Monday, November 30, 2009

The Jerusalem Declaration, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, and the Anglican Church in North America


By Robin G. Jordan

I combed through Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of the Jerusalem Declaration, and I found no mention of “apostolic succession” in the Catholic sense of the transmission of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit (including the power to transform bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, to give the water in the font the power to regenerate, to absolve sins, and to confirm and ordain) through the laying-on-of the hands of a bishop in a personal line of succession that can be traced back to the apostles.

I did come across the following passages that appear to preclude this particular doctrine. The first is taken from the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of Clause 3: The rule of faith:

“The Church is apostolic because it rests on the foundation of the apostolic witness to Christ. The teaching of the apostles of Christ is the treasure of the Church which shapes its life and witness.” [p. 34]

The second is taken from their exposition of Clause 4: The doctrine of the Church:

“The Holy Spirit empowers the church to serve its Lord, Jesus Christ, and equip it to participate in Christ’s own mission. The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin, empowers them for service, comforts them and reveals God’s truth to them. The particular work of the Holy Spirit can be seen gloriously in the history of revivals, charismatic renewal and mission in many parts of the world. The work of the Holy Spirit in the church does not imply that he is subject to the institution of the church, nor that he is a possession of a particular part of the church (my emphasis). The Holy Spirit is greater than the church, and is at work in the world, directing people to Jesus (John 16:13-15). On more than one occasion the New Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7; Romans 8:9).” [p. 37]

The third is also taken from the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of Clause 4:

“We are apostolic because our life together is founded on the faith of the apostles, and we are called, like them, to go into the world with the good news of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20).” [p. 39]

The following is the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of Clause 7: Clerical orders.

1. What do we mean by ‘ministry’ in the church?

“We affirm that Christ himself is the chief minister and source of all ministry within the Church. He is the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls (I Peter 2:25). He called a people to himself, instituted the sacraments and gave the Church authority and mission, orientation and goal. He exemplified and defined ministry as service in his teaching (Mark 10:45) and by taking a towel to wash the feet of his disciples (John 13:4-5). Christian ministry is not the sole possession, nor the sole responsibility of those who have been ordained. Ordained ministry is set in the context of the ministry of all believers.

“We affirm lay ministry, not only in a clearly ecclesiastical context, such as the ministry of Readers, teachers, and evangelists, but also the ministry which takes place in the workplace and the local community. In fact ministry is the service of God that is undertaken every hour of every day. There is a priesthood of all believers inasmuch as we all have direct access to God through Jesus Christ, and we are all called to witness, to evangelise, and to serve him in all our activities.

“It is the task of ordained ministers ‘to prepare God’s people for the works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up’ (Ephesians 4:12). The gifts distributed by the Holy Spirit to each member of the body are to be used ‘for the common good’ (I Corinthians 12:7). It is by working together, proclaiming Christ and living as his faithful and loving disciples, that the various orders of ministry function properly.

2. What do we understand about the ordained ministry?

“Before and after his resurrection, Jesus Christ provided for the care and nourishment of his Church by giving his word to his apostles (Matthew 28:18-20; John 17:20) and then, on the day of Pentecost, by pouring out his Spirit (John 14:15-17; Acts 2:32-33). From the earliest days of the Christian Church, it has been a vital concern to recognise those whom God has called and gifted to serve and lead his people (Acts 6:1-7; 13:1-3).

“The historic threefold order of bishop, priest (or presbyter) and deacon is a particular expression of these New Testament concerns. This order became widespread in the early years of the Christian Church and was retained at the time of the English Reformation; it is still the pattern to which Anglicans are committed, in obedience to Scripture and out of respect for history.

“The Anglican Ordinal (which has been bound within the Book of Common Prayer since 1552) sets out the qualities and responsibilities of each of these orders of ministry, and provides a form of recognition that those so ordained are called and gifted by God. It reminds all bishops, priests and deacons that those they serve are the precious body of Christ, and they are responsible to him for the faithful discharge of their ministry.

“Bishops are called to be the chief pastor in their diocese, to teach the Christian faith, to banish error, to live a godly life and be gentle with the flock, properly to administer the sacraments, and to lead in mission. Bishops uniquely are to ordain and send out others in ordained ministry.

“Priests are called to be ‘messengers, watchmen, and stewards of the Lord: to teach and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord’s family; to seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever.’

“Deacons are called to serve and assist the Church’s ministry.

“Each minister is to provide an example of Christian living to other people. And, since ministry is a precious gift, each minister is accountable for it. There is a rightful dignity to the ordained ministry, but this is never merely a human pride. It is the dignity of the cross-bearing servant, faithfully following the master.

Ordained ministers are always and only ministers of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (my emphasis). This gospel is entrusted to them (I Timothy 1:12-14), and they are accountable to the Lord for their faithfulness to it. We acknowledge, as a part of our Anglican heritage, that no ordained minister is beyond accountability within the body of the church. In extreme cases, where, for example, there are clear breaches of the requirements of the Ordinal, the person concerned, though ordained or consecrated, forfeits the rights and dignity of the office which has been entrusted to that person. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that such a verdict may not be reached quickly, lightly or without considerable prayerful thought and widespread consultation.” [pp. 48-50]

I do not see in this commentary any suggestions of a Catholic view of apostolic succession, ordination, and the sacraments. On the other hand, it is consistent with how evangelicals in the Anglican Church have historically viewed ordained ministry.

