIT gives life (2 Corinthians 3 : 6)". Legalism is the letter of the law. We are not a Sola Scriptura church. Our source of authority is Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
@@Episcopalianacolyte Okay, now I see where you are coming from. True, in 2 Cor 3:6 Paul is referring to SOME (not all) Old Testament Mosaic Law which are no longer applicable under the new covenant. No one achieves salvation by the law alone. Most of the New Testament hadn't been written when Paul wrote Corinthians, but he is speaking of the Old Testament in; 2 Timothy 3: 16 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work". Your own BCP Articles of Religion VII (pg 877 or so) says; The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: Law given from God by Moses, as touching "Ceremonies and Rites", DO NOT bind Christian men. However, NO Christian man whatsoever is FREE from the obedience of the Commandments which are called MORAL. Moral laws are found in Leviticus 18 & 20 and are still applicable today and the New Testament repeats moral law in various verses often ignored by the episcopal church. Be careful with your reliance on the word 'reason'. Who's reason? Peter says in, 2 Peter 1: 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. The Bible is the WORD OF GOD, it is TRUE and INERRANT. So, my young Acolyte friend, from an old Acolyte, if anyone says to you, well the Bible is a bunch of stories handed down over the ages, it has been written, and rewritten by men, and it provides good spiritual guidance, but it's not really true. God loves us all (which He does) and homosexuality is not really a sin, and adultery is okay and it's okay if someone has been married 3 or 4 times, or pre marital sex is okay, or abortion/killing babies is a woman's right to choose. THEN you need to run away and find a Church that teaches the truth. I know for a fact, the episcopal church I grew up in during the 50s and 60s was NOT the liberal "do as you please" episcopal church of today. Be sure to read Romans 1: 18-32 and read verse 32 very carefully. Also read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Neither of these verses are found in today's episcopal church BCP. Don't believe me. Don't be afraid to ask; Ask your minister if the Bible is True. Ask your minister if abortion is a sin. Ask your minister if adultery or is it okay as long as they are married even a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th time. Ask your minister the definition of Holy Matrimony (found on 870 of the BCP). As your minister how same sex marriage can be called Holy Matrimony. Ask your minister if homosexuality is a sin. Ask your minister why he/she doesn't believe the BCP, much less the Bible? See what they say. Then, you can decide if you actually want to listen to GOD or not, the choice is yours.
@John S I grew up in the churches of CHRIST and have never heard that about 2 Timothy 3 : 16. No. That is incorrect. Hebrews 8 : 13 tells us that the Old Law was made obsolete by the resurrection of CHRIST. Colossians 2 : 14 tells us the Old Law was nailed to the Cross. Galatians 3 : 24 an 25 tells us the Old Law was a schoolmaster and that we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Hebrews 9 says that Moses ratified the law by the blood of sheep and goats which had to be renewed every year. 2 Timothy 3 : 16 is about the New Testament because it was written after the resurrection, not before. Otherwise, the one sacrifice of JESUS would have done nothing. We cannot pick and choose which part of the Old Law remains. It is obsolete. Should we observe the Sabbath and not drive a car? What about eating Lobster or crab? How does anyone determine which part of the law was not removed? We don't need to worry about those questions since JESUS was resurrected.
I've been visiting an Episcopal church in my area occasionally, and I intend to visit it more often in the future. It's a beautiful church with a loving community. I wish there were more young people, but I've come to realize and accept that if I want more young people to come to the Episcopal Church, I have to be the first.
I just started to attend an Episcopal church, my reverend said that the main demographic of members joining the church are in their mid-late twenties up into their thirties. We are making our way back into the faith, and we can only create a presence in the church by being the presence in the church.
I believe the only reason our generation isn't flooding the Episcopal church right now is that they don't know what it is. When most Americans think "Christian," they think "Southern Baptist." Most have probably never even heard of Anglicanism. And it seems a lot of Episcopalians are either exvangelical or ex-Catholic. I'm exvangelical myself, and if I meet any members of either group, I will invite them.
I run a pretty active young Episcopalian discord server if you’re interested!
Outstanding lecture; thank you. Cradle Episcopalian here. Still go to church, but I'm an atheist and nobody gives a darn. How can one turn away from a stunning choir, our massive organ, and a hilarious priest? It's like a free opera.
