Revisionists cause Australian schism | Foley Beach, Glenn Davies, Richard Condie & Jennifer Hercott 

Including that women should have no place in church leadership; correct?

Compassion is not a social trend. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

@@DR-nh6oo The Anglican "progressives" are at least as sinful as the orhtodox ones, and plenty of stones are coming from them.

@@DR-nh6oo Compassion doesn't condone sin. After our LORD said let he who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7) he showed mercy. Yet what is His final words to the women? "Go and sin no more (John 8:11). How can a Christian church go directly against God's Law and bless sin? It can't and still consider itself a follow of Jesus. Preach to Gospel of Jesus Christ to the saving of souls, not the socially acceptable changeable Gospel of man.

@@DR-nh6oo what’s compassionate about placing a person before God unrepentant of sin and under Gods wrath ? You speak to compassion but this would involve speaking in truth in love to sin, so why are you advocating for people to be unrepentant ? That’s hateful in the extreme.

@@DR-nh6oo Compassion is not encouraging blatant sin.

Scripture doesn't permit homosexuality, transgenderism, or any of the other horrors currently being paraded inside the Anglican church. Having a woman discuss scripture is pretty tame compared to all that debauchery.

@P didd sorry what do you mean!….I simply believe the Bible does not allow the ordination of women to a leadership role in the church….this surely is the tradition stance of the Anglican Church, and this is what is this group keep saying the believe in…

You are correct. Gafcon have not yet ruled definitely on the matter but have indicated they support female ordination. They are not biblical (and will eventually end up the same). I quit the Anglicans completely over a year ago.

They do not support women in the pulpit. 🙏✝️

@@robmarshall956 excellent .....I just was not sure

@@billdiaper8039 that’s the Sydney diocese I’m talking about ) beware elsewhere in Australia

God doesn't need numbers, just faithful followers of Christ

@@izthebiz539 2011 17,1% 2016 13.3% 2021 9.8% ROFL Then God will very soon get what he 'needs' - a well-deserved 'abundance' ROFL

@@rodhughes240 Use English, not gibberish. You wont be laughing on the day on judgement. The ONLY appointment you are guaranteed NOT to miss or reschedule!

Heresy and schism since the 1520's. As a British person I say Anglicanism is the shame of the nation. Its decline is because of its origin during Henry VIII's time.

Pray for him

God is present everywhere. God speaks to us by his Spirit when we hear the Bible read and taught.

​ @Neil Cameron Hi Neil, Yes, God is present everywhere. However I don't agree with the second statement - we are only taught by the Spirit instead of by our own minds if we CHOOSE to make a distinction between ‘living for God’ our way - and living for God his way - and come to God with the heart that is consistent with the latter. My previous comment was dedicated to showing how Sydney Anglicans manage to erase any difference between the two - hopefully you gained some insight into the fact that there are TWO ways - not one - by which we can disobey God. A person who says there is no such distinction is in effect trying to argue that Pharisaism doesn't exist. As regards the difference between welcoming God’s word and yet not welcoming God’s Spirit a number of years back one prominent Sydney Anglican minister and theologian - instead of letting people continue to equate the Spirit and the word silently - attempted to argue for them being indistinguishable doctrinally. If this was the case we would expect to see not only the Spirit described as our teacher but also the word - but there is no such statement in the bible - 2 Tim 3:16-17 instead says that all scripture is useful for teachING. It is the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) who guides us into all truth. But note again that in that verse the Spirit is TESTIFYING - not teaching - the Spirit does more than teach - God is more than an idea about what is true - the Spirit EMBODIES the truth - this embodiment then BECOMES words to us - just as when we know someone well we have the words to say - we can very accurately describe them. If the Spirit and the word were the one thing Pharisaism would no longer be a definable fault. Submitting to the word would always be submitting to the Spirit. So how then do the Spirit and the word interrelate? To explain let me use an analogy with which we are all familiar in the first world. Imagine that you are reading a web page and you are wondering if what you are reading is correct. To decide whether it is you will likely refer to pages that you have come to trust as correct - and if they concur with the page you are reading you will from that point operate as if the page is correct. If the site that contained the page proves repeatedly to be trustworthy the site may then become part of the content that you consider trustworthy in assessing other sites. This is how the Spirit and the word work. The word frames what is or is not part of what the Holy Spirit can be expected to do - so if someone says “the Holy Spirit is telling me to have sex with someone who is not my wife” we can say “No, the Holy Spirit is not telling you that”. But then we also need the Spirit to help us understand the word - the principal way in which that happens is by the Spirit WITNESSING (same as testifying - both words different to merely teaching) to us (John 15:26) in the same way we witness to people when sharing the gospel - in words but also in embodying the truth). PLEASE READ MY REPLIES TO THIS FOR THE REST OF MY POST.

