“To the magistrates it doth appertain, not only to have regard unto the commonwealth, but also unto ecclesiastical matters, to take away and to overthrow all idolatry and false serving of God, to destroy the kingdom of antichrist and all false doctrine, to promote the glory of God and to advance the kingdom of Christ, to the cause of the word of the Gospel everywhere to be preached, and the same to maintain unto death…“

Bishop John Hooper (d. 1555)

Rev. Douglas Wilson posts an interesting piece on Islamic ethic, while the Roman Catholic Canterbury Tales says that Muslims are somehow closer to salvation than other unbelievers. 

Anglicans in Africa are saying that liberal Anglicans in America are “satanic.” It seems that the stone that has been rejected is becoming the chief cornerstone! You never know, Africa could become the new America, where “religious freedom” can be expressed. Islam would need to be destroyed there, but that can happen with the right leadership in place. Hopefully though, because of religions such as Islam, rather than “religious” freedom they will obtain “Christian” freedom. This is why America is in so much trouble: Although we complain about Islam and liberalism, we invited them to our party!

If you would like a comprehensive outlook on just how and why Third World countries such as Africa will be rising to the top of Christendom, I recommend this book for you to read.

Here is nice overview of Anglican history.  

Jamey Bennett has written a thought provoking piece on this blog concerning the nature of Anglicanism. In Anglican and Reformed? he takes points from the 39 Articles and makes this the standard for orthodox Anglicanism. While I would agree they are certainly an acceptable standard for one form of Anglicanism, I would argue that they have ever been universally embraced by all Anglicans as the standard.

Before beginning I should place my cards on the table. I fall into what is called “Anglo-Catholicism” but hopefully not obnoxiously so. By Anglo-Catholicism I mean a belief that the Anglican Reformers intended to bring the Church of England to a true Catholicism minus medieval additions and not a housecleaning of the inherited traditions of Christendom. In this they would fall into the same category as other magisterial reformers and against the Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation.

The difference with the Anglicans - and the root of their genius - is that they retained the existing ecclesial structure. Unlike the Reformation on the continent, the existing episopacy and priesthood largely stayed in place and continued with the reformed church. There was no reconstruction of the faith because the reforms were in the hands of the existing clerics and laity and not a few theological founders with a unique vision. Aside from the move to the vernacular and the reforms to a more Biblical model, things initially were as they had been before.

The first statements of the newly reformed Church of England were not nearly as Protestant in orientation as the 39 Articles. The latter are the result of a trajectory from the initial reform to a more Protestant outlook that evolved after the death of Henry VIII. The reign of the boy Edward VI gave the opportunity for more Protestant reforms that Henry had vehemently opposed. After the reign of Queen Mary (termed “Bloody Mary” by Protestant historians), there was a great deal of anti-Roman sentiment and a move towards an alliance with other Protestant churches was quite sensible. It should, however, be pointed out that much of the laity had Catholic leanings and Queen Elizabeth I was more concerned with unity than driving out the last remaining elements of “popery”.

The attack by the Spanish Armada and various other real and imagined attempts to force England back into the Catholic fold were enough to promote Protestant support but there always remained enough Catholic belief to keep the Church of England from being thoroughly Protestantized. It is important to note the various “High Church” or “Catholic” movements within Anglicanism were neither pro-Roman nor overtly ritualistic. They intended to keep the Church of England as a Reformed Catholic Church that adhered to the faith of the early undivided Christians without Roman additions or Protestant subtractions.

The 39 Articles is a document forged not just by theological but also political concerns. It was mainly designed to affirm credal orthdoxy and to enumerate the disagreements with Rome. However, they never attained the same position within Anglicanism as the great confessional statements of the Lutherans and the Reformed did in their communions.

The growing Protestantization of the Church of England that led to the 39 Articles took a major hit after the Puritan reign of Oliver Cromwell. True Catholics fled or went underground and a thorougly Protestant church took its place. When the Restoration restored Catholic order as well as the throne, the extreme forms of Protestant belief were seen as a threat alongside Rome. This cemented the via media orientation of Anglicanism.

