It’s great to see many of the conservative bodies breaking away from ECUSA to find another Bishop to align under. But my question is: What is so wrong with the Continuing Anglican movement that these break-offs cannot seem to submit to a Continuing Bishop? Wasn’t it the continuing Anglicans that first recognized the error of the ECUSA church, back in the 60s and even as far back (concerning the REC) as the late 1800s? The Continuing churches such as the REC, APA, ACA, etc., already have bishops with apostolic succession, that are more than capable of being an Archbishop of a unified Anglican church in America.
It appears that we are beginning to align with Bishop Akinola, of Africa, which is great news. But what does this convey to others about the Continuing movement, as well as America as the Christian country that it was supposedly destined to be? Will the Continuing churches eventually dissolve and become absorbed by the Third World movement? And, will America itself be swallowed up by one of the Third World countries after we align with a Third World Bishop? Do not underestimate the influence of the Church!
God may indeed use one of the more liberal, future presidents like Clinton or McCain to continue to merge us with other countries through trade and military, and maybe even immigration. Meanwhile, we are aligning ourselves with a Bishop in another country.
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the direction we are headed is in some way disastrous. I’m just attempting to sort the confusion out. If the Continuing Anglican church needs a Bishop outside America, then that’s what she needs. And if America needs to be absorbed by another country to remain conservative, then that is what she needs. But if we are to remain an independent country, we will eventually need a Bishop that resides in our country. Otherwise, we will be looking at some of the same problems that the Anglican settlers had in the 1700s with the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
There is no neutrality within the spiritual realm, and this includes the use of clerical attire and liturgical vestments. If one does not choose to wear, say, an alb, to minister in, why does he choose a suit or a polo shirt? A modern pastor may say that he is attempting to “become all things to all people,” as if St. Paul used that statement for a license of some sort. And where does this philosophy end? If the majority of the culture is, for instance, wearing bathing suits, does this mean that the pastor should do the same? Or is there an actual moral standard to be met? If there is, then what should this standard be? Has the all-things-to-all-people concept really done the Church much good? Is it effective for creating a conscience within society? Does the more modern concept demonstrate modesty and sobriety?
I am “high church” in my choosing of vestments and I currently wear what my current priest requires me to wear, which is the white alb, as a postulant. As an ordained Anglican, my priest uses a black cassock with a surplice. I understand that the black cassock is traditional to the Church of England, but I prefer the alb with either a stole or a chasuble, depending on the Eucharistic duties, of course. Early writings of the fathers show that the priests were required to wear all white, signifying the purity of Christ. The white alb also seems to be more accepted by today’s culture - not that that is the standard, but it is always nice when we can be traditional and accepted! The alb is a little sleeker than the cassock - with the thin white surplice, and the alb, to me, seems to make a bolder statement.
Jesus Wore Clerical Attire
If it is such a noble thing for a pastor to compromise his standard of dress to appease the modern culture, then one has to wonder why Christ did not do such a thing.
Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” - John 1:38
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” - Mark 10:17
The question that arises from these passages is just how the people knew that Jesus was a Rabbi. It can safely be assumed that they knew he was a Rabbi due to his rabbinical attire!
The following verses show that people did not immediately recognize Jesus as a Rabbi, but this was due to his need to go to the feast “in secret.”
However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews. Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the Temple courts and begin to teach. The Jews were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learning without having studied?” - John 7:10-15
Clerical attire, such as the collar, sets a man apart for his service, and keeps him accountable to the public. One of the very problems with the Church today is that they refuse to take dominion - as commanded by God - of the culture. When a priest or deacon wears his collar in public he makes a statement to the public that the Church is alive and well, and the Church is available for their needs. Not wearing clerical attire, for a pastor, is like not wearing a uniform for a police officer. No one can reach out for help if they do not know whom to reach out to.
The clerical collar, as well as the liturgical vestments, prevent the people from judging the pastor according to his style; whether or not he is fashionable or “cool.” Clerical attire can also help set a conservative tone within the church. However the pastor dresses, the congregants will dress a step or two below. For example, if the pastor wears jeans and a Hawaiian shirt, the congregants will likely wear shorts and flip-flops. Clerical attire sets standards, and sinful man needs standards to be set, especially from the clergy.
Clerical attire is apostolic. The apostles dressed in robes. This is an important standard to follow, not because robes are holy in and of themselves, but it is important because the apostolic standard, which was in place for hundreds of years, prevents the Church from fully embracing modernity, which is a slippery slope to liberalism and other New Age heresies. Clerical attire can help prevent apostasy.
