What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.
Thus the highest authority is given to Holy Scripture and then those things that may be deduced from it by reason. Tradition (understood as synonymous with Hooker’s “voice of the Church”) is given only a secondary authority and in this it is not considered to be an infallible one.
The objection might be raised at this point that an authority without infallibility is useless. However, this is certainly not the case in any other matter of human understanding so one wonders why theology must attain standards not demanded elsewhere. No other realm of authority in human understanding insists on infallibility. Neither Newton nor Einstein was infallible on matters of physics but this was not a requirement to judge the body of their work worthy of respect.
Indeed, certain questions of theology may never be answered this side of eternity but we can use that passed down to us both as a reliable guide – though not an infallible one – to grasp both a likely answer to questions that are not clearly covered in Holy Scripture and as a guide to the most reliable interpretation of Divine writ.
A related (though certainly not identical) view is presented by the Eastern Orthodox Churches in their veneration of Mary. Many things concerning the Holy Virgin are believed by the Orthodox with all their hearts as true but have never been raised to the level of dogma. The dogmas concerning Mary are actually few and most of these reflect Christological concerns. However, there are other commonly held beliefs concerning Mary that are given Church tradition through the prayers and hymns of the Divine Liturgy and the writings of the Eastern Fathers that are part of their understanding of the Faith though not raised to the dogmatic level.
Thus the point I wish to emphasize is that something may be held as true and not likely subject to revision without necessarily being considered infallible. In any field of study, existing views are subject to being challenged but the new concept must explain the fruitful results of that it would replace. For example, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity reduces to Newton’s Laws in most but the extreme circumstances and works in those circumstances where Newton’s Laws failed. Hence, it explained Newton’s success until those circumstances were encountered.
Yet we have even more to assure ourselves of the wisdom of the Church than the experience and faith of the great saints of two millennia. We have Christ’s promise that the Church can never be overcome by darkness and His assurance that the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth. Now He never stated that the road to the truth would always be easy or that the recognition of the Spirit’s leading would be immediate, but that in the fullness of time the Church would be led – sometimes kicking and screaming – to all truth. It is thus clear the teaching of the historic Church safeguards the truths of the faith in her exegesis of Holy Scripture and her witness through this age.
Now the objection might be raised that there is no absolute assurance that the Church’s understanding at this time is true. Perhaps this is the case but given the choice between the greatest minds and most devout souls in the legacy of the Church against the word of a modern revisionist who claims to understand what none before could grasp, siding with the former seems a far more prudent path. This is not to say that such determinations are without possibility of reform. Past giants of the faith may through no fault of their own have erred in their judgment. But as their age was closer to the Apostles’ own and their understanding of the Faith is steeped in the world from which the Church first arose, so their insights are much to be favored.
Those who seek to revise long held beliefs must overcome hurdles before them that all but make their desired changes impossible. The first hurdle is their insistence that private judgment – no matter how well intentioned – is to overrule the clear teaching of Christendom held as far back as one can ascertain with any degree of certainty.
Usually such assertions are born not out of insights but of ignorance and parochialism. The ignorance is often born of their refusal to place importance in the accumulated wisdom of the Church. Rather than consider centuries of insights, they choose to make their judgment based upon their own short reflections on matters that the Church has wrestled with for centuries. The parochialism is born out of human pride that cannot see any time or place more at the center of God’s plan than their own. Thus they often decide in favor of beliefs that turn central beliefs on its head as it lends credence to their belief in their own intelligence and uniqueness.
It is a peculiarity of our time that we find such comfort in the iconoclastic. We celebrate all manner of novelty in the name of “progress” while derisively labeling any appeal to tradition as “dead orthodoxy.” Certainly there have been past reformers who sought to change the Church but it was always – regardless of how well-founded their execution – by appealing to an earlier time. The Protestant Reformers were no less knowledgeable of the Church Fathers as their Catholic opponents and did seek to place their reforms within the Great Tradition of the Church. The denial of continuity we see now is of an entirely different character and seeks to create a new church as an adversary to the one founded by our Lord. Such desires echo the deception of the serpent that we can be as God.