While the 39 Articles are certainly important, they are not the final word within Anglicanism. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is the single most important statement of the Anglican Way. The Articles may be revered among some theologians but it was the BCP that was prayed and lived by generations of Anglicans in England and abroad. It is a simple fact that the BCP is a far more Catholic document than the 39 Articles. That these two are the statements of Anglican thought is illustrative of Anglicanism’s theological diversity. The Catholics within the Anglican Commnion choose to see the BCP as overruling the less attractive of the articles. The Protestants interpret the overtly Catholic parts of the BCP from within the context of the 39 Articles. At different points in time both sides have held the upper hand. The 39 Articles reflect one such time - but not all times.

Falling on the Catholic side, I would lean for the BCP. For me, it is more important what the Church prays every week than what it says in a convocation of clerics that may be overruled at a later date. History bears this out. When the forces of revisionism attacked the Church, they didn’t change doctrinal propostions. They went right for the prayers of the Church in the BCP and Hymnal. The various “alternative services” prepared the way for the abuses we now see within the Anglican Communion. The 39 Articles are still in place, but once they changed the prayers of the Church, it all fell apart.

The BCP then is the sum of Anglican theology. For the Anglican in the pews it was how the faith was taught. Even when they might tune out the sermon of a long winded priest, the prayers would form their consiences and their beliefs. These prayers were Catholic - Reformed Catholic, certainly - but Catholic nonetheless. Anglicanism is indeed Protestant as it did protest the abuses of the papacy. It is indeed reformed as it is a reform of Church faith and practice. But we must never forget that it is a reform of Catholicism and not a retreat from it. Anglicanism is not just Protestant but Catholic as well.

 Jamey Bennett gives this response in Anglican and Reformed? comment. It failed to post for some reason…We’ll have the comment isssue fixed one of these days.

1. Yes, we are bound to be true to our birthright…otherwise, would forsaking our birthright give us another identity altogether? Click Here

2. Are jurisdictions that deny the formative documents of Anglicanism truly Anglican? Click Here

3. The same guys that wrote the Prayer Book wrote the Articles. Are we to deny the law of believing in favor of the law of praying?

Some organizations just love to bicker at one another and divide over issues just so they can feel as if they are working hard for God. I believe the current justification debate is of this nature. When good and godly men attempt to teach traditional doctrines outside of the modern paradigms of their particular organization, arms begin to raise in hysteria! This is really a shame, especially since the Reformers themselves did this very thing - they expanded the paradigm of the Church in order to straighten what had become crooked, using different analogies and words in order to debunk the current misunderstandings and heresies of their day. These were all good words and systems of thought, but they were not all that is to be said about salvation. They themselves instituted the doctrine of Semper Reformanda (always reforming).

Jesus said that he came to save us from our sin and give us an entire kingdom through His death and resurrection. St. Paul, as a great polemist of his time, took what Jesus said and gave it a didactic nature in order to grapple as an apologist in an area of the world that was steeped in philosophical rhetoric. Paul used terms such as “justification.” Paul used these types of terms, not because Jesus or the prophets did,  but because it was a fitting word for the circumstances. The term is used to describe the very transcendent nature of what Jesus said He brought us. Jesus said that he came to save sinners, but Paul was determined, by the Spirit of God no less, to explain just how this salvation transcends to a people in our time and space from a God in a different time and space (eternity).

So when Paul says that we were ‘justified’ he is merely explaining the legal atmosphere of salvation. But we know that salvation is much more complicated than the forensic model alone, and that justification is not some sort of floating barge that we can hop on when the time is right. Justification is the very philosophical means of what God has done to us when He died on that Cross and resurrection from the dead! Paul was expounding and yes declaring but he never even implied that the very word ‘justification’ was the end-all means to salvific doctrine. In fact, Paul uses the word interchangeably in different areas.

Remember, Jesus did not come down to earth, set up a court, and then try his people and sign a paper stating that we are righteous. No, he came down here, lived a righteous life, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead! THIS IS WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE DEFENDING - what the ancient Creeds declare, which is what Paul declares in his writings!

We are saved by Christ’s actions not Paul’s doctrine! This does not mean that Paul’s doctrine is not essential to the faith. It is, but the fact of the matter is that Paul’s doctrine did not die and resurrect! Christ’s body did.

A One Page True/False Theological Questionnaire

Directions: Please respond to all statements with a simple TRUE or a simple FALSE. If you feel you must explain or qualify your statements, fine. Feel free to do so AFTER answering TRUE (followed by a period) or FALSE (followed by a period).

The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds ought to be accepted as true BECAUSE they can be proven with certainty from Holy Scripture.