When we welcome the Spirit’s presence we will realise that doctrines which cannot be experienced Spirit to spirit cannot be correct. For example how is one to experience Spirit to spirit the fact that God loves me but has chosen someone else for eternal punishment (Calvinism)? It isn’t possible - such a doctrine cannot be confirmed Spirit to spirit as I have no way to know God by the way in which he relates with me if he doesn’t relate the same way with others. Calvinism will contribute to Pharisaism (although it’s not guaranteed) - in giving the impression that its normal for us not to be able to experience the truth. The reason why there is a distance between Jesus’ choosing fisherman to be his first evangelists of Europe and Asia and our tendency to elevate mostly people who have two university degrees into the ministry is we are weak on these issues - in having an incomplete understanding of the RELATIONAL role of the Spirit - it makes the intellectual and less intellectual person similarly able - we are excluding people who Jesus would consider potential leaders. The situation may be better in Sydney than in the UK or US - but the theology which enables the more intuitive instead of intellectual person to be effective is still missing. So then - conversion is NOT going from a life which I control - dedicated to serving myself - to a life which I still control in which “I serve God”. The disciples in the three years they were with Jesus were his followers - if they had died before he died and rose they would have been with God for eternity (presumably - and except presumably Judas) yet something goes terribly wrong - they aren’t able to remain faithful at the point of his crucifixion. Why not? They were not because they had not yet learned the difference between serving God their way and serving him His way. They had not realised something which sounds very obvious when said in words - the only way that a holy God was going to be able to be glorified through sinful human beings is if he GLORIFIED HIMSELF through them. This as we know from gospel truth only happens in our ‘death’ - the cross is not just about Jesus dying and rising for us - it’s also about us dying and rising with Jesus. A holy God is not willing to co-lead with human beings. The cross is not a means by which God is able to tolerate sin in human beings - it’s a means by which we can escape his intolerance of free, knowing, and wilful rebellion against him IN DEATH. The cross satisfied God’s justice - it didn’t satisfy God’s holiness (if it had it would mean that we had no means of causing God to feel anything when we did right or did wrong - relationship with God would be meaningless). So then conversion is not just turning to serve God - but serving him HIS WAY. The outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2 is not some kind of single day extravaganza - it’s the END of a three year journey in which the disciples had tried to serve God in their own power and fallen flat on their faces. Before Jesus dies they are like Old Testament prophets - catching glimpses of who Jesus is but not being able to keep that insight. Despite being with Jesus physically the bible shows they were spiritually no different to us - they needed Jesus not just to rise from the dead - but to die and rise IN THEIR HEARTS. This is what Pentecost is - the disciples finally dying to their own plans with Jesus (not plans to rebel against God - but plans to serve God without submitting to the Spirit) AND rising with him. They realised the only way in which God would ever glorify himself is if he glorified himself through them. The only way in which that is able to happen is in our ‘death’ - in our dying with Jesus. SEE NEXT REPLY.