The UK Anglo-Catholics for the most part did not attend GAFCON. The US Anglo-Catholics who did attend the conference returned home, complaining that the Jerusalem Declaration was too evangelical in its theological content. They had sought to make the declaration more Catholic in its doctrine and had been thwarted in their efforts. The dissatisfaction of US Anglo-Catholics with the Jerusalem Declaration, as I have stated elsewhere, prompted the former Episcopal, now Anglican Bishop of Fort Worth Jack Iker to reassure those in the ACNA that the Common Cause Theological Statement, not the Jerusalem Declaration, would determine the direction of the ACNA. The Common Cause Theological Statement accommodates Anglo-Catholics on a number of key issues—Holy Scripture, the ecumenical Councils, bishops, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles. At the ACNA Provincial Council meeting that preceded the inaugural ACNA Provincial Assembly that ratified the proposed ACNA constitution and canons including a modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement, the Anglo-Catholic members of the ACNA Provincial Council opposed any changes in the language of that modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement that would have made it more acceptable to evangelicals. They claimed such alterations would lead to the unraveling of the fragile détente between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals in the ACNA. It was on Bishop Iker’s motion that the ACNA Provincial Assembly voted to accept the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement with only one slight change. It altered the numbering of the clauses in the theological statement to reflect the removal of the affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration from Article I of the ACNA constitution and its placement in the Preface to that constitution.

In the Jerusalem Declaration the signatories of that declaration emphatically announce that its fourteen clauses are the tenets, or doctrines, underpinning Anglican identity. In its constitution, however, the ACNA relegates its affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration to the to the introductory remarks prefixed to that document, giving it only a token place in the ACNA. It identifies as “characteristic of the Anglican Way and essential for membership” in the ACNA the “seven elements” in the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement incorporated into its constitution. As Bishop Iker observed in the same interview in which he reassured Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA that the Common Cause Theological Statement would be determining the direction of the ACNA, the Common Cause Theological Statement differs in wording and emphasis from the Jerusalem Declaration. Bishop Iker dismissed these differences as “slight” but a comparison of the two documents shows that he in so characterizing the differences is indulging in understatement and minimizing the substantial differences between the documents.

More recently, Philip Ashey, the chief executive officer of the American Anglican Council, announced that the AAC is forming a North American chapter of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and this chapter would be a “ministry partner” of the ACNA. Under the provisions of the ACNA canons to be a ministry partner of the ACNA, an organization must subscribe without reservation to the “seven elements” of the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement incorporated in the ACNA constitution. The Rev. Ashey also presented a vision of the North American FCA chapter that is quite different from the vision of the Global Anglican Future Statement for that organization. Instead of functioning as an independent “renewal movement” in the Anglican ecclesial bodies in North America, in the ACNA and the Continuing Anglican Churches, as well as the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church, in the vision that the Rev. Ashey articulated, the FCA in North America would be ancillary to the ACNA and would carry out its objectives.

While the ACNA may have been formed in response to the GAFCON call for a new province in North America to uphold orthodox faith and practice, there appears to be a real disconnect between the ACNA and GAFCON, in terms of doctrine and vision of the role of the FCA. The GAFCON Primates have recognized the ACNA as “genuinely Anglican” and a number of Anglican ecclesiastic organizations involved in GAFCON and the FCA have followed suit. But what is troublesome to people like myself is how they can extend such recognition to the ACNA when it is evident that a substantial part of the ACNA does not accept the Jerusalem Declaration’s view of what underpins Anglican identity and rejects the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision of the FCA.

One possible explanation is that they are choosing to give the ACNA the benefit of the doubt and to apply the principle of charitable assumption in hopes that such generosity will encourage the ACNA to move closer to the positions articulated in the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement. But this is like rewarding a child for only partially completing a task when the goal for the child to complete the task. Having been rewarded for doing the task in part, the child will have no incentive to finish it.

Another explanation that is in circulation is that the GAFCON Primates and those involved in GAFCON and the FCA have no other choice but to extend their recognition to the ACNA since denying that recognition would play into the hands of the liberals in the Anglican Church of Canada, The Episcopal Church and other provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion. While there may be some truth to this view, unqualified recognition of the ACNA takes away any incentive on the part of the ACNA to change the doctrinal positions adopted in its constitution and canons. It conveys the message to those within the ACNA that these positions are acceptable. Should the Church of England’s House of Bishops and subsequently its General Synod recognize the ACNA and call for its admission as the thirty-ninth province of the Anglican Communion, as GAFCON and FCA supporters are urging, the C of E Bishops and General Synod will eliminate any motivation on the part of the ACNA to move closer to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA.