The Apocryphal books are profitable in many ways, but no doctrine may be established from them.

The infection of original sin remains even in the regenerate.

God accepts us as righteous in his sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.

Sola Fide is a biblical teaching.

Sola Fide is an Anglican teaching.

It is arrogant and impious for us to attempt to do good works, in order to please God, that go above and beyond what Scripture commands.

Predestination to life is a gift of God out of his sheer mercy and has nothing to do with foreseen works or beliefs.

If the Church decrees or teachings anything contrary to the Scriptures, she should be corrected primarily from the Scriptures.

The doctrine of purgatory has no warrant in Scripture and is repugnant to the Word of God.

There are properly only two sacraments.

Those five that are commonly called sacraments are a mixed bag - partly grown up from a corruption of the teaching of Scriptures, and partly acceptable states of life.

It is a dangerous blasphemy to teach that a priest can offer sacrifices for the living and the dead (for the remission of suffering or guilt) at Mass.

The Anglican Formularies are: The Ordinal, The Historic Book of Common Prayer, and The Articles of Religion.

I accept these Formularies as generally and substantially godly and true.

I accept these Formularies as the binding standard of teaching in the Anglican Way, and will teach in general accord with them.

If you answered FALSE to any of the above answers, you are in danger of making an Anglicanism after your own image and likeness. Perhaps some prayerful study of the Anglican Formularies will help you come to terms with who you are and what you believe.

Ever wonder how certain unqualified and divisive men sneak past our radar just to destroy our communities? In Colossians Chapter 2, St. Paul warns us of those who demonstrate false humility! False humility is the subversive tactic of the wolves as they display mere clothing of a shepherd. It’s not always easy to identify and can turn into an extremely arrogant accusation if not carefully sought. Judas, when he kissed Jesus, is an obvious example of false humility. But what about those that put the “kiss of Judas” into words and actions in today’s society?

The snare of false humility is its very proclamation of humility. I once visited a conference of a newly formed denomination that claimed to have Reformed essentials, where the leader of this organization continually (and I was told that this was a regular speech of his) claimed that he was an “arrogant man.”  My buddy and I saw this as a demonstration of false humility! Why? Well, this particular man proclaimed a number of accusations against the historic Church that he felt were just reasons for beginning his new venture, yet these accusations were autonomously founded. This leader wanted no accountability from any of the Reformed or other historic churches. He claimed that they had essentials in the faith so wrong, that it was necessary for him to begin his own venture completely apart from any of the historic positions. He began a new form of Church polity (with him as the head, of course) and a new form of doctrine that was inclusive to the more modern elements of the Church.

Not only was this man autonomous in his ecclesiology, he was autonomous in his family ethics. He continually preached a high standard of ethics for the family, yet he was not adhering to this same standard; flying from conference to conference to speak and counsel, while his teenage son spiraled into a form of depression. Therefore, in order to cover his guilt, he would come out and speak directly against it. In the subject of hermeneutics, we call this “preaching your own convictions.” This can happen to any pastor; he, being convicted of a certain sin, rather than repent of the sin by changing his ways, vents his frustration over the pulpit. In judicial terms this can be called abuse of power under the color of authority. The leader, knowing that his flock will interpret his ethical speech as a command to them, turns his own convictions inside-out by using the pulpit as a scapegoat.

In stricter terms, we can see false humility in ourselves or peers when there is an obvious sin that needs to repented of, such as some sort of false accusation or insult against someone. And instead of true repentance & reconcilation to the person, a statement such as, “I’m sorry if I offended you,” is made. The word suspect here is “IF.” We are saying that we are still not sure if we did wrong! The other word is  “offended.” In modern Christian circles, being offended often means that the person is weak in that area and just cannot grow to the point of “accepting this great liberation that we just expressed.” So to offend a weaker Christian is bad, but not entirely unethical since it is not a matter of unethical speech as it is a matter of whether or not the weaker Christian can stomach the comment.

False humility is often used as a sort of partial repentance. It gives us the ability to feel like we have given up illegal weapons but within our basement is an entire arsenal of the latest terrorist paraphernalia with actual names of future victims written on them. When this individual confesses - especially publicly -  to a particular sliver of his problem or just denounces that particular type of ungodly behaviour, it becomes difficult to prosecute them when they become a complete and obvious danger to the Church or society. To obtain a warrant - to use the judicial language again -  can be almost impossible because, after all, we all know that this man is not like that. He publicly denounces this kind of behaviour constantly.