If the revisionists’ first hurdle is their overconfidence in their own abilities, then their second is their lack of confidence in Christ. As mentioned above, Jesus vowed the gates of hell would never prevail and the Church would be led to all truth but their vanity says, “No – the Church has fallen into darkness and the Holy Spirit has neglected his duties until God has raised me to set things right.” In the Church’s early centuries this was the claim of the Gnostics, the Montanists, and other groups both heretical and pseudo-Christian. In medieval times the Bogomils and the Cathari would advance such claims. There were similar leanings in the more radical elements of the Protestant Reformation and again in the heretical groups arising from the ashes of the Millerite fantasy. And today we see this spirit of rebellion against our inherited tradition throughout the Church.
This rebellion is not just the dissent of leftists who seek to throw off all remnants of Christian morality and order but also the so-called “conservatives” whose conservation extends only to their self-proclaimed right to decide all matters of theology for themselves. Overlooking their attitude merely differentiates them from the leftists in their political affiliations and occasions of sin, they strongly assert an adherence to “old-time religion” while their beliefs are more reflective of American values than Christian ones.
Now one may rightly ask how it would be possible for any reform to take place. For this we take a look at how it has in fact been reformed in the past. A problem that first arises might initially elicit different solutions until the matter is discussed, debated, and, most importantly, prayed over. Over time we may trust that the Holy Spirit will raise up those who will put forth an orthodox solution to the dilemma. The faithful will recognize this since it will be rooted in both the Holy Scripture and the tradition of the Church but now applied in a new area. As this process goes forth, there will undoubtedly be those who resist the reform – not always from malice but often from caution – and it may take years for the correct view to be recognized. Naturally, the more widely held and the more established the more established within the Church’s tradition a view may be, the more powerful and overwhelming the evidence in favor of an alternative must be in order to warrant any reform. But this is as it should be if we are to claim to worship a God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
We have seen such changes in the past. The belief in triune nature of God has been with us in a nascent form from the Apostolic age but the understanding of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity that was formulated at Nicea and Constantinople was the result of centuries of theological reflection upon the Holy Scriptures aided by the living tradition of the Church. This development was necessitated by heretical views promoted during the founding centuries of the Church.
We can also see how reform works in the development of eschatology. There was much debate over the exact meaning of the millennium that often motivated some to reject the Book of Revelation as canonical. Early premillennial beliefs developed from the popularity of certain apocryphal writings rejected by the Church that linked the millennium to both an early return of Christ and the placing of hell buried within the earth. Those who saw hell as a spiritual rather than overtly physical torment rejected this view and saw the millennium as a spiritual kingdom age of the Church. As the centuries wore on, the obvious weakness of the premillennial view became apparent and was rejected. However, many of those who held the erroneous view were still seen as great saints given they did not have the benefit of such hindsight.
Finally, I turn to the matter of sola scriptura as itself a doctrine. I would assert that it functions less as doctrine so much as metadoctrine. That is, it serves as a methodological principle from whence we may decide the relative strength of received beliefs. It states that only those doctrines proven from Holy Scripture are to be understood as absolutely infallible. Many other things may be believed as true with almost assured confidence but it rests upon a lesser authority than that derived from Holy Scripture.
This rejects both assertions by Catholic apologists that sola scriptura must be proven from Holy Scripture to avoid circularity and the assertion by Protestant apologists that it in fact can so be proven. The former assertion confuses deductions proved within a theory from the intuitive principles that give rise to its postulates while the latter is a matter of poor analysis wherein preconceived notions are read into passages that do not address the issue.
What is meant by the term “catholic” and “universal” church? To some in our day the term is used for describing any church that is a true church according to basic Christian standards, regardless of authority and the posture they have to the rest of the Church and her history. But if we look at the history of the Church we find that these terms are used exclusively to describe non-schismatic churches.
The Christian faith is founded in the Creeds in that the Creeds protect the very nature of Christ and His Church. Formed out of the early Church and Councils, the Creeds were created to help ward off various heresies that were common in that day.
The heresies that the Creeds (Nicene, Apostle’s and Athanasius) were created to protect us from are still prevalent in our day! The Creeds set forth vital dogmas of the faith that if compromised by any people, determines them to be a sect or all together heretical. The Creeds include the dogma of God as our Creator, The Trinity, the Virgin birth, the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ, the resurrection of believers and the return of Christ for his Church. Each of these dogmatic pronouncements within the Creeds have protected us from the modern heresies such as liberalism and cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.