I will conclude this discussion by mentioning the fact that the future of the Church, according to the Bible, involves the wearing of robes, the attire we use to anticipate this glorious state of the Church:
Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads. - Revelation 4:4 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed. - Revelation 6:11 [ A Multitude from the Great Tribulation ] After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands…” - Revelation 7:9Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?” - Revelation 7:13And I said to him, “Sir, you know.” So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. - Revelation 7:14
He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. - Revelation 19:13
And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. - Revelation 19:16
Something that I have noticed within many Protestant circles is that theological discussion - especially in the “Bible only” camps - can sometimes actually be an hindrance for the Christian’s sanctification. Yes, that’s right! What happens is that the groups of Christians thrive on reinventing the wheel, becoming preoccupied with “wrestling with the Scriptures,” and such, rather than living and believing the Scriptures. It becomes a sort of legalism, where one feels sanctified because they are “in the Word.” I hate to say this, but you are not in the Word just because you are in a wrestling match with the Bible. The Word is the logos, the living being of Christ that involves the spiritual formation of souls. The Word is not God reduced to the English or even Greek and Hebrew vocabulary. The Word of God is His revelatory will for mankind found within the Scriptures, but as they illuminate themselves through the authority of His Church, not as they illuminate themselves through Nelson Printing Press, or any other schmo that takes his own authority to become the standard-bearer.
The Word of God is what the Bible is saying and doing, not just what the Bible said or once said. Some theology-buffs may now be howling outside their windows through the authority of what their seminary teacher taught them about hermeneutics, so please allow me to qualify: Certainly there is a place for what is called The Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic, but what happens is that this form of studying the Bible is often not properly embraced, even by seminarians, and one suddenly becomes a theologian overnight from proof-texting verses; then goes to his friends and spreads this germ, and born is a Bible study.
This sounds like your typical overzealous Baptist/Evangelical, right? Yes, but it is within the higher churches, also, just on a more sophisticated level. What happens here is that rather than wrestling with Bible verses, they wrestle with theological positions that have not yet blossomed. They create false dichotomies of argumentation by splitting a traditional doctrine in two and then pitching them against each other. One perfect example of this would be the “Law and Gospel” debate; as if the Gospel does not include Law and the Law does not include Gospel. Or how about this one: The Five Points of Calvinism; not that the Five Points are heretical, but the five points cannot be understood very easily outside the context of many other biblical concepts; and after one understands these concepts, the Five Points begin to look like unreasonable dichotomies. Yes, that is right. When something so powerful like the Gospel is reduced to five propositions, mass friction is bound to happen, resulting in explosion.
If you are looking for dogma, as you should be, then look no further than the ancient creeds, as well as the catechism and Canons of the Church, which will lead you to all sorts of ethical and soteriological standards, including standards of worship. But, if you are not looking for dogma, and you simply want to feel like a theologian, then there is always a divisive debate-circle or modern/independent church, just waiting to suck you in.
I love the way St. Paul describes Christians as “bondservants.” Other translations besides the NKJ use the word slave, but bondservant seems much more appropriate since it is not associated with modern slavery. To be a bondservant of Christ means that we are indeed bound to our servant-hood. We are not slaves in the modern sense of not having freedom, but we are slaves in the spiritual sense of having freedom yet under the certain care and tutelage of Christ.
This article, from Alastair Roberts, is absolutely outstanding. In the article, Roberts describes how the Bible is not so much a book as it is a continuing revelation from God; that the Bible is meant to be read aloud in the Church and experienced in this way, rather than just picking up whenever convenient and reading it within only your personal sphere. The title of his article is “HOW GUTENBURG TOOK THE BIBLE FROM US.” That statement is such a sharp perspective of just what we have come to as Christ’s Church. Technology has certainly gotten the best of us! Maybe he will write a post on how TV, Radio, and Internet has taken the Church. If we have all these things what then could we possibly need the church for?
If you are not a liturgical Christian who is in submission to a historical lectionary, I would like to urge you to run to the nearest continuing Anglican (or other) liturgical church and give yourself to its liturgy. At this point in your life, you have no idea what you are missing out on. If you cherish the Word of God and love to be guided by it, then go and do this! Hear the Word of God in its fullest context, where you are forced to sit (and stand, kneel and bow, for that matter) and give yourself entirely to the Word in an ancient and humble atmosphere of reverence and awe.
Below, you will find the main points of Alastair’s article.