This is why Paul warns us about leaders who carry this tactic of false humility. It is deception and hypocrisy, and is clearly the ploy of the devil. May we all be aware of this sin in our own lives and may we be watchful of it in our leaders. And with that last sentence said, may we not be overzealous and arrogant when watching for false humility in leadership, lest we falsely accuse and become divisive ourselves.

In the debate taking place within worldwide Anglicanism over its future direction, there need be a point where Anglicans ask themselves, “Why Anglican?” Why do we remain bound to a communion that seems unable to control false teachers within its own midst? Why remain bound to a tradition that is seemingly so ill-defined as to include Anglo-Catholics, Reformed, Evangelicals, and revisionist heretics? What is it about Anglicanism that makes it a unique tradition worth preserving and under what structure would it best be preserved?
Read the rest of this entry »

The term “legalism” is very much abused within the Church today. Many throw this term out when they feel that they cannot reach a standard that has been presented to them by church authority. Others use it when Christian peers are living a godlier life than they are and the would-be accuser is unable to reach their standard. Christians begin to create their own standard of ethics based on the way they are currently living rather than on the way the church has taught ethics over the centuries, and then pull out there “priesthood of all believers” pass.

In future posts, I will expound on legalism in more stricter terms (no pun intended), but for now I would like to bring the face of it to the table. When can a Christian call another’s actions “legalistic?” It happens every day, I’m sure. One man calls another a legalist simply because he feels the man is unnecessarily adhering to certain ethics. But what the accuser does not recognize is that there is an even looser Christian that is accusing him of being a legalist.

As an example of a certain ethic that causes tension within the Church, let us turn to Paul when he says that women should dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:9). One would think that this would mean that a woman should not, especially in the worship assembly where we are doing everything to focus on the Living God, dress sexy. This would be contrary to what Paul was commanding! So in this case, how do we determine what is immodest (sexy)? Where do we draw the standard? Or can we? I believe we can, but it must be the pastor who is in submission to his authority, the Bishop, that does this. We simply cannot have variable standards floating around the congregations by anyone who is eager to claim authority. This is why the pastor has a stricter judgement, because he sets the biblical standard by gently convincing the congregation of Christ’s sanctifying truth! This does not mean that no one else can know what a biblical ethic is, it simply means that not just anyone can induce the ethics. This includes those that are pretending to be Bishops over the Internet, calling certain pastors “legalists” for teaching their congregations ethics that are foreign to many of the looser Christians.

If there are loose ethics in a church, then the church will not be unified, unless they unify under those loose ethics, which then turns them away from Christ. Christ says that “if you love me, you will keep my commandments.” And if you are testing the pastor to see how far you can push your loose standard, then you will reap the consequences. It’s as simple as that! But on the other side of the token, someone that condemns every Christian that does not see the Law as they do and thus provokes the pastor for not “laying down the gavel” will also, in my opinion, reap.

Ethics in today’s society and church are very complicated and not easy to induce with both boldness and grace. Many lean to one side or the other and thus become either to loose or to stern. And many times the stern ones insist on conformity regardless of whether or not their pupils are ready for that particular ethic. This, I think, can be deemed as “legalistic” in some cases. But there are times where a person must obey even if their heart is not in it yet. I used to teach this to x-cons; that they were to refrain from stealing, for instance, even if they thought they were justified in doing it. The heart change will come later!

The Rev. Douglas Wilson has a fine post on what I call “Calvin’s Triple Election.”

I recently purchased this picture from Marshalls, to hang in my study at home. It is hard to tell by this small pic, but it is a church and a city combined into one picture. My wife says it is too “Pink Floyd.” Hey, I like Pink Floyd, what’s up?! I think this picture says, at the very least, two important things: The Church is dominant over the culture regardless of what state it is in (no pun intended) and the culture is always trying to drive into the Church regardless of what state it is in.

The Picture is by Scott Mutter - like the Church is our “Mutter”;)

Between the years 1973 and 1981 there were over 9,000,000 abortions in America alone. This generation affected (”Generation X”) is the offspring of the Baby Boomers, whom are named that because of their enormous population. Many of the Baby Boomers became a part of the various drug-induced ideologies of the time, such as the planned parenthood concept (abortion and birth control “rights” for women. BTW, did you know that the birth control pill can actually kill the fertilized egg? - click here for info.)