I was on staff at a mid sized United Methodist Church for over 30 years. Retired in 2017 and was confirmed as an Episcopalian in 2019. Love my parish, such a blessing.
I love the Episcopal Church. It is very loving and tolerant. The liturgy is also beautiful. This religion values both faith and reason.
Tolerant of immorality.
Keith, your post is not only unpleasant but also judgmental, obnoxious, offensive, arrogant, and not very Christian. Remove the log from your own eye first before removing the speck from someone else's eye, the Bible says. I will not engage in a debate with you. The Episcopal Church is a wonderful church. End of story. @@keithpritz1347
@@keithpritz1347 And who is more immoral than fundamentalists? Hate blacks, browns, gays, women's rights, foreigners. If you think it's your job to judge others.....
An excellent discussion I hope all Christians are listening
Thank you!
My wife and I were raised southern baptist in an area dominated by baptist churches, and I thank God we were able to find a home in a small, wonderful Episcopal church near our town. As someone who did not have the opportunity to grow up in the church, these videos are extremely helpful in growing my understanding equal to my age of the church and her history. Thank you for these videos, information like this is what led me to the church to begin with!
As an ex-Catholic I am at a loss as to why someone would go from a Baptist church, even Southern Baptist, to a sacerdotalist church. There is no salvation in the sacraments, the church, church membership, ministers, priests and salvation is not a process, it is an instantaneous, permanent, FREE, gift received by grace alone through faith alone.
@@barrypatrickius Thomas Cranmer wrote himself that salvation is still by grace through faith. The difference in the belief system merely boils down too the baptist idea of a point of decision being an emphasis. I can't speak for all Episcopalians/Anglicans, but my understanding is a covenantal baptism that defines you as Christian the same way circumcision does as Jewish. The Bible does state repeatedly that baptism is for the remission of sins, and it is constantly tied into the word salvation/saved. I would argue that our beliefs on whether or not someone goes to heaven is the same, but the focus of the theology more in lies with fully becoming a Christian and continual growth than isolating a single moment as the defining experience. I have many other reasons, mostly Biblically based for the differences in belief, but constantly I have found that we are never as far off as it seems at the beginning of the discussion
Austin Blankenship - I'm glad you've found this video helpful and edifying. I hope to get more out in in this series in the coming month.
barrypatrickius - I hope to continue to get out videos in this series on "What Does the Episcopal Church Teach?" That means that I'll eventually address the topics of Justification by Grace through Faith and the Sacraments. But here's a (very) brief preview.
The Episcopal Church, in particular, and the Anglican Tradition, in general, affirm Justification by Grace (alone) through Faith (alone). But we follow Martin Luther's understanding of this rather than Huldrych Zwingli / the Zwinglian Reform and Anabaptist interpretation. That's to say, if Faith is the passive reception of Justifying Grace-the open hand that receives the gift-then the Sacraments are the means by which the Grace is given to us. Think about how you receive love from a parent or child or spouse. Indeed, do you even know that the other person loves you? You wouldn't know that the other person loved you unless they told you and showed you by doing something like embracing you or giving you a tangible gift or inviting you to a meal, etc. Both of these ways of knowing and receiving love are corporeal because we are embodied creatures: You either hear or read through the use of sight (i.e., the body's empirical senses) the words, "I love you" and the physical actions that convey that love are also always received through the body's senses. So, it is with Grace-God's gift of Love obtained for us in and through the person and work of Jesus Christ, which Justifies us. According to Martin Luther (and the Catholic and Orthodox tradition that preceded him), this Grace comes in the Word of Promise together with a Physical Action that both signifies the Grace and gives the Grace it signifies. As the 16th century Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker preached in his sermon on Justification by Grace through Faith, the Faith by which we are Justified is not a faith in our own ability to believe the doctrine of Justification by Grace through Faith. That would be solipsism. Rather, our Faith is in the Grace of God won for us in and through the person and work of Christ and given in the Word and Sacrament. Another good way to think about this is to employ Luther's distinction of Law and Gospel. If Baptism and Eucharist are Ordinances-things we do because Christ ordered us to do them-then they are Law (which only has power to convict us of our own sinfulness). However, if Baptism and Eucharist are Sacraments-the Word of Promise combined with the Physical Act or Material Gift which both signifies and is the means by which we receive Grace-then they are Gospel.