While Matthew’s account of Jesus’ words at Caesarea Philippi (discussed earlier) is the most commonly cited passage by Catholic apologists to defend the institution of the papacy, the passage concerning the “Council of Jerusalem” in Acts is most frequently cited to point to the exercise of papal authority. The setting was the controversy over St. Paul’s mission to the gentiles - particularly his insistence that they need not become Jews to follow Christ. This was anathema to some among the Jewish followers of Jesus and the resulting friction between the two factions necessitated a meeting among the leaders of the fledgling Church.
Read the rest of this entry »
Anglican theology centers around church unity. Holding to the via media (both pre-reformation as well as post-reformation tradition), Anglicanism seeks to be a part of the entirety of God’s plan unfolding. Anglicanism fragments very slowly; much slower than any substantial Protestant movement. It took much longer for the liberals to break the walls of the Anglican church than the other movements within Christendom. This is an example of the stability that the Anglican faith offers. Many of us believe that the unity that God speaks of in John 17:11 and Ephesians 4:13; 5:27, will involve, at the very least, the format of the Anglican movement: ancient faith coupled with future faith!
From my experience and research within Anglicanism, I have found that the oldest and seemingly most stable Continuing Anglican movement, is the Reformed Episcopal Church. With that said (and I respect any disagreements on that statement), I would like to present the REC’s format for adopting other churches outside of the Anglican faith. It is not a model that requires a seeker group of people to just drop everything and cause chaos within their current congregation, but it is a model of courtship, one that involves discipleship and charity! This link will take you to the REC document that describes this process.
The term ‘ecclesiology’ refers to the biblical theology and command for us to unite the Church under apostolic tradition! What does this look like in terms of church government and polity in our modern era? There has been one primary form of government and polity throughout the age of the Church called the “Episcopacy.” This paper seeks to establish the very thought of the Episcopacy and how it is to naturally/spiritually flow from the authority of the Scriptures and the Apostles, in contrast to one of the 16th century movements that thought it necessary to begin an entirely new form of Church polity.
In this article, Albert Mcllhenny from christianbookreviews.net gives us an excellent overview of the current situation within global Anglicanism. Some may ask why it is even necessary to track such things, but we must take into account the fact that Anglicanism is the mother of the American church as well as the sister of the Eastern and Roman churches. The Anglican church has been around for centuries and has given our country will and meaning. The tradition will always live, whether it’s given to a greater movement or regained as a leading example of Christendom.
_____________________
The current difficulties that the Anglican Communion is facing over the revisionist agenda promoted by the Episcopal Church - its member church in the United States - and others in the West are pushing worldwide Anglicanism into a time of crisis. It is no exaggeration to say that a decade from now the ecclesial structure of Anglicanism will be remarkably different from its current state. The question that cannot be answered at this point is whether the Anglican Way can be survive the consequences of the upheaval.
Read the rest of this entry »
Although there are certainly valid reasons for Christians to be upset with the ‘established church,’ I think it is fair to say that the fragmentation of Christendom is well-rooted in the arrogance of unsubmissive Christians who seek to crown their own works. Ever since the Reformation, countless Christians have desired to be teachers and pastors (and spouses of such), without going through the pains of theological study and humble submission to church authority.
Every Protestant is guilty of this to some degree. Rome would not recognize our reformation as legitimate to the common cause of the kingdom and so we are now “on our own,” so to speak. Does the reformation give us license to form new unions every time there is a disagreement within the church? Whatever happened to martyrdom? If something is worth dividing over, it must be worth dying for -No? “How does one die for the church when they will not literally kill you, like they would in pre-reformational times?,” you ask. You dedicate yourself to the greater cause of the gospel until you are excommunicated. But this would be the extreme case. Most Christians would not face excommunication if they stood for their beliefs, rather, they would face some basics pains of things, such as exegetical study and submission to authority. Most think they know more and are more godly than the authority, though, and so they leave to become part of a different union.
Cultural diversity also comes into play within the fragmentation of the Church. Those that are lesser educated and not likely to be accepted into leadership in larger denominations choose to be a part of the newer denominations that only require you to have a general knowledge of the Bible to become a leader. Many of these people do begin to learn some of great doctrines of the Church that they should have learned in the seminary format, and thus begin to impress the socks off of their more ignorant congregation. These leaders spoon-feed their congregation truths so that the people become completely dependent on them; not that the leaders could give them full portions if they wanted to, they actually can’t as they have never had full portions themselves.
From the Roman Catholic Church down, each denomination below the next requires less and less from their ministers.