There are also those within the ACNA, as well as outside that ecclesial body, who are prepared to spin such unqualified recognition as unqualified acceptance of the ACNA doctrinal positions. This may not accurately represent the position of those extending recognition to the ACNA but it is open to that interpretation. A number of Anglican leaders associated with GAFCON and the FCA have privately expressed reservations about the ACNA but have not gone on record, in part out of desire to maintain a united front against the liberal element in the Anglican Communion and in part out of fear that their public statements might be used to harm the movement to establish a new province in North America to uphold orthodox faith and practice. Their reticence, however, also creates the false impression that they accept the present direction of the ACNA.

A third explanation is that the supporters of GAFCON and the FCA outside of North America who have extended recognition to the ACNA naively believe that the ACNA actually accepts the tenets set forth in the Jerusalem Declaration and the vision of the FCA articulated in the Global Anglican Future Statement. They are not sufficiently informed about the real situation in the ACNA or dismiss any information that does not support how they wish to perceive the ACNA. This explanation is certainly applicable to a large segment of the ACNA.

In all likelihood all three explanation apply. In any event unqualified recognition of the ACNA is contributing to the persistence of an undesirable situation in the ACNA.

To rectify this situation, the following plan of action commends itself.

First, GAFCON and FCA supporters outside of North America need to thoroughly investigate conditions within the ACNA and to qualify their recognition of the ACNA, affirming the ACNA where it does adhere to the tenets of the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA and calling for change where it does not. They also need to issue periodic reports on the progress of the ACNA toward greater adherence to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA.

Second, Anglicans and Episcopalians in Canada and the United States joining the FCA need to establish a FCA chapter in North America that is independent of the AAC and the ACNA and any other Anglican ecclesiastical organization or ecclesial body in their part of the North American continent. The FCA in North America will not fulfill the vision of the FCA as a renewal movement articulated in the Global Anglican Future Statement if it is tied to any existing organization or body and subordinated to its purposes.

Third, a credible alternative to the ACNA needs to be launched in North America in response to the GAFCON call for the formation of a new province to uphold orthodox faith and practice. As the only horse in the race the ACNA can amble along as it pleases. A second horse in the running, which more closely adheres to the tenets of the Jerusalem Declaration and more fully embraces the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision of the FCA, would draw attention to the ACNA’s failings in these two areas as well as its other shortcomings. It would raise doubts as to whether the ACNA is truly representative of all North American Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice. It would provide some motivation for the ACNA to move closer to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA or drop out of the race.

Fourth, within the ACNA itself a movement is needed to bring the ACNA into greater conformity with the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision of the FCA at all levels. Congregations and dioceses or other groupings need not only to incorporate the Jerusalem Declaration into their doctrinal statements along with the Thirty-Nine Articles but also in practice to conform to their teaching. They need to adopt the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and liturgical services in contemporary English based upon the 1662 Prayer Book and discontinue their use of the 1928 Prayer Book, the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, any contemporary English liturgical services based upon these two service books, the 1979 Prayer Book, and the 1985 Canadian Book of Alternative Services. They need to join with Anglicans and Episcopalians outside the ACNA in establishing an independent FCA.

68 comments:

Michael said...

I have enjoyed reading your comments on the foundation documents of the ACNA. Perhaps the FCA could become a common point of reference for evangelical Anglicans in the US. From my own experience, the ACNA appears to be a "mixed-bag". My perusal of parish web-sites has yet to discover a 1662 BCP parish--but I have seen "praise and worship" rock bands in the sanctuary with hymns "lyrics" posted on a power-point screen. What can we do to steer ACNA or FCA in a more confessional stance? I look forward to the discussion.

DomWalk said...

How specifically is ACNA at odds with GAFCON?

Heritage Anglicans said...

Dom,

I have outlined in a number of previous articles where the ACNA is at odds with GAFCON. They include: "Anglicanism, Evangelicalism, and the Anglican Church in North America," http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/anglicanism-evangelicalicism-and.html;and "The Direction of the ACNA and the Need for an Independent FCA in North America."http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/direction-of-acna-and-need-for.html. The modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement incorporated into the ACNA constitution takes a different position on the general councils of the undivided church, the 1662 Prayer Book, and the Thirty-Nine Articles than that of the Jerusalem Declaration and the GAFCON Theological Group's official commentary on that declaration, Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today. It defines episcopacy as an integral part of the apsotolic faith and practice, which the Jerusalem Declaration does not. The GAFCON Theological Group categorizes such matters as episcopacy as secondary. It is also silent on a number of matters that the Jerusalem Declaration addresses, for example, the doctrine of justification by faith. While the Jerusalem Declaration may not be a perfect document, it reflects an evangelical doctrinal point of view much more than does the Common Cause Theological Statement, which appears to have been written to accomodate an Anglo-Catholic theological perspective.

Hudson said...

An excellent explanation of how ACNA has double-crossed confessional Anglicans who put their trust in GAFCON. ACNA has decided that TEC and Rome are its parents. Confessional Anglicans run away from both.

DomWalk said...

Not verbatim, you haven't, Robin. Could you please put chapter and verse from each, indicating where they conflict?

Just one example would suffice.

CB in Ca said...