There is a section in the Nicene Creed that also distinguishes modern heterodox movements of today that are more sectarian than they are heretical:
“And I believe in one Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins…”
The most obvious breach, in this vital part of the Creed, found in today’s baptistic (Evangelical, Baptist, Charismatic, Non-denominational, etc.) churches is the fact that the Creed says “one Baptism.” Most baptistic churches, including the modern movements such as Calvary Chapel and even the more reformed such as Sovereign Grace, reject the baptisms of the traditional Churches, such as the Roman, Lutheran, Anglican, and Presbyterian churches. This rejection puts these baptistic churches at odds with the Creed.
A more serious breach in the Creeds has to do with what we consider “catholic.” What was the understanding of the “Catholic and Apostolic Church” at the time the Creeds were constructed? You will find below a number of bishops from the early church (pre and post Nicene) describing what is meant by the term Catholic. There is more than what, say, Augustine wraps up in the term, that can be found in the Athanasius Creed, as well as other patristic writings. This does not mean that each bishop is giving their personal definition of the term, but rather it means that there is much to be said about the term. It is a term that is very complex.
Augustine of Hippo
“We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another” (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).
Ignatius of Antioch
“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chap 8 [A.D. 110])
St. Irenaeus
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
A church does not adhere to the Creeds if they are not under apostolic succession, which is clearly proven in just how the term “catholic and apostolic” Church is patristically defined. “Apostolic” never meant to refer to those that have similar doctrines as the Apostles, even the doctrine of the Trinity; rather, the term Apostolic was used in patristic times when referring to proper apostolic succession of the episcopate. Although, the Church must have the episcopal doctrines to have true apostolic succession. A liberal church does not have the episcopal doctrines. Although they may have apostolic succession, in the existential sense, they are in sin because they do not have apostolic succession in the doctrinal sense (episcopal doctrines). They will eventually dissolve and will be left with nothing but empty succession. There are others that have both doctrinal and existential succession - those that have been wounded by the liberals will one day join with these orthodox churches. This is already happening today! There are many orthodox ecumenical dialogs taking place to create a future home that can house all those that are faithful to Christ and the Creeds his Spirit ordained. Believe it…or not!
The Roman Catholic Church declares (The Documents of Vatican II, ed. waiter M. Abbott [New York: Herden and Herden, 1966] p. 116. Dei Verbum, 8.):
“It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scriptures and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”
Compare the statement above with the statement below by one of the leading Protestant authorities, Pastor James White:
“The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating.”
I would have to humbly say that Rome’s definition is much more logical. White’s definition amounts to a near idolatry of the written text, as if the text speaks audibly. One will say that it does indeed speak audibly “through the Spirit.” If this is the case, then why have pastors and teachers? Why not just let the Spirit do all the teaching? through the Bible? The statement that the authority of the Scripture is not dependent on the Church is absolutely ridiculous.
True Sola Scriptura is the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek and Aramaic New Testament. Try reading and digesting that. That is the Bible without the Church (actually the Bible without the Church is just an empty set of pages, but this is another argument)! You see, we could not even begin to understand the Bible without the help of the Church. Minds of the Church must come together to determine just what each passage says and means, which laws are to be obeyed and which are to be dismissed, which people of the Bible were godly and which were not, etc.
The difference between Catholic revelation and Protestant revelation is that Catholic revelation involves the minds of the leadership, which has been ordained by God and set forth in Scripture; and Protestant revelation involves the minds of each individual as each sees fit (where is this in the Bible?), which is why there are so many Protestant denominations that refuse to return to their Mother. The Protestant version is nothing but moral relativism, which is what this country is plagued with today - every man seeing what is right in his own eyes. Nothing can even be deemed as absolute truth since every man has his own personal shot at interpretation. This is why you will find the Obama types of Christians dialoguing with liberals and heretics: they cannot turn any interpretation down. They neither have the authority nor the faith to do so, and as James says, they succumb to every wind of doctrine - in hopes of a revival that will never come.
“Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven…”
Christ, in the Gospels, as well as Paul, in Galatians, both use royal language to describe salvation. They were not creating a system to be saved, but rather they are pointing to the kingdom of Christ. Christ’s death and resurrection is the pinnacle of our salvation; and it is from this that the kingdom is established. It is through this kingdom that we are saved. What does this kingdom look like? It looks like what Christ calls “the Church.”