@@austinblankenship7631 I have read through the Bible many many times and have never seen that baptism is for the remission of sins. I have seen a couple a of passages which might have been possible saying that, the way Colossians saying Christ is the firstborn of all creation MAY be saying he's not God, but in context, Colossians is NOT saying that, so when I looked at the baptism scriptures in context they said nothing of the sort. And salvation is NOT process, their IS moment of salvation when salvation and eternal life and justification from sin is permanently imparted to the believer; THEN the process of the sanctification of the permanently saved person begins. There is no "fully becoming a Christian" any more than there is fully becoming pregnant. A person has either become pregnant and the process is now in progress or they are not pregnant and a person is either saved and the process of sanctification has began or they are not saved, period. Any thing else is works, self achievement and blasphemy. When I deal with Arminians, I find they that (mis)treat the scriptures about baptism, communion and salvation as badly as the Jehovah's witnesses treat the scriptures about the deity and Godhood of Jesus Christ and the Trinity and Arminians are as far apart from eternal securitists/once saved always savedists as hippopotamuses are from butterflies.
I am glad to be Episcopalian. Thank you for the video!
Great video. Thank you.
Perhaps it can be said that nothing spoils faith so well as religion. Not in a church? Belief without doubt. Go into a church? Well. We’ve seen a couple examples here.
Great video.
Will we be getting another video in this series?
Good morning, Father Nicholas. I just watched this video with great interest. I was wondering if you have a "Discussion 2" of this subject or plan to record such. I am an ELCA Lutheran, but am exploring other churches' beliefs. Familiar with you through my affiliation with Three Priests. I really enjoyed this video. I am also interested in the doctrinal or dogmatic differences between the Episcopal and Anglican churches, apart from their countries of origin.
Thanks for the comment! I am working on more videos in this series. In fact, I'm just finishing filming of the second video and then onto the editing. I had hoped to get these out much sooner, but other responsibilities took precedence. This summer, I'll be taking a three month sabbatical from my priestly and pastoral duties as Rector of the Fork Church. So, that should give me the time to get caught up on this series of videos. With regard to the doctrinal or dogmatic differences between the Episcopal and Anglican churches," it all depends on how one is using the word, "Anglican." The traditional (and more widespread) use of the word refers to the worldwide body of Churches that trace their origins to the Church of England and are still in communion with the Church of England. This is the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a member. So, in that sense, Episcopalians are the Anglican denomination in the United States (as well as some other countries, including Haiti, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Taiwan, etc). However, to make things more confusing, in North America, there are some churches that broke away from the Episcopal Church at various times in history and have reorganized themselves into several smaller denominations, and they typically call themselves "Anglicans" to differentiate themselves from the Episcopal Church. These include the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), the Anglican Church in America (ACA), and the Anglican Province of America (APA-which split off from the ACA). None of these "breakaway" or "continuing" Anglican denominations are part of the worldwide Anglican Communion or in communion with Church of England. So, from a global, historical, and traditional perspective, none of these "Anglican" churches are truly Anglican. I won't be addressing their doctrine and dogma, but I may say a few things about the very slight differences between the Episcopal Church and the Church of England in the third discussion/video.
@@NicholasForti I Am Changing My Religion To Episcopal And Since I Have A Genetic Disposition To Alcholism I Cant Drink Wine Could I Drink Unfermented Could I Still Do The Eucharist Do They Have Unfermented for People Who Cant Drink Alchol Because Of Disposition To Alchol .