As a reformed, evangelical, Prayerbook (1662!) Anglican in a Reformed Church, I have to say your comments are indeed disappointing. It is precisely the combination of Tractarianism, Charismania, and liberalism that has brought Anglicanism to where it is. However, there remain sound parishes here and there across the US.

Charlie J. Ray said...

DomWalk seems to be using the death of a thousand questions approach to theology. Be that as it may, I thought this was a valuable examination of the situation. In fact, your irenic tone does a better job than my typical knee jerk reaction and in fact draws similar conclusions.

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie

DomWalk said...

No death, Charlie, but life. Seeking the truth, in love.

So, where's the beef?

DomWalk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charlie J. Ray said...

Dom, well, it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that your concerns lie with ecumenicalism rather than with the Gospel. Need I say more? Anyone reading the articles Robin has posted can see the direction ACNA has gone. The Forward in Faith connection is one indication and the Common Cause Partnership statements are just a few of the indications that ACNA is just TEC all over again but without the homosexuality. If so, then it is another catastrophe waiting to happen. The theological liberalism and Anglo-Catholicism at the roots are still rotten.

Charlie

Joe Mahler said...

CB in CA,
you stated, "As a reformed, evangelical, Prayerbook (1662!) Anglican in a Reformed Church..." What church do you go to that uses the 1662 BCP? and what other churches across the country use it? what denomination are you a member? Please don't tell me the REC and the REC prayer book.

Joe

Heritage Anglicans said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Heritage Anglicans said...

Dom,

I believe that I have presented enough evidence to satisfy a reasonable person. As I have pointed to your attention before, I could produce mounds of evidence but it would not satisfy you. You would still demand more evidence, raising the bar higher and higher each time and inviting me to jump it. I am not going to play that game. You have made up your own mind and I am not going to change it. You are like the single juror who insists that the accused is not guilty even though a procession of eye witnesses who know the accused have testified to seeing him murder the victim. The murder weapon has his finger prints all over it. The victim's blood was on his clothes. A security camera tape shows him murdering the victim, and he has confessed in court to killing the victim. Nothing is going to convince the juror of the accused's guilt.

DomWalk said...

Wild hyperbole only serves to increase suspicion that there is no there, there.

One example, quoted verbatim, of a conflict between the two would suffice.

Perhaps none actually exists, eh?

DomWalk said...

Joe, my guess is that CB in CA is in an OPC (or, perhaps, PCA) church...

DomWalk said...

Charlie, it's good to see you actually mention the Gospel, as opposed to man-made intellectual vanity! Keep your eyes there.

Now, where have I ever mentioned ecumenicalism? Try a little exegesis, rather than eisegesis.

Heritage Anglicans said...

Charlie,

Liberal Anglo-Catholicism has been a pervasive influence in The Episcopal Church for the better part of a century and a large segment of the clergy and members of the ACNA are former Episcopalians. Even those who identify themselves as “evangelicals” have not escaped its influence. The Reformed Episcopal Church has undergone its own “Catholic Revival” and has experienced an influx of refugees from The Episcopal Church, which appear to have contributed to that development. It also has not escaped the influence of liberal Anglo-Catholicism. (I must admit reluctance to prefix the “Anglo” to Catholicism and prefer do describe it as liberal Catholicism.) This is seen in its new Prayer Book which incorporates services from the 1928 Prayer Book which shows the influence of Anglo-Catholicism and liberalism in its theology and liturgical usages. One might say that the strain of Anglicanism that has flourished in North America has mutated so far from the original strain that it should no longer be classified as Anglican. In The Episcopal Church the mutation has progressed to the point where segments of that denomination are no longer recognizable as Christian even in the broadest sense. As the North American strain of Anglicanism has mutated, those who have embraced the latest stage of the mutation have sought to redefine Anglicanism so as to include that stage of the mutation. What needs to be introduced into North America is a robust healthy strain of Anglicanism that is fairly close to the original strain—what might be described as heirloom Anglicanism.

Heritage Anglicans said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Heritage Anglicans said...

Dom,

Let me reiterate what I just said. I am not going to play your game. I have presented sufficient evidence to satisfy a reasonable person.

(I need to install spell check.)

DomWalk said...

You also need to actually provide evidence for your claims about ACNA.

(And you need to reduce the font size on your comment display)

DomWalk said...

Anglo-Catholic influence in the American church goes back to its very founding, of the Scottish strain, rather than English.

REC's Pyrrhic bailing on the church in the late 1800's didn't help, either. But, at least the REC schismatics retained their "purity" (for a while), and got their very own Prayer Book, too. Yay!

Heritage Anglicans said...

Dom,

There is plenty of evidence. You simply choose to ignore it and demand more.

I am not going to change the font size to a smaller one and make the comments more difficult to read for those who do not have 20-20 vision.

