I think you mean “premonition.” Either way, TGC is entirely predictable.

The Chicago Consultation is thoroughly sold out to the world, the flesh, and the devil. Not that they believe in any of those things in a Christian sense……..

women, people of color, and GLBT people

Ok, boys and girls, which of these terms is not like the others?

Okay, the “excluding GLBT people from the sacramental life of the church” part has me throwing my hat at it.

Because this boils down to “the only sacraments that mean anything are marriage and ordination”, and so if one cannot be either married or ordained, then one is not receiving the sacraments.

Which makes single people of whatever disposition, or the laity, second-class citizens in the church.

For crying out loud, might as well give every baby a mitre at the baptismal font. That’s the only way to have full sacramental participation, after all.

“To understand this issue as simply one of civil liberties or human rights—to which the Gospel also calls us—does grave injustice to our sisters and brothers in Christ and our fundamental understanding of baptismal theology.”

Apparently they missed the part about repentence.

Sorry, LM, but calls to repentance are damaging to their self-esteem.

Once again we see that invoking the Episcopal Church (US) Baptismal Covenant™ trumps 2000 years of Church Tradition. About what one would expect from a Professor of Liturgics. Since it is in the liturgy, it must be true, right?

A prime example of why the 1979 revision was such a bad thing. It has been working its wickedness for 30 years in TEC. The fruit it has borne is terrible indeed.

By the way, I notice that she did not advance one theological argument for their position. She just re-worked the justice issue and asserted it again.

I would love to know exactly where in the New Testament anyone says anything about “human rights.” It ain’t in there!

These people are full of the stuff of humanity all right. I just hope I am not around when they burst from a stuff overload!

Allen nails it….growing up in the churh, I never heard about “our baptismal covenant”, or “our polity”, or abiout a dozen other buzz words that seem all important now…we have come along way from not being worthy enough to pick up the crumbs, and seeking mercy

It’s a Gospel issue because the leftists say it is. Next up, polyamory, per that ridiculous Newsweek feature. There is no end to this.

KC: ‘growing up in the churh, I never heard about “our baptismal covenant”’

Our friends, who go to a semi-liberal church in Toronto, report that the “baptismal covenant” (which is not even in the Canadian Prayer Book) is recited by the congregation at every opportunity. Like a mantra. So it’s not “something my godparents said for me when I was baptized as a child” but rather the new “pledge of allegiance.”

Allegiance to what? Phrases like “respect the dignity of every human” while attractive on the surface, are not Biblical, and thus cannot be analysed and interpreted using scripture. Which makes those phrases a law unto themselves; a replacement for scripture and creed.

I have said it before: I think the “Baptismal Covenant” is a spritually dangerous innovation, being used by the forces of evil for evil agendas. I would not recite it.

Perhaps it is time to update Johnson’s Law to read-
“No matter how outrageous the prediction, TEC has already done it.”

There is no such thing as a special folk or people outside of God’s proscriptions. I Corinthians 6:9-20; Romans 1:18-32 are entirely inclusive of EVERYONE.
There are no exclusions, exemptions, special edicts, etc.
We ALL walk His way or the highway.
We ALL must crucify the flesh with its sinful desires.
We ALL must give ourselves completely spirit, mind and body to His dominion.

It is a sin to use the GLBT, sexual orientation or sexual identity in reference to oneself or another.
It is a sin to approve of sin.
(Romans 1:32)
It is a sin to try to be another sex (gender is for verbs and nouns).
It is a violation of the 5th commandment for a man to abdicate his role as male and father…and vice versa for a woman to want to be a male.
These inclinations (as well as adulterousness and sexual addictions) are SYMPTOMS of childhood wounds, traumas, losses, abandonment and deprivatons, etc. and must be taken to the Cross and healed with help of the compassionate honest Body of Christ, not celebrated by a buncha spiritually blind nincompoops posing as priests and bishops.

Okay, I’m going to toss the cat amongst the pigeons here: what exactly *is* the Anglican and/or Episcopalian view of baptism?

See, I hang around the blog of a Southern Baptist (who’s a pretty tolerant guy, and reminds me of yourself, Christopher, in his latitude for permitting discussion and letting the likes of me post and be annoying, except he’s not going to shift from being Southern Baptist) and this question got raised by me on a post he did recommending another blog of what he describes as “Lutheranized Anglicans”

Anyways, these guys mentioned something about “I suppose we’re just not that impressed with most Christians in the way that we’re apparently supposed to be, and we are interested in the historical theology that accounts for that discrepancy. The classic Anglican example of this comes from Article IX of the 39 Articles of Religion, that “(original sin) doth persist yea in them that are regenerate”.” and I piped up with “Hey, I thought Anglicans shared the same belief in baptismal regeneration as Catholics, so surely he’s talking about concupiscence not original sin there?”

Turns out that no, Anglicans are with Luther on this one, according to the 1910 “Catholic Encyclopedia”:

“The Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially Luther, proposed new views respecting concupiscence. They adopted as fundamental to their theology the following propositions:

•Original justice with all its gifts and graces was due to man as an integral part of his nature;
•concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam’s transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin;
•baptism, since it does not extinguish concupiscence, does not really remit the guilt of original sin, but only effects that it is no longer imputed to man and no longer draws down condemnation on him. This position is held also by the Anglican Church in its Thirty-nine Articles and its Book of Common Prayer.”

Well, allegedly that’s what Anglicans officially believe. The host replied that “Anglicans are much more Reformation in their theology than they might appear. They also aren’t confessional, which means bishops really do need to clarify.”

You will be glad to know that I resisted the temptation to make snarky remarks about expecting Anglican bishops to clarify anything – I can play nicely sometimes!

Another commenter posted that “To the extent that one can pin down a traditional Anglican theology, it’s probably at least as well expressed in the Book of Common Prayer as in the Articles. *There*, a form of baptismal regeneration is taught, although it’s often muted or down-played nowadays.”

So guys – what is the position on baptismal regeneration, concupiscence, and original sin? Or have we all of us done away with those concepts?

(And I’m not trying to pick on Anglicans/Episcopalians; pin any random Catholic down and ask about baptismal theology, and I’m willing to bet Lombard street to a china orange the answer will be “Uhhh…”)

Thanks for that, Fuinseoig.

Very helpful.

Depends on what Anglican you ask, Fuinseoig. Before we began messing with the Prayer Book, however, generally speaking our beliefs were in the liturgy. I have just cruised through the American 1928 PB baptismal service, and it clearly claims regeneration and remission of sins.

Sorry to drag this kind of theological digging into the matter, Floridian. I was all “Anglicans don’t think that” and then whomp! egg on face – yeah, (some) Anglicans (did used to) think that.

I suppose we’ve gone from Continental Reformer-influenced “Baptism doesn’t change you ontologically because you’re all miserable sinners!!!!!” to “Baptism doesn’t change you ontologically because you’re just fine the way you are.”