Christ said that the enemy would never overcome His established eternal people, the Church (Matthew 16:18). Isaiah 9 speaks of God’s eternal people as His kingdom when he says, “Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever…” The kingdom of God is comprised of God’s people and the organization of them to rule the earth through spiritual dominion. The establishment of the clergy is the ‘existential’ foundation of this “church militant,” and the call to preach the Gospel and “make disciples of all nations” is the commission.
In Ephesians 4: 10-13 we see that St. Paul the Apostle declares that a primary reason for the establishment of the clergy is for the eventual unity of the Church. In verses 12 and 13 he says that the ministry is given for the “equipping of the saints…till we all come to the unity of the faith…” The Gospel kingdom of Christ will be victorious on earth and Christ’s desire for unity (John 17:21) will one day begin to take its final form. This is the kingdom!
In Matthew 13 we see the parable of the Wheat and the Tares. This shows how Christ’s kingdom (the Church being the core of this kingdom) consists of both the true believers and false believers (wheat and tares). The passage continues to explain that the kingdom will one day reach its fullest potential and the tares will be brought out and burned, thus entering a new age in the heavenly Jerusalem.
The task and mission of the Church is to bring this unity to fruition; to draw God’s people into His fold for eternity. But this is not only done through the ministers of the Church, it is done through the entire body of Christ ministering through their ethics: healing the sick, feeding the poor, raising godly families, taking care of the orphans, etc. This is the law of God in action, convicting the nonbelievers of their bad (sinful) ethics, pouring shame and conviction on them just as the Proverbs and St. Paul speak of (Romans 12:20). The kingdom of God is a tangible reality in which we find the Church in its core, ruled by the spiritual forces of the Trinity, enabling good works for the expansion of Christ’s rule.
Here is a new website that demonstrates our need to recover the Holy Lands. This is something that much of Christendom - due to the Dispensationalists - has failed to realize: that the Holy Lands are indeed “holy,” and that that land is our land. All throughout the Old Testament we can see the prophecies of how God has promised his people this rich land, from the “everlasting covenant” of David. We can also see in the book of Romans, Chapter 11, that “Israel” will be saved.
Pre-reformation saints fought and died for the preservation of the Holy Lands. But we are now giving it up to Islam. This is something that our kinsmen will reap! Our children or grandchildren (etc.) will one day be compelled to take this promise land back. Christians will begin to migrate back to the land, and many could indeed be martyred. But martyrdom is not always necessary for victory. Many times, martyrdom has simply been the result of previous, disobedient generations. If we begin to realize that this land is holy then perhaps it will be easier to finally aquire.
The recapturing of Jerusalem will first begin with a proper theology of the eschaton and its relation to the Gospel. A “postmillenial” hermeneutic is proper to understand this. With this hermanuetic, one can begin to understand the entirety of the Bible, rather than bits and pieces. One can then begin to understand that there is an overarching plan for God’s people that first began in the Garden and will then end in a “garden;” a garden that is inclusive to what God first started with.
There is a new law attempting to be passed in California, USA, that outlaws the spanking of children. One MSN writer says that if we cannot hit our spouse then why should we be able to spank our children? There is a huge difference between hitting and spanking. Hitting is done out of anger and spanking is done out of love. Spanking is a controlled discipline that does not involve the vulgar action that hitting does. Hitting is for combat. Spanking is for child discipline.
Children need spankings, as the Scriptures say they do (Prov. 23:13,14), because foolishness is bound up inside their hearts (Prov. 22:15). Children need this type of discipline because it humbles them at a young age to respect the divine authority of the parent.
Spanking introduces a child to immediate pain, in turn humbling them for submission - granted the spanking is done in love. If done out of anger and rage, then the child will despise the parent.
1. Because Anglo-Catholics are not uniting (communing with and organizing with) modern liberals that ordain women and receive ordained women priests (see Common Cause) or with ”Anglicans” that believe the bishop is only a convenience. Anglo-Catholicism knows who she is and hopes in orthodox unity rather than compromised and placated unity.
2. Because I believe in the consecrated Eucharist and its need to be reserved.
3.Because I do not believe in separating ministerial training from the Church. The pastors and teachers of the local church are paid and called by the local church/diocese to teach and train people (Ephesians 4). If the church cannot do its job then it ceases to be an obedient church. Most non-Anglo-Catholic churches require that a man go to a modern Evangelical seminary that is completely separated from the church.