You also need to qualify your statement that the Anglo-Catholic influence in the Protestant Episcopal Church predates the Tractarian movement in that denomination. It is misleading. It also reflects a basically Anglo-Catholic view of Church history, suggesting that you are not free of that influence yourself. When the Tractarians arrived on the scene, they claimed that the Caroline High Churchmen and the Non-Jurors were their predecessors. They neglected to mention that these two groups, unlike themselves, did not share their high estimation of the Church of Rome. The Non-Juror influence in the 1789 Prayer Book was confined to the Prayer of Consecration and even then the 1789 Convention made a number of significant changes in the prayer,
altering the language so the Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration no longer gave expression to the peculiar eucharistic theology of the two aging Usager Non-Juror Bishops who composed it. Anglo-Catholicism as we know it did not come on the scene until the Tractarian and Ritualist movements of the nineteenth century. Like the Anglo-Catholics you are glossing over the differences between what historians call the "Catholic Reaction" and the "Catholic Revival."

Charlie J. Ray said...

Domwalk, nice fallacy. Shifting the burden of proof when the facts clearly show the ACNA is predominately Anglo-Catholic and therefore apostate. The burden of proof is rather on you to prove that somehow the ACNA is legitimately Christian and preaches and teaches the doctrines of grace and the 5 solas.

DomWalk said...

Why not? The article text is smaller. Have you been getting complaints about that? The comment text is huge and bold.

You don't disprove my point that the Anglo-Catholic influence here predates the Tractarians. You merely recite a litany of data about the Tractarians, who were, of course, a great Romanizing influence. You miss the forest for the trees, though. The Scottish Anglicans were more Romanizing than the English ones, and this influence was felt here from the very beginning. The only "glossing over" here is being done by you, I'm afraid.

Charlie, that the "facts" as you see them allow you to self-righteously proclaim that ACNA is apostasy, is hardly shocking for anyone that has had the pleasure of reading your comments for any time at all.

Good to see that you're back to your wanna-be-Hortonesque norm. Sorry, you're going to have to prove that ACNA is apostate.

So, speaking of motes and beams, how's that TEC church that you attend doing?

Your ardor had perhaps best be turned inward?

DomWalk said...

By the way, Charlie, that you say that to be legitimately Christian, ACNA has to preach the Doctrines of Grace and the Five Solas is very informative.

These are two man-made typologies, neither of which are proclaimed in the Anglican formularies.

Read the 1662 BCP lately? Or just Horton blog posts and books?

DomWalk said...

(wish these had an edit function)

That, Charlie, is no different than the Anglo-Catholics who proclaim that real Anglicans have to believe in the "real presence".

Two sides of the same coin. Trying to change Anglicanism to saddle their own hobby horse.

Transparent.

Charlie J. Ray said...

DomWalk, you're right at home with the Arminians and with the Anglo-Catholics:) You have betrayed yourself as a compromiser.

I have little regard for denominational amalgamation which sacrifices the Gospel for the sake of dominion or a false unity. If that were my focus, I would have become a Roman Catholic years ago. But even Rome has its liberals so becoming apostate for the sake of fighting liberalism is an illusion.

The fact that you attack those who defend the Gospel reveals who you really are, Dom.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

The 39 Articles do indeed teach all five of the solas, Dom. The fact that you do not understand this is revealing.

Grace alone.
Faith alone.
Scripture alone.
Christ alone.
To God alone be all the glory!

The 39 Articles are not an exhaustive document but what they do say is entirely and completely Reformed and Protestant:)

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Dom, the Articles uphold the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that you think I'm reading into the Articles only shows your ignorance of Scripture. The Articles summarize the doctrines contained in Scripture. I believe in the 5 solas because they are in the Bible, not because they are in the Articles.

Furthermore, I believe much more than what the Articles say. The Articles never mention the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell but that doctrine is still taught in Holy Scripture.

Minimalism is not the focus of biblical Christianity but of Anglo-Catholicism. "All Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:15-16. 2 Peter 1:19-21.

Charlie

Heritage Anglicans said...

Dom,

The Church of England in North America in the colonial period had its share of High Churchmen. However, they did not see themselves as Catholics or even reformed Catholics. Their consciousness or self-identity was Protestant. The Church of England was to them a Protestant and reformed Church. Consequently, when the colonies gained their independence and the Protestant Episcopal Church was formed, "Protestant" was featured prominently in its name. We do not see an emergence of a Catholic consciousness or self-identity until the nineteenth century with the Oxford, or Tractarian, movement. It is erroneous to argue that the Scottish Episcopal Church was an early Romanizing influence in the Protestant Episcopal Church. The 1789 Prayer Book was substantially the 1662 Prayer Book except for its incorporation of the Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration. Even that prayer, as I drew to your attention, was modified to eliminate a number of phrases that taught a doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice and presence that was objectionable to the Protestant-minded American Episcopalians. Bishop Seabury promised the Scottish bishops who consecrated him that he would try to get the Protestant Episcopal Church to accept the entire Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office. He only succeeded in persuading the 1789 General Convention to accept the modified Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration, stripped of its objectionable theology. The 1789 Communion Office is substantially the 1662 Communion Office.

Prelacy and sacramentalism were the major distinguishing characteristic of the High Church party in the Protestant Episcopal Church before the influence of Tractarianism and Ritualism transformed that party in the nineteenth century. At least one High Church Episcopal bishop objected to the Romanizing and Ritualistic tendencies of the two movements, which were later renamed the "Anglo-Catholic movement."