So it appears that we have the smallest generation next to the largest generation. The Boomers have been a huge influence to the Church, as well as the culture at large. They have been the driving force of the liberals, hippies, seeker-sensitives,  as well as many other modern ideologies.

What happens when the Boomers pass on? Can we take our Church and culture back? If Generation X (those born in the 60s and 70s) do not find their identity and make a move on the Church and the culture, they will be swallowed by whatever ideology or religion that the 12 million soon-to-be-citizen immigrants adopt.

Besides gaining our identity (yes, I am an Xer), what can we do? How about being obedient to God’s Law and heed to Genesis 1:28 which says that we must be fruitful and multiply? If you are single, do not try this!!! Seriously, if you are married and you are able to bare children, then what are you waiting for? If you are both married and in school, you should weigh this carefully. Not that we should neglect procreation for education, but we certainly do not want to forsake a call that God has for us in industry or ministry.

Children are a blessing (Psalm 127) in more ways than we can imagine!

The Reformed Baptist minister John Piper, whom I owe a significant amount of my ministerial growth to, is publishing a little book that attempts to refute the Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, and his views of justification.  Piper used to be in close connection to the “developed” perspective of justification as we will see in quotes from his 1995 book Future Grace (the name is a dead give away), but since then has become closer to  C.J. Mahaney and other more modern baptistic theologians.

On page 21 of Future Grace Piper says,

From this angle I would say that the aim of this book is to explore how the faith that justifies also sanctifies…(p. 21)

the historic viewpoint of the Reformed confessions is that justifying faith is also sanctifying faith…(p. 25)

My point in this book is that the faith, which is the occasion of justification, is the same faith through which sanctifying power comes to the justified sinner. There are three assumptions here. The first assumption is that justifying faith is persevering faith. As Jonathan Edwards explained with careful and nuanced language, “Perseverance in faith is, in one sense, the condition of justification; that is, the promise of acceptance is made only to a preserving sort of faith, and the proper evidence of it being that sort is its actual perseverance Thus it is proper to speak of the moral effectiveness of justifying faith not merely because it brings us into a right standing with God at the first moment of its existence, but also because it is a persevering sort of faith, whose effectiveness resides also in its daily embrace of all that God is for us in Jesus.

A second assumption is that justifying faith is not only a trusting in the past grace of God, but also a trusting in the future grace of God, secured by the past grace of Christ’s death and resurrection…(p. 27)

No one can become a Christian without past grace. And no one can be a Christian moment by moment without future grace. Our standing as Christians is as secure as God’s supply of future grace…(p. 67)

In another chapter, A Love Affair with God’s Law, (close your ears all you antinomians) Piper demonstrates how the prophets of the Bible loved God’s Law and expected grace from His Law. He quotes passages such as Psalm 119: 47, 48, and 127. He goes on to say the following within this chapter:

The commandments of the Law are woven together with the threads of grace - past grace,  future grace,  forgiving grace and empowering grace…(p. 144)

[All Kline fans, turn away during this one] What brought a person to ruin in the Old Testament was not the failure to have the righteousness of sinless perfection. Rather the ruin was caused by the failure to be righteous, first, in the sense that Abraham was “reckoned righteous” by faith in future grace; and second, in the sense of habitual (though not perfect) obedience to God which was rooted in an abiding (though not perfect) faith in his future grace. Imperfection would be forgiven; but impenitent, habitual, distrusting disobedience would not.

It is terribly confusing when people say that the only righteousness that has any value is the imputed righteousness of Christ. I agree that justification is not grounded on any of our righteousness, but only the righteousness of of Christ imputed to us. But sometimes people are careless and speak despairingly of all human righteousness, as if there were no such thing that pleased God. They often cite Isaiah 64:6 which says our righteousness is as filthy rags…But that does not mean that God does not produce in those “justified” people (before and after the cross) an experiential righteousness that not “filthy rags”…(p. 151) [the term "filthy rags" is tantamount to worthlessness in many circles today. This denies sanctification all together]

Piper goes on in other chapters to demonstrate the value of God’s Law and how the law involves love rather than just condemnation as many teach. Here are a few more quotes to drive home Piper’s teaching on justification:

One of the most important implications of this conclusion is that the faith that justifies and the faith the sanctifies are not two different kinds of faith. “Sanctify” simply means to make holy, or to transform into Christlikeness…For faith is the act of the soul that connects with grace, and it receives it, and channels it as the power of obedience, and guards it from being nullified through human boasting…(p. 193)