@@purpleeuphoric8917 - The Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer speak of "Bread and Wine" as the proper elements of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist (BCP 407-408). The Rubrics, however, don't specify what counts as "bread" and what counts as "wine"-(probably because this was simply just assumed to be a matter of common sense). But since the time that the current Prayer Book first came out (1979), we've become more aware of gluten-allergies and celiac disease, which have brought up debates about whether rice wafers or gluten-free bread count as Bread. Similarly, it seems pretty clear that grape juice doesn't count as Wine, but what about de-alcoholized or non-alcoholic wine? Currently, this is a matter left to the discretion of each bishop and (when the bishop allows) each priest. I, personally, have no problem with both gluten-free bread or rice wafers and de-alcoholized/non-alcoholic wine. I have used both when presiding at Holy Eucharist. So, you'll need to talk to your local parish priest to determine where they (and their bishop) stand on this question. Other options (if non-alcoholic wine isn't available or offered) are to either intinct the consecrated bread/wafer slightly into the consecrated wine or to receive only the consecrated bread. Although the rubrics of the Prayer Book require both the consecrated bread and wine be offered, only one element needs to be consumed for the fullness of grace to be sacramentally received. This is called concomitance. The fulness of the Real Presence of Christ-his Body and Blood given as grace-is sacramentally available in each element, fully in the consecrated bread and fully in the consecrated wine. So, one only needs to receive the consecrated bread alone to have fully received the sacrament and the grace it signifies and effectually conveys.
0:00 - Intro (Belief/Unbelief)
8:46 - What does the Episcopal Church teach?
9:36 - Doctrine (Teachings)
10:58 - Dogma (Essential/Core Teachings)
12:46 - Dogmatic Doctrine (Doctrine inferred via Dogma)
14:50 - Non-Dogmatic Doctrine (Doctrines not inferred via Dogma)
17:40 - Adiaphora ("Things Indifferent")
22:22 - Closing Remarks
Thank you for this. It's very helpful.
It used to teach the 39 Articles. Pax
I'd be interested in this discussion. But I can'6t hear it. Audio is WAY too low.
I'm not sure what the audio problem is. Admittedly, I am using the most basic of equipment (Macbook and iPhone) to record. Still, I have no trouble with the sound when I play it back on RUclips, and no one else has complained about the sound level. Is it possible the sound level problem is on your end? Have you checked both the volume control on your hardware (laptop, tablet, or smart phone) AND the volume control on the RUclips Player/App?
If the volume on one of those two is turned down, even if it is all the way on the other, you may have trouble hearing the content.
When researching whether to become Episcopal, something you can uncover but will not find promoted, is their official position on Biblical inerrancy. The Episcopal church asserts that the Bible may have errors in "what it teaches about God and God's will for human salvation" presumably because it has passed through the hands of mankind. This allows them to create doctrine as they wish since they can decide something in scripture is a mistake or something more nefarious. Ironically, their doctrine making process is by definition passing the Word of God "through the hands of mankind". You can find it in the glossary of terms on their official website, but I'll quote it here:
Inerrancy, Biblical
The belief that the Bible contains no errors, whether theological, moral, historical, or scientific. Sophisticated holders of this theory, however, stress that the biblical manuscripts as originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inerrant, but not those that are presently available. Some more conservative scholars are reluctant to speak of inerrancy, but choose to speak of biblical infallibility. They mean that the Bible is completely infallible in what it teaches about God and God's will for human salvation, but not necessarily in all its historical or scientific statements. Biblical inerrancy and infallibility are not accepted by the Episcopal Church. See Fundamentalism.
After Christ, is the head of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches the Queen or King of England?
While the Episcopal Church (often abbreviated as "TEC") is a member Church of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the hub of which is the Church of England, it maintains its own autonomous oversight and ecclesial jurisdiction. This is true of all the member Churches of the Anglican Communion. If you are familiar with the concept of Autocephaly in Eastern Orthodoxy, the relationships of the member Churches within the Anglican Communion is very similar. Each member Church of the Anglican Communion is autocephalous, but we are bound together by our shared origin, tradition, and continued communion with the Church of England (and specifically the See of Canterbury). But whatever deference we may pay to the Archbishop of Canterbury, his role in the Anglican Communion is not analogous to that of the Pope in Roman Catholicism. He exercises no episcopal oversight outside of his own diocese and no ecclesial authority outside of the Church of England. Similarly, though the English monarch has a role in the Church of England, that role does not extend beyond the Church of England to the Episcopal Church.