To argue that the Protestant Episcopal Church had an Anglo-Catholic wing from the outset is to promote an Anglo-Catholic reinterpretion, or revision, of the history of the Episcopal Church. The Tractarians and the Ritualists were early revisionists. They went as far as promoting the idea that their theology was the theology of the Church of England even after the English Reformation, and tried to appropriate such figures as John Jewel and Richard Hooker, claiming that they taught what the Tractarians and Ritualists taught. They did this by quoting Jewel and Hooker out of context. As well as reinterpreting Church history and hijacking benchmark Anglican divines, they also reinterpreted the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

Heritage Anglicans said...

Dom,

Have you read Article XI, "The Justification of Man," and the Homily of Justification? They set forth the Protestant - Anglican doctrine of grace.

The English Reformers rejected the theology of the Church of Rome as apostate and heretical. This was the official view of the Church of England until the nineteenth century when the Romeward leaning Oxford movement appeared on the scene and created the confusion that persists to this day. In the ACNA two groups are dominant. The first is Anglo-Catholic and its theology is basically a subset of Roman Catholic theology. The second group subscribes to the notion that Anglicanism is a "synthesis of opposites." It accepts beliefs and practices that the English Reformers rejected at the time of the Reformation and the Protestant Church of England rejected for the better part of its history. From the perspective of the English Reformers and Protestant Anglicans in so far as the ACNA embraces beliefs and practices that the former viewed as apostate and heretical, the ACNA is arguably apostate and heretical. In so far as the ACNA upholds doctrines and practices that the former viewed as orthodox, the ACNA is to that extent orthodox.

DomWalk said...

Charlie, you don't defend the gospel. You justify yourself by criticizing others who don't meet the narrow definition of "Christianity" in which you happen to believe now.

Although your TEC church doesn't espouse those. You're railing against your own contradictions.

DomWalk said...

Of course the Articles are Reformed and Protestant. That's never been the issue. The issue is you trying to add to those, just like the Tractarians do.

Same arrogance, different robes. Pharisees versus Sadducees.

DomWalk said...

The issue, Robin, is not the English Reformers.

The issue is your defaming of the ACNA by innuendo, without any actual supporting evidence.

Your admirable command of history, which, you should realize, is far from unique, does not preclude you from having to treat today's groups with integrity and charity.

Neither of which your comments about ACNA show in the least.

DomWalk said...

Robin, the Scottish church was more Anglo-Catholic than the English, and this influence was in the American church from the beginning.

Whether you chose to admit this, because it goes against your initial statement, is immaterial to its facticity.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Dom, you're revealing your ignorance again. We don't "re-invent" Christianity. I am a "confessing" Evangelical and Reformed, meaning I believe the Westminster Standards and the 3 Forms of Unity are biblical every bit as much as the 39 Articles. You seem to make up doctrine as you go along. I stand with the apostolic doctrines revealed by the Holy Spirit in Scripture alone and I stand with the Reformed churches in affirming those doctrines.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Dom, you seem to have no idea what the 39 Articles teach or what the term "reformed" means.

Heritage Anglicans said...

Dom,

I think you need to produce your sources for your assertion. Let us examine them and draw our own conclusions. You are always demanding more evidence from me. Now it is time for you to produce evidence to support your claim. Right now all we have is your assertion that the Scottish Episcopal Church exercised a strong influence upon the colonial Church to the point that a sizeable segment of the colonial Church viewed itself as Catholic and not Protestant--a major distinguishing characteristic of Anglo-Catholicism, and adopted Catholic theology and practice.

DomWalk said...

Hah, Charlie, you make my point for me. Neither the Westminster Standards nor the Three Forms of Unity are Anglican.

And claiming that I know nothing about the XXXIX Articles is just plain bizarre.

So, how's that TEC church? You rail against your own contradictions.

DomWalk said...

Robin, you've been claimin that the ACNA is somehow not in line with GAFCON and that it goes against classical Anglicanism in its beliefs.

Please provide proof.

DomWalk said...

When did I ever say that "sizeable segment of the colonial Church viewed itself as Catholic and not Protestant"?

Where do you get this stuff?

DomWalk said...

So, Charlie, what do you think of practicing Lesbian bishops, eh?

I guess that's better than being in a church that has some "Anglo-Catholic" leadership, huh?

How's that TEC church?

Charlie J. Ray said...

Dom, you make my point for me. The 39 Articles are only a brief statement and do not deal with every biblical doctrine. We are obligated to believe the Scriptures, not man-made omissions. The doctrine of eternal torment in hell is not mentioned in the 39 Articles so I guess by your view no Anglican is obligated to believe it?

I take it as a compliment that you do not think I'm an Anglican, judging from the state of Anglicanism today. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Irish Articles and the Lambeth Articles of 1595 are evidence enough that Calvinism is alive and well within Anglicanism, not to mention the fact that Cranmer himself was strongly influenced by the Swiss reformers, Geneva reformers, and the Lutheran reformers. It is indeed telling that you glory in doctrinal reductionism and minimalism while I rejoice in the fullness of Scriptural doctrine. ALL Scripture is inspired of God, not just the parts you like.

Furthermore, the doctrine of predestination is taught solidly in Article 17. Every Anglican ought to be a Prayer Book Calvinist!