The simple reason why the faith that justifies is also the faith which sanctifies is that both justification and sanctification are the work of sovereign grace. They are not the same kind of work but they are noth works of grace…(p. 194)

My claim is that justifying faith and sanctifying faith are one, and that the heart of this faith is future oriented, promise-trusting confidence in God…(p. 202)

There is not one god that justifies and another god that sanctifies. It is the same God with the same power, but sanctifying grace is the eschatological aspect of this power, where as justifying grace is the declarative and initiating power. Justifying grace is that power which first pulls the victim from the wreckage. Sanctifying grace is when that same power begins to stop the bleeding from the victim and nourishes them into the hospital (Church).

Let us not overreact to Rome, and separate the gospel into fragments that in no way make sense when they are attempted to be put together for the completion of the puzzle. The Reformers did indeed distinguish doctrines for us, since Rome had mixed them all together in the ecclesiastical blender, but they never meant for these doctrines to be loaners, and fragment the gospel and the Church itself!

Click here to purchase Future Grace!

There is an interesting book review of Reformed Baptist’s James White’s version of sola scriptura that can be found here. This book looks like it demonstrates a prime example of the pitfalls one can encounter in the more modern Evangelical movements. The term ”Scripture Alone” has snowballed into this notion that there is no human authority of revealing the gospel to us and that the very text of the Bible is all the authority we need.

This has come to be idolatry today in many Evangelical circles. The Bible can indeed speak to anyone that reads it, but it will not speak to them outside and contrary to what the Church approves of…unless the person has some sort of prophetic gift. Perhaps men like Calvin were modern prophets, in that God revealed to them more than what the current church could swallow. But are all 2 million of today’s Evangelicals on par with Calvin? The idea that we do not need church leaders today as a viable means of God’s revealed Word is just absolutely absurd.

If the Bible should be ”alone” as many say it should be and that man has no part of God’s revealed truth then there can be no teachers within the Church. The Bible can only be read aloud over the pulpit and not expounded upon. Once a man expounds on the Scriptures and reveals dogma he now becomes a part of God’s revelation. This is why Paul the Apostle says that not many should become teachers, and that teachers have stricter judgement. After all they are revealing the very Word of God.

The logical conclusion of today’s Christians that stretch the definition of sola scriptura is that they are all immersed in autonomy, the very antithesis of the gospel. Each one of these people simply cannot give up their individualized authority and so become their own pope. If they do not “agree” with something the Church teaches, rather than researching as to whether or not the Church has taught or teaches that doctrine (looking into all her history) they merely research their personal - usually mental - library, concluding that the teaching is false because they have “never heard” such teachings. But the fact of the matter is that most Christians are not studied enough to make the accusations that they do. Even many seminaries today will not reveal doctrine to a student unless it is in line with that particular denomination, as if all others are heretics!

We must remember that many of the Reformers taught that there was no salvation outside the Church. Even the late Reformers of the Westminster divines taught that there was no ordinary means of salvation outside the Church (WCF XXV:II). The Church has authority to bind and loose, as Christ says in Matthew 16.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is a good doctrine if it is viewed as a polemic for its time and that does indeed have equity for our time, but we must understand the nature of debate in the Medieval times, and how subjects had much more of an internal “combustion.”  Many of the prophetic utterances of the Reformation were new to that age and so had to be packaged tightly so as to not dissolve into the heat of the movement. Now that we have hindsight on the Reformational terms, let us take those terms and use them to grow rather than to wallow in.

T.S. Eliot articulates our call within modern times:

The gospel is both ecclesiastical and eschatological (those are fun words to use:) Many get nervous when guys say that but I am very convinced that it is spiritually unhealthy to hone in on one forensic doctrine as the dividing “truth” of all Christendom, especially when it is not well understood. I think that many of us have been “Romaphobic” when we deny that the different doctrines of the gospel actually fit together to form continuity. We are so very paranoid of being Roman that we throw the baby out with the bath water by boxing every doctrine so separately that one cannot see the relation each of them have with the overall sphere of the kingdom.