1. The liturgical church (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.) requires less than the Roman Church.
2. The Baptists require less than the liturgical church.
3. The Non-denominational church requires less than the Baptist church.
4. The Charismatic church requires less than the Non-denominational church.
5. The Christian cults and home groups require less than the Charismatic church.
The lower the church the higher the unwillingness to submit to the higher standards. I am an Anglican and do believe that there is more humility and submission in the Roman church (I grew up in the Roman church), but I simply cannot tolerate their Marian doctrines as well as other dogmas they carry. Sure, many Baptists may say the same thing about the Anglican church - that they cannot stomach our doctrine - but are they correct in their assessments? And how do they know they are unless they have spent ample time studying the leading scholars and teachers of the Anglican faith, not to mention the participation of the Eucharist (and its power)?
If you are in a low church because you do not believe you can serve in a high church, please reconsider your calling and work with the higher church to assimilate you. They are not as mean as you think they are…well maybe some of them are ;) It just takes patience, humility, and some research.
In his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Fr. Pomazansky speaks of Baptism:
It serves as the door leading into the Kingdom of grace, or the Church, and it grants access to participation in the other Mysteries. Even before the establishment of the Mystery of Baptism, the Lord Jesus Christ in His conversation with Nicodemus indicated the absolute necessity of it for salvation: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.” When Nicodemus expressed his perplexity, “How can a man be born when he is old?” the Saviour replied that the new birth would be accomplished by water and the Spirit: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which as born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:3-6).
The passage that Pomazansky quotes is vital to Anglican theology. Many Protestants will contend that Baptism is a mere “sign” and has no spiritual value whatsoever. But, it is very clear here that Christ is issuing Baptism as a means of entering the Covenant itself, a means of becoming born again, and that without it one cannot be saved. Paul the Apostle speaks of Baptism in this same manner when he says, “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism…”(1 Peter 3:21). Fr. Pomazansky goes on to say:
This article – originally a paper, presented to the 1996 session of the Orthodox-Reformed dialogue – deals with the relation between the Churches today and the ‘Church of the Creed’.
More than the Roman Catholic tradition, the Orthodox tradition emphasizes the spiritual, mystical character of the Church. Its desire is not so much the “return” of other Christians to “the Orthodox Church” (as an institution) as their return to the undivided Tradition of the first centuries (as lived within the Orthodox Church). Reformed may feel at home with this position, insofar as they too plead in favour of return to the origin of Christianity. Only, to them (like to the Lutherans) this origin is to be found in the testimony of Scripture, to be distinguished from the Early Church Tradition. While Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) ecclesiology is ‘from above’, Reformed ecclesiology is ‘from below’: here, the Church is basically defined as “the congregation of the believers”. In its later development, the Reformed tradition shows a strong tendency of spiritualism (ecclesial docetism), drawing a sharp dividing-line between the “visible church” and the “invisible Church” (the “congregation of the elect”) and identifying the Church of the Creed with the latter, not with the former. The original Reformation, however, was different, aiming at renewal of the Church in its visibility…
Good thoughts!
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…”
Rev. Toon on Unity:
“The third approach is that episcopacy is of the plene esse (fullness of being) of the Church. This view affirms that it is God’s perfect will for the Church that it be led by bishops, and takes its inspiration from Ephesians 4:10–13. The historic episcopate has important pastoral functions (as the bene esse view allows) as well as theological importance (as the esseview overstates). It provides the full embodiment of the Gospel in church order. First of all the historic episcopate provides the effectual sign of unity and, therefore, it embodies in church order the Biblical proclamation that Christ’s Church is truly one. Secondly, it embodies in practical church order the principle of apostolicity. The episcopally ordained ministry is both sent by God to represent Christ to his Church and functions as representative of that Church. It acts as guardian of the Word and Sacraments, of the faith, and the flock of Christ. The historical order of bishops is, therefore, an effectual sign of the relation of Christ to his Church: for it manifests his authority within and care for the Church. As long as the one Church of God is divided on earth the historic Episcopate can never be a full expression and effective sign of the principles of unity and apostolicity. So the plene esse view points us to the future when, in the union of the present churches, the order of bishops will function as God wills that it should. Meanwhile Anglicans should highly value the historic episcopate without claiming too much or too little for it. And they should remember that to present the historic episcopate as belonging to the plene esse of the Church is the view to which the Anglican commitment to Scripture, tradition and reason points us.”
Rev. John E. Upham examines the lineal qualifications of Anglican Holy Orders as they relate to the Roman and Eastern Church, in his paper On The Validity of Anglo-Catholic Holy Orders. He states in the paper that historically the Eastern Orthodox Church has supported Anglican Holy Orders while the Roman Church has rejected the validity of Anglican Orders. In