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Dom, lesbian bishops are lost. But then, so are Anglo-Catholics who teach that justification is merely morality. If morality alone is the gospel, then you must admit Roman Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, and anyone else who happens to disdain homosexuality.

The fact is, "mere morality" is a form of works righteousness, which in turn means that Christ died on the cross in vain. Galatians 1:6-8; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4.

I am not a member of TEC OR ACNA. I am a Christian who stands for the truth and confesses the Bible as the final standard of doctrine, morality and truth--not false and apostate denominations like TEC, ACNA, the Anglican Communion at large, the PCUSA, etc., et. al. ad nauseum.

Sola Scriptura!

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Dom, the evidence that you have gone over to the apostasy of Anglo-Catholicism is all over the place: http://domwalk.blogspot.com/2009/02/homosexuality-abortion-and.html.

It never ceases to amaze me when Roman Catholics cite the Reformers out of context to prove something they never said. It is one thing to uphold procreation and another altogether to say that the Protestant view of sex between husband and wife is "only" for procreation. That is most assuredly not the position of either Luther or Calvin.


Charlie

DomWalk said...

Charlie, have you actually transfered your church membership/affiliation to The Episcopal Church, or do you just temporarily inhabit a building?

Your adding of Westminster and Continental Confessions to the Articles is no different that what the Anglo-Catholics you love to demonize do.

Two sides of the same coin.

So, are you TEC? Or just a squatter?

DomWalk said...

Charlie, you share something else with the Anglo-Catholics, apparently: the distorting effect of personal sin on one's view of scripture.

Luther and Calvin most assuredly held that procreation was the primary purpose of marriage.

As does the 1662 BCP.

Let me ask you something. Have you repented to Christ of your personal sins, or are you trying to justify them?

DomWalk said...

Charlie, in all charity, I have something I'd like you to listen to. It's 25 minutes on Hebrews 3:10-15. May you find it profitable.

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Thru_the_Bible_with_JVernon_McGee/archives.asp?bcd=2009-12-4

Charlie J. Ray said...

Dom, the difference, obvious to any born-again Christian, is that Anglo-Catholics are pelagians and idolaters while Presbyterians and Reformed Christians accept the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation and Scripture: sola gratia, sola fide, sola Scriptura, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria. These 5 solas are essential doctrines and necessary to salvation. The Roman Catholics, Anglo-Catholics and Eastern Orthdox are apostates and therefore unsaved and in need of conversion. The AC-NA is apostate for the same reasons. It is predominately Anglo-Catholic and therefore idolatrous and pelagian.

Any "genuine" Christian would know this, Dom.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Secondly, Dom, I am a Christian and unafiliated with any denomination. I am born again and believe only the doctrines of grace. I do not claim to be a member of TEC and I do not support TEC financially.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Repentance is a gift given to the elect only, Dom. Therefore, you have no room to boast that you have "repented of your sins." Since salvation is all of God from before the foundation of the world and before the birth of any of his elect, EVEN repentance is given ONLY to the elect and it is given to them PRIOR to their actual repentance. Regeneration is likewise given to the elect PRIOR to conversion, not subsequent to conversion.

So let me ask you a question, Dom. Who saved you? You by repenting or God by giving you repentance?

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

I've been listening to J. Vernon McGee for years, Dom. He's not infallible. Scripture IS infallible. McGee tends toward dispensationalism.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe....

Charlie J. Ray said...

If Anglo-Catholics worship the bread and wine, which are merely "creatures" or "created" things, is that not idolatry? If Anglo-Catholics teach that Christ is re-sacrificed on an "altar" in church, is that not contradictory to the doctrine of one sacrifice on Calvary?

No, Anglo-Catholics are as lost as any homosexual, lesbian, Muslim or Buddhist. They are apostate and have tried to work their way to justification by good works and penances.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Furthermore, sex is given to a man and his wife for union and procreation is merely a subsequence of marriage and not necessarily the only purpose of marital sexual relations. If so, then elderly couples would need to be celibate because they cannot procreate.

It seems to me that legalism is your forte, Dom. Grace, grace... God's grace is greater than all our sins past, present and future. Unbelief is trusting in your own righteousness rather than the righteousness of Christ (Romans 10:1-4; Galatians 1:6-8; 2:24-26; Romans 3:23; Philippians 3:9).

Anglo-Catholics are theologically liberal and in fact do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. While the "orthodox" Anglo-Catholics might reject homosexuality, they are "liberal" on practically everything else, including the ordination of women!



Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Article XIX
Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

Charlie J. Ray said...

"For Luther, marriage was the institution established by God for the expression of human sexuality: no other form of sexual relation was permissible. As the Biblical phrase so often quoted by the reformers put it, adulterers and fornicators should not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. When Lutheran reformers began to put pressure on secular authorities to make society more godly, one of their first objects of attack was the public brothel, the most conspicuous example of society's toleration of what reformers regarded as the sin of fornication."

http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/History/teaching/protref/women/WR0911.htm

1 Corinthians 7:1ff

Charlie J. Ray said...

Acts 11:18

Charlie J. Ray said...