For instance, “Justification” (the way modern exegesis views justification; primarily as salvation itself) must include the entire eschaton, somehow. This means that it must be inclusive to the Church. The Reformers taught that there was no salvation outside the Church, but today’s arguments and overemphasizing on the doctrine of Justification is giving room for people to simply believe in that doctrine alone for their salvation, even if they are not part of the Church. Today’s Justification is essentially a word that is very afraid of its peers. It needs to learn how to cooperate with the other “categories” of the faith, since all doctrines are “essentials,” although they pinnacle at the atonement and/or resurrection.

Salvation is by “grace” alone, when referring to the character of God. But once this character transcends to us, we have a whole new realm to explore and debate. What doe this “merciful act” look like once it leaves His thrown? Does it look (or have to be) purely abstract? And if it does, who is the arbitrator of this abstract(ness)? Can it be more organic and natural, more sacramental, more doctrinal, or a combination of all three?

Take for example, Luther, he screams the “three alones” and this later turns into five alones; now we are at about 150 alones with each denomination camping on one of those alones. So it’s the gospel of the end times, the gospel of justification, the gospel of sanctification, the gospel of sacraments, and so on.

What Wright and guys like Leithart are proposing is that the gospel is much more fluid than our modern propositions. It’s inclusive to ecclesiology, eschatology, sacramentology, and the likes. This does not cancel out grace alone but rather explains it in a much broader (and also deeper) fashion. It’s simply just not healthy to narrow the gospel down to one forensic doctrine, camp out on it, dividing from the rest of the Church over it.I don’t think these guys are against systematics, per se, but are against modern systematics. The argument from N.T. Wright is that Paul was not proposing an abstract doctrine but was simply using the language of the day; language that we are welcome to adopt, but certainly not welcome to abuse.

My prescription for someone that is wrestling against the modern trappings of reductionism is the book Against Christianity by Dr. Peter Liethart. This book will loosen you up a bit and allow you to begin broadening your horizons.

Are there any Anglicans out there that would like to join me in laying claim to this country? Why are we not using the authority of the Jamestown settlement to lay this claim? Why be fooled by the debates of the so-called “Founding Fathers?” Were these Founding Fathers the men who first established civilization in America?

Rev. Richard W. Davies describes this brave act of dominion:

In 1603, one of King James I interests was to colonize a new part of the world. The King was encouraged by the Rev. Richard Hakluyt, and priest of the Church of England, as an explorer and geographer. So the King issued letter patent to English businessmen to form a business venture called the Virginia Company (name for Elizabeth I, the “virgin queen.”) and to found a settlement and an English parish in the new world of America. The King named Hakluyt as the rector, and he named an English priest, Robert Hunt, to be his vicar and chaplain to the Virginia Company…

On April 19, 1607, the expedition touched American land and they erected a cross, prayed at a point they called Cape Henry. After exploring an river the named for King James, they selected a peninsula 45 miles inland and on May 13, 1607, they named it Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement, and initial Anglican congregation, in the new world.

If the Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists would simply come home to the Anglican church, all 2 billion or so of us, in bodycount alone, would shake the current political situations to submission almost immediately! This may sound overzealous, as if the Baptist especially would just join up with even the most conservative Anglicans. Nonetheless, this should be our talk track regarding the well-being of our country as well as the unity of the Church. God has given us this country to cherish, cultivate and esteem as a gift from Him. The Puritans claimed America as their promise land, and went as far as deeming the Indians as Canaanites due to their barbaric nature.

If only every Anglican would just say something to the effect of America being an Anglican country, at their workplace, only once or twice, millions around the country would begin to think. If you are one that believes in this notion of “separation of church and state,” then what religion do you recommend this country be governed by? Nothingness? There is no such religion. As I implied in my last post, the Christian leadership of this country is quickly embracing Unitarianism, a heresy that looks much like Arianism. Is this the religion that you think should run the country? Remember, we will be judged for our actions. If we do not at least act within our hearts to desire that sanctification apply not only on the couch while clicking the remote, but within the culture at large, then we will be held accountable the lawlessness that is leading our nation.

In 1788, shortly after the Rebels gained their autonomy, the Presbyterian synod of Philadelphia and New York met to alter the Westminster Confession of Faith. This confession was originally intended to unite the Church of England (Anglicans) with their disgruntled Puritans. The confession obviously did not work in this way, but rather it was used as a confessional standard for the Puritans, and what is now known as the Presbyterian church.

The alteration of 1788 sought to rid the Church of all relationship with the state, including the traditional protection that the state was to give the Church. This fit well with the new American declaration, which claimed “freedom of religion,” amongst other liberties. Below you will see the sections that have been taken out, as well as a small section from the Larger Catechism.