So, what is the role of the monarch in the Church of England? When Henry VIII removed the Church in England from the ecclesial jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in 1534, he did so by having the Act of Supremacy passed in Parliament. With the Act of Supremacy, the monarch of England was declared to be Supreme Head on Earth of the Church in England (under Christ). Later, in 1544, the title "Defender of the Faith" (originally bestowed on Henry VIII by the Pope in 1521) was added to this inheritance. After the death of Henry, and then the boy king, Edward VI, Mary Tudor had the Act of Supremacy repealed. Following Mary's death, Elizabeth Tudor passed a new Act of Supremacy in 1558. Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy altered the language of her father's original so that the monarch was named Supreme Governor of the Church of England (to clarify that Christ alone is the Head of the Church). These titles-Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith-have been passed down from monarch to monarch from then until now (with the exception of the Interregnum of 1649-1660). For the most part, the monarchs have held these roles in a mostly symbolic and ceremonial manner, leaving the actual oversight and governance of the Church of England to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops of the realm. The monarch does play a small and final role in the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury and other diocesan bishops in the Church of England, but this occurs only after a process begun within the leadership of the Church puts forward the candidate(s). Similarly, the Parliament-which includes the Lord's Spiritual, consisting of Diocesan Bishops-continues to play a role in the Church of England. For example, the Parliament must approve any new edition of the Book of Common Prayer for use in the Church of England. Although a new edition was proposed in 1927 and 1928, they were rejected by the Parliament, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer remains the official Prayer Book of the Church of England. (The Church of England found a work-around by producing alternative, supplemental liturgies that weren't meant to replace or supersede the Book of Common Prayer, and these are currently used in addition to the 1662 BCP under the title, "Common Worship"),
The English Monarch and Parliament have absolutely no jurisdiction nor even a ceremonial role in the Episcopal Church. When the Episcopal Church gained autocephaly from the Church of England after the American Revolutionary War, it cut all ties to the British monarchy and government. TEC produced its own Book of Common Prayer in 1789, removing all prayer for the monarch and changing Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion to be about "the Power of the Civil Magistrates" rather than the Act of Supremacy.
In the Episcopal Church, the diocesan bishops exercise episcopal oversight and ecclesial authority in their own dioceses in accordance with the Liturgies, Offices, Prayers, and Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Any changes to the Book of Common Prayer or the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church must be made at the General Convention of TEC. General Convention is the legislative body of the Episcopal Church, which meets every three years. General Convention is a bicameral body consisting of a House of Bishops and a House of Deputies. The House of Bishops includes all bishops in the Episcopal Church, whether in active ministry or retired. The House of Deputies consists of four member of the clergy (priests or deacons) and four members of the laity from each diocese (elected at their own diocesan annual conventions). The House of Deputies is presided over by an elected President. The House of Bishops (and the whole of General Convention) is presided over by the Presiding Bishop. While the role of Presiding Bishop was once held simply by the senior bishop in the House of Bishops, it is now an elected position with full-time duties year round. However, the Presiding Bishop does not exercise authority over their fellow bishops except as presiding officer at the General Convention. The current Presiding Bishop of the EPiscopal Church is the Most Rev'd Michael Curry.
16:45 As long as they are in good standing with their own denomination? Hmm. Except in rare circumstances (e.g. the person is at the point of death and there is no Catholic priest available), a Catholic who receives Communion in an Episcopal Church is not in good standing with his own denomination. So do Episcopalians prohibit Catholics from receiving Communion? And how does the Episcopal Church judge who is in good standing in another denomination?
Good questions. The short answer is: No, the Episcopal Church as an institutional body (and its clergy as members and representatives thereof) do not prohibit baptized Roman Catholics from receiving Communion. We generally leave it to the individual communicant and their own conscience to determine what it means for them to be "in good standing with their own denomination" and whether or not they meet that qualification.
To expand on that, the "in good standing" clause is meant to address the situation of excommunication. In other words, if someone has been excommunicated by their own church/denomination, they shouldn't be coming to the local Episcopal church simply to receive the sacrament they're denied at their own church while maintaining membership in that other church without any intention of joining the Episcopal Church. That is to say, receiving the the sacrament in an Episcopal Church should never be treated as a loophole or a work-around to avoid adhering to the doctrine and discipline of one's own church or denomination. Even still, we typically leave that discernment to the individual and their conscience before God. Of course, any parish priest worth their salt will take the time to get to know a new person who has been attending and communicating at their church and offer pastoral guidance based on their unique situation.