"The only place for sexual relations is marriage, the institution God created to be, as Luther once remarked, a 'hospital' for lust. Within marriage, sex is not sinful - except in the sense that all our actions are. Nor must it be restricted to procreation: within marriage, 'this plighted troth permits even more occasion than is necessary for the begetting of children.' Indeed, Luther could even write, congratulating a friend on marriage, 'On the evening of the day when, according to my reckoning, you receive this letter, I shall also make love to my wife and so feel close to you.' This is certainly a positive attitude toward sex within marriage, and Luther can with justice be said to have made a genuine break with pre-Reformation views of sexuality.
"
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/History/teaching/protref/women/WR0911.htm

DomWalk said...

So, you're not a member of any local church, then? Makes sense. That isolation tends to engender arrogance and sniping from the sidelines.

Who said that McGee was infallible? Where do you come up with this? The point is for you to listen, seriously listen, to what he has to say.

That may be expecting too much, alas.

The 1662 BCP hold procreation as the primary purpose for marriage. And Luther, Calvin, Wesley and all the reformers held that birth control was sinful.

So, have you repented of your personal sin, or is it getting in your way?

Please listen to McGee's presentation.

Reformation said...

I come here to read and learn---and then there was Dom.

Dom, why don't you start your own blog and go comment there.

You're taking up space with dull, obtuse comments.

Here's an idea. Read a book and write intelligent reviews of it. Something that would pass scholarly muster from all parties.

At the point, we need a plumber to unplug the white porcelain throne.

Getting a bit tired of the floaters.

Dom, it's simple. People are registering their negative reviews of your comments. Why not take it elsewhere is give us some relief.

We'll appreciate it.

Reformation said...

Sorry for typoes.

Just contempt for the obtuseness and typing too fast.

Robin posts something intelligent and we get non-donnish divagations and unbookish and puerile responses...of little value.

Also, aside from the obtuseness, let there be perspective.

ACNA is 100K, if that, a blip on a national screen of relevance. It's a Western response to liberalism. It's a micro-group. Give it 10 years. 150K? So what?

It's fragmented already by internal incoherence...if consistency matters...but does it matter? Do "they" matter?

Glad to have "classics" here, in terms of books, given what is on offer in the public marketsquare of American Anglicanism.

The "classics" spare me of the dreary tedium of weary mortals saying stupid things. Thank you, Lord, for the old masters.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Amen, Reformation. Nothing like classical theology to nurture the mind and soul of a devout Christian.

Joe Mahler said...

The ACNA is a redundancy. How many anglo-catholic organizations masquerading as churches does one country need? How much difference is there really amongst the various groups. Why have they not just all gotten together and rid themselves of the schisms amongst themselves? Now the anglo-catholics do not tolerate the Protestant and Reformed Christian in their midst unless they follow this rule, "show up, shut up, and pay up." It is extremely difficult for me to believe that a true Protestant Reformed Anglican Christian can join himself in an unequal yoking with the idolatrous image and bread and wine worshipper, with those pagan ideas of the veneration (and veneration is worship) of saints. Virtue on line is moderated by anglo-catholics and yet Virtue, I am led to believe, is an evangelical. Virtue on Line reflects the perspectives of the moderators. Virtue needs to get rid of these moderators and get some who are Protestant in belief. We do not need any new anglo-catholic platform on the internet. We need a Reformed Protest Anglican Christian platform.

Charlie J. Ray said...

David Virtue is not an Evangelical. The term is meaningless if it means that Anglo-Catholic soteriology is an acceptable "version" of the Gospel. The last I checked there is only one Gospel.

Charlie

Reformation said...

Joe:

Here is an example of soft-ball questions for a Tractarian, Rev. (bishop) Jack of Texas.

Soft-ball questions for Jack by a man, Mr. Virtue, with no more wind for his sails (except for boring stories about gay issues and litigation...yawn).

See the soft-ball pitches by the old man without a leading story anymore. Does anyone care what Rowan Williams has to say? (unless as a remedy for the chronically morose who need a good medicinal laugh)

See the silly interview at:

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11647

ACNA provides a populist, hope-we-grow mishmash, a micro-church--with Virtue and moderators as satellite vocalists and their know-nothing policies.

And the same "tribe" reappears in VOL's comments' section. Dreary stuff.

Virtue is "not" doing his job of "news and analysis." Since the ACNA, he's lost his verve, moxy and story...his story-line is gone. The days of these non-bookish and ill-read illuminati are over for this scribe.

Examine that puff piece above.

How would Cranmer, Ridley, Coverdale, Hooper, Philpott, Parker, Grindal, Whitgift or Bancroft have conducted that interview? What questions would they have asked the Tractarian, Jack of TX?

Virtue needs to retire.

The credibility of VOL's moderators is "shot," over, done, finished.

DomWalk said...

Until there's actual proof of how the ACNA repudiates GAFCON or the Formularies, both the obtuseness and, indeed, the burden of proof remain with those who would attack it without supporting data.

But, hey, keep criticizing others. It's apparently what makes you feel better about yourself.

Reformation said...

Yawn...more head-banging on the cave walls by Dom.