4. Because I believe Rome is the “mother church” and that it is not sin to leave Protestantism to join them or the East.
5.Because Anglo-Catholic worship is the closest to Early church worship and does not allow for syncretism and modern Prayer-Book-swapping.
6. Because Anglo-Catholicism is not afraid of the theology of the Church’s history. We live not the “covenantal” life (Christ’s covenant cannot be remade over and over), but live a sacramental life. This allows us to emphasis Baptism, The Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance, Healing the Sick, Holy Orders, and Marriage. Evangelicals have a hard time emphasizing these things and so these doctrines/duties are then taken captive by the liberals and modernists. Catholic theology helps retain these very important duties that were first initiated by Christ. This is evangelism as Christ described it.
7. Because Rome is only one Jurisdiction out of three. The Celts were worshiping back into the second century and eventually became organized as Anglicans in the sixth century.
8.Because Anglo-Catholicism is the founding religion of America, and I am an American.
England is forcasting bleak days for her Church. It seems that one of the hindrances of growth for the Church of England is the fact that the Muslims implement an actual heritage within their belief, whereas Christianity’s heritage is now so shallow that it is laughable. David Voas, a professor of population studies at the Institute for Social Change at the University of Manchester, said:
“The difficulty is in retaining the children who have churchgoing parents. So long as churchgoing is something that gets you laughed at, so long as there is a social stigma attached to being a churchgoing young person, it will be difficult to reverse the trend.” He said that young Muslims operated in a different environment. “Being religious is a way that you show you are different, that you are proud of your heritage. One of the ways young Muslims assert their identity is by being more observant than their parents.“
In order to grow the kingdom to the extent of finally overcoming Islam, it is clear that we must begin to emphasis the visible Church and her call to take dominion over all spiritual realms, as the book of Genesis clearly commands. Enough with the Gnostic notions of piety and doctrinal prestige! We need the faith of our fathers that once proclaimed a realistic “religion.” Here is an example of our current downward spiral within the realm of spiritual dominion and religion as well our leanings toward Evangelicalism (site):
“People who don’t go to church may be turned off by a recent trend toward more utilitarian church buildings. By a nearly 2-to-1 ratio over any other option, unchurched Americans prefer churches that look more like a medieval cathedral than what most think of as a more contemporary church building.”
The first article I quoted moves on to state that Evangelicalism is absorbing much of the Church growth. This explains much of the loss of cultural identity within England (America, likewise). Christians that adhere to the more Evangelical worldview cannot be dignified in the culture, because they simply do not have one. To them, the Christian faith is about the invisible but not the visible, which in turn brings us to a Gnostic faith that is not true to the Lord’s Prayer of having God’s “kingdom come… on earth as it is in heaven.” God wills for us to take action in every area of our faith and life. There is no neutrality! There is no aspect of life that is off limits to God’s will; be it liturgy, architecture, music, art, or overall vocation.
To build a Christian heritage, and pass this heritage down to children that can be dignified through it, means embracing a faith that actually makes itself known here on earth. The early Church helps us to understand just what this looks like, and the medieval Church helps us understand what has developed from the early Church. But the modern Church is no longer drinking from this well, and insists on creating new traditions of multiculturalism and relativism. No longer is the Anglo-Catholic culture meaningful to today’s Christian; the very tradition that founded America itself.
This reluctance to administrate the Anglican culture may very well be due to the fear of it being rejected by more third-world types of culture. But countries such as Africa and Mexico are completely eager to embrace the Anglican culture. Neutral Evangelicalism seeks to be the answer to this pre-fabricated fear of man! But not only is Evangelicalism fighting its own arson, but the deterrent they are using is actually a fuel - it is not nearly as neutral as they think! Their culture is not neutral but rather it is modern, embracing nearly every post-Christendom culture that they possible can in order to supposedly be “all things to all people.” When St. Paul made this statement, he was not referring to our faith at large, but rather his apologetic (theological tactics to persuade) as well as his overall demeanor.
O Gracious Father, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic Church; that thou wouldest be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of him who died and rose again, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen
Rome is now pressing the Anglican Church to “make a decision.” It seems that they are saying that we can no longer serve two masters:
“Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.”
This should be an interesting conference! I would love to hear back from anyone that attends.