So, the "in good standing" clause is not directed specifically to the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on the reception of communion in churches not in communion with Rome. And I suspect that generally Episcopal clergy don't feel that we have a responsibility to know and enforce the canon law and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church for its laity (or, for that matter, the doctrine and discipline of any other denomination). Again, it is the responsibility of the member of the other church of denomination to know their own denomination's doctrine, discipline, and canon law and to abide by it (or not). I hope that helps clarify things.
Open Communion as a practice is open to all Catholics whether Orthodox Catholic, Roman Catholic or Protestant Catholic. Thus you have to subscribe to the beliefs outlined in the 3 Catholic Creeds. It is also meant to be an ecumenical event. Roman Catholics are under no circumstances prohibited since we unlike the Roman Catholics do not believe we are the only Catholic Christians out there. Our definition of Catholic is more along the lines of Open Knowledge (since Catholic is the opposite of Gnostic) rather than Worldwide power as Roman Catholics use it.
How is the Episcopal CHURCH know who is in good standing and who isn't? Do the members that are not in good standing wear a uniform that says I'm Bad? I think that receiving communion is between God and the individual. I'm Episcopal and my friends say that I belong to Catholic Lite.
Im the Sunday bulletin at my church, it states that all baptized Christans are welcome at our table.
Yeah, ours also. @@highup7
Jesus is the only way, that will never change!!
for myself, the question has not been the question of God, but the claims of the Christian church. judaism has a concise set up beliefs, and it is rather coherent. When it comes to Christianity, it claims to be a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. I admit to not being intelligent enough to come to conclusion that Jesus is in fact, the Jewish Messiah. as I understand Judaism, the Messiah, as opposed to a Messiah, they are looking for is a human being, who will appear after universal peace has been established, and the whole of the world seeks to learn about God from the Jews. I have respect for Christians that are sincere in their faith. If anyone does not mind taking a moment to help me in this understanding, I would be very appreciative.
As an Anglican Priest I am shocked that a fellow priest can beat about the bush rather than clearly point to the 39Articles of Religion. To be an Anglican has nothing to do with your personal beliefs and tastes. Even much less to do with what you know or do not know. Anglicans are those who subscribe to the 39 Articles of Religion either generally or particularly. As to all the analogies and Bertrand Russel and CS Lewis it does not mean much.
I was shocked in Seminary to know that the lecturer on the Anglicanism course had not ever read the 39 Articles which I had read in Junior High. I demanded we read through it and he was visibly shocked to learn things that he had never considered. And this was an alumni of my seminary who had gone on to do his Masters in an American Seminary.
So kindly read and understand the 39 Articles and stay humble.
That is very good advice. A priest needs to read the 39 articles.
That is very good advice. We all should read the 39 articles.
Merely as a devout follower and not a clergy member, I reread the articles at least once a week when doing the daily office.
@@sameash3153 that is a great discipline
@@Episcopalianacolyte very true
I had to jump in before finishing the video to let you know this: The first two minutes of the video is a bit of a strip tease. Haha. “You can leave your hat on.” Important stuff. Anyway, back to the informative content…
Man I’m a cradle Methodist trying my darndest not to be an atheist, but this whole video is circulus in probando
The Episcopal Church teaches whatever the New York Times teaches.
I’m quite disgusted in the behavior of the Episcopal church in Peoria Specifically. Stop messing with my music!
Why does the episcopal church ignore the bible by condoning, promoting, and celebrating the sins of homosexuality and divorce?
The short answer is that we don't interpret the bible from a standpoint of legalism.
"The letter kills but the SPIRIT gives life" (2nd Corinthians 3 : 4 through 6).
JESUS told us "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Mathew 11 ; 28 through 30).
Marriage isn't supposed to be a prison. These three examples should help you understand our position on divorce:
1. When the relationship is physically or emotionally abusive, or
2. there is criminal activity by one spouse staying together will be too heavy of a burden.
3. Keeping a marriage together may be dangerous.
It is up to the individual and not the church to decide when it is time to go.
@@Episcopalianacolyte Thank you for your feedback. Not sure what you mean by the term "legalism" since many of today's laws are written based on the Bible. Thou shall not murder, steal, bear false witness, etc.
To clarify my comment about divorce, yes, I agree there are many reasons for divorce. However, many people remarry a 2nd or 3rd or more times.
At what point do you agree legally or non legally when Jesus says;
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery". Luke 16:18 and with similar verses in Matthew 19:9, and Mark 10:11.