There are therefore two ways to sin against God (now said with different language to my first post in which I also said that there were two ways to sin!). There is positive disobedience - what I have heard called ‘strategy’ (in a negative sense) - serving God our way not his. And there is negative disobedience - rebellion. The first is no less sin than the second. There are no inherently righteous acts - they are only righteous in as much as they are a result of submission to the Spirit. With these things as background it becomes clear that it’s extremely important to work out what repentance is - and even in the more conservative theological world of Sydney Anglicanism (in which thank God there is the presence of repentance in the message) there is more to understand. In a first world in which the foundation of the gospel has moved from God’s holiness and justice - this resulting in repentance not revealed as necessary in order to be saved (this contradicting Acts 3:19 - which proves it is) - if we have understood it to be a turning around - that’s better than nothing - but it doesn’t distinguish from the type of sin in which we serve God our way. In order to distinguish between the two we must explain that to repent is to burn bridges - it is to choose plan A without knowing how it’s going to turn out - and also it’s to choose plan A having already closed the door to all plan B’s. Repentance is also to offer ourselves to God as those without hope of ever being consistently pleasing to God unless a miracle happens and God is in some way able to use our coming to the end of ourselves. To be a Christian is definitionally to love God more than life. It is interesting in the light of this to note Revelation 12:11 - where the only things that are required for the devil to be defeated are the blood of the lamb and those who know god loving not their lives unto death. In other words all people need to be are Christians! Being forgiven is necessary but it doesn’t empower any person to please God. Faith isn’t supposed to be trusting that a God we do not experience is helping us whether or not we experience his help. If it was meant to be that in what way would our situation be any better than before we were a Christian? We see two examples of this repentance in scripture - the thief on the cross repents WITHOUT having any insight into whether it will bring him any benefit - before he knows that Jesus will say “Today you will be with me in paradise”. He is in effect saying to Jesus - “whatever you choose to do - I am doing this”. All repentance is like this - God deliberately - both at conversion and during sanctification - requires us to 'step out in faith' - without which it is impossible to please god (Hebrews 11:6) - to respond to his holiness and justice with only limited insight into how obedience will be mercy and grace to us - BECAUSE this is what God deserves. We must honour God on the basis of his holiness and justice and our indebtedness - and NOTHING else. We aren't granted the opportunity to examine God as if divine ourselves to consider whether or not he is worthy of being God. Only those who respond to God’s holiness and justice in repentance EVER get to see and experience his mercy and grace. We also see this repentance in the parable of the two sons - the prodigal makes his plan before he knows how the father will respond - he is in effect saying “I wish to be a servant even if that’s all I ever am”. Only having so planned does his father welcome him as a son (and even afterward it isn’t for him to assert his sonship - only for him to be obligated to receive it when it is offered to him). The best analogy I have for explaining the heart of the gospel is the scene from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Gene Wilder where Charlie and Grandpa Joe are in Willy Wonka’s office - all other contestants have been knocked out - and now Willy Wonka is about to tell the last two people that they too are disqualified - because they too broke a rule. Grandpa Joe gets angry - how dare he subject a young boy to harsh justice - but Charlie accepts justice - even handing back his only reward from the day - his everlasting gobstopper. And it turns out that THIS WAS THE TEST. He has won the competition - not only a lifetime supply of chocolate but he has proven to be one with whom Willy Wonka can entrust the factory - and all of his secrets. He is then given full insight into Willy Wonka's heart - the fact that Willy Wonka's intentions in testing Charlie were only good. SEE FINAL REPLY

The more the conversation continues the better you are to find some sort of reconciliation!

no, justified and Spirit led, unlike their opposition who are led by their father -satan!

How dare you.

You're not a Christian then?

Under Pope Francis? Really?

@@bereanbarnabas3355 right??? And the public audience building that looks like a snake. And that freakish sculpture.

Mot everyone wants to be ruled by the vagican

You’re assuming that to be apostolic is to be connected to a church that claims apostolic succession through a line of bishops going back to the early church. Orthodox Anglicanism is apostolic because its teaching and doctrine is grounded upon the word of God itself, which is where the teaching and the doctrine of the Apostles are to be found. Also Rome loves to claim that they’re united and free from division, but this is a fiction. The Roman Catholic Church is just as divided as the Anglican communion worldwide. The RCC have conservative clergy who have to submit to a theologically liberal Pope. Being under the same tent held together by a common submission to the Bishop of Rome doesn’t mean that there isn’t division within.

Are you sure? Have you observed the liberalism of the present Roman Catholic Church leadership? Have you been informed about the pope’s support of worship centers which embrace Catholicism, Islam and Judaism under one roof? Conservative Catholics may even consider joining the diocese of the Southern Cross in today’s liberal religious environment.