Chapter XXIII

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:(e) yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be. preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.(f) For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.(g)(e) II Chron. 26:18 with Matt. 18:17 and Matt. 16:19; I Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4:11, 12; I Cor. 4:1, 2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.
(f) Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5, 6, 12; I Kings 18:4; I Chron. 13:1 to 9; II Kings 23:1 to 26; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13.
(g) II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29 and 30; Matt. 2:4, 5.

Chapter XXXI

II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion;(b) so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.(c)(b) Isa. 49:23; I Tim. 2:1, 2; II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29, 30 chaps.; Matt. 2:4, 5; Prov. 11:14.
(c) Acts 15:2, 4, 22, 23, 25.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion… [this is the part of the LC that was taken out. Can you believe it?]

The Result of This Alteration

This deserves an entire book, based on an Anglican and Loyalist perspective! Please allow me to briefly touch on it, though. First, for those of us that do not believe in neutrality, that as Cornelius Van Til said, there is only “theonomy or autonomy,” we must conclude that a nation with no moral or spiritual standard/compase cannot last long (Mathew 12:25). A community of people must have a standard. And indeed, today’s America does; she does have a religion, it is called Liberalism: the Arian (anti-Trinitarian) moral relativistic and spiritually plural standard that can be found in - to use as an example of the many - the Unitarian Church. So is this our choice? We would rather our nation be Unitarian than Orthodox? Remember, we will be judged by ever idle word we say (Matthew 12:26). And since God knows our heart we cannot escape this by simply not “voicing” our beliefs.

Besides the cultural chaos that the rebel statesmen and clergymen have ignited, there is also a spiritual chaos that we are now dealing with. Because we can no longer, in right standing with the Church and Sate, publicly and dogmatically declare a religion to be false, we must now become the “Church of Didactics.”

Forced into Didactic and Rhetoric

Being a Church of didactic and rhetoric is very difficult. You cannot say with much authority that, say for instance, a church that does not practice communion and that teaches all sorts of heresy, is a false church. You cannot even say that its worship is wrong. Each church is an authority unto itself and is not bound to any of the traditional laws we once held to.

To be a didactic church means that we must imply and insinuate rather than rebuke and exhort (2 Timothy 4:2) that the other is in error. For instance, today I received a door-hanger that said, “is your view of church a community of people that is boring, that demands money, and is intolerant to modern dress?” Give me a break! This is about the third church I have seen, in my zip code alone, in the past month, that has distributed one of these fliers. This pitch is the feminist way of saying “we believe that those churches that sing hymns and Psalms are not edifying her people; that churches who pass a tithe are greedy, and that churches that teach ethics are legalists.”

We are now being forced to become professional insinuates! It is no longer tolerable for a church to say what she means (Matthew 5:27; 2 Corinthians 1:17,18). She must insinuate and manipulate the public into believing their church is orthodox. Notice that these churches that post this garbage on their web sites and fliers are not rebuked but rather they are deemed “Evangelicals.” Well, guess what, they are not Evangelicals, by original definition. Evangelicals, when they were originally organized, were creedal, liturgical, and in many ways Calvinistic.

Because of the new American and Presbyterian declarations we can no longer turn heretics over to be dealt with properly. We cannot even say they are in sin. There is no standard of biblical interpretation. There is the Bible, but no one can say what the Bible means (anti-ecclesiastical independents).

New Wave of Evangelism

The so-called Evangelicals are drawing millions of unbelievers into their fold, knowing that these unbelievers will not give the traditional church the time of the day. They are giving in to the modern ethics of our culture for the sake of gaining a so-called convert. This is making it very difficult for traditional churches to evangelize the lost.

Yesterday, I received a door-hanger that stated a particular church was giving away X-boxes to new coming people. Do you think Paul would have attempted this bait and switch tactic? I think it would be one thing if the “X-boxer” was expecting a traditional and reverent church, but they are not. The advertisement clearly portrays the church as an X-box style of church - videos, pop music, skits…the works.

Now, the traditional church is forced not to evangelize the streets, but to evangelize the Evangelical church. The unbeliever must first see how RIDICULOUS the Evangelical church is before he can submit to the historical Church. I suspect that this type of evangelism will increase in the near future, and the so-called Evangelicals will be in crisis.