"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Matthew 19:6.
Also, supporting verses are found elsewhere in the Bible such as; Romans 7:2, 1 Corinthians 7:39, Hebrew 13:4, etc.
The Bible and your own BCP (pg 870 or so) clearly defines Holy Matrimony as a Christian marriage, in which the woman and man enter into a life-long union.
Question: At what point does a minister, episcopal or otherwise, say; "Sorry, I cannot condone this marriage because in the eyes of God, you are still married to someone else"?
Question: Along with ignoring what the Bible says, do you also ignore your own BCP?
Question: When Jesus tells the adulterous in John 8:1; "go, and do not sin again", is there a non legalistic 'loop hole', to suggest it's okay to continue in adultery?
@John S Since I am an acolyte, and not involved in marriage counseling, I am not qualified to answer your questions. I have never been married. I don't know anyone who has been married more than three times.
What I do know is "the letter kills but the SPIRIT gives life (2 Corinthians 3 : 6)". Legalism is the letter of the law.
We are not a Sola Scriptura church. Our source of authority is Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
@@Episcopalianacolyte Okay, now I see where you are coming from. True, in 2 Cor 3:6 Paul is referring to SOME (not all) Old Testament Mosaic Law which are no longer applicable under the new covenant. No one achieves salvation by the law alone.
Most of the New Testament hadn't been written when Paul wrote Corinthians, but he is speaking of the Old Testament in;
2 Timothy 3: 16 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work".
Your own BCP Articles of Religion VII (pg 877 or so) says;
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: Law given from God by Moses, as touching "Ceremonies and Rites", DO NOT bind Christian men.
However, NO Christian man whatsoever is FREE from the obedience of the Commandments which are called MORAL.
Moral laws are found in Leviticus 18 & 20 and are still applicable today and the New Testament repeats moral law in various verses often ignored by the episcopal church.
Be careful with your reliance on the word 'reason'. Who's reason?
Peter says in,
2 Peter 1: 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
The Bible is the WORD OF GOD,
it is TRUE and INERRANT.
So, my young Acolyte friend, from an old Acolyte, if anyone says to you, well the Bible is a bunch of stories handed down over the ages, it has been written, and rewritten by men, and it provides good spiritual guidance, but it's not really true. God loves us all (which He does) and homosexuality is not really a sin, and adultery is okay and it's okay if someone has been married 3 or 4 times, or pre marital sex is okay, or abortion/killing babies is a woman's right to choose.
THEN you need to run away and find a Church that teaches the truth.
I know for a fact, the episcopal church I grew up in during the 50s and 60s was NOT the liberal "do as you please" episcopal church of today.
Be sure to read Romans 1: 18-32 and read verse 32 very carefully. Also read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Neither of these verses are found in today's episcopal church BCP.
Don't believe me. Don't be afraid to ask;
Ask your minister if the Bible is True.
Ask your minister if abortion is a sin.
Ask your minister if adultery or is it okay as long as they are married even a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th time.
Ask your minister the definition of Holy Matrimony (found on 870 of the BCP).
As your minister how same sex marriage can be called Holy Matrimony.
Ask your minister if homosexuality is a sin.
Ask your minister why he/she doesn't believe the BCP, much less the Bible?
See what they say.
Then, you can decide if you actually want to listen to GOD or not, the choice is yours.
@John S I grew up in the churches of CHRIST and have never heard that about 2 Timothy 3 : 16. No. That is incorrect.
Hebrews 8 : 13 tells us that the Old Law was made obsolete by the resurrection of CHRIST.
Colossians 2 : 14 tells us the Old Law was nailed to the Cross.
Galatians 3 : 24 an 25 tells us the Old Law was a schoolmaster and that we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Hebrews 9 says that Moses ratified the law by the blood of sheep and goats which had to be renewed every year.
2 Timothy 3 : 16 is about the New Testament because it was written after the resurrection, not before. Otherwise, the one sacrifice of JESUS would have done nothing.
We cannot pick and choose which part of the Old Law remains. It is obsolete.
Should we observe the Sabbath and not drive a car? What about eating Lobster or crab? How does anyone determine which part of the law was not removed? We don't need to worry about those questions since JESUS was resurrected.
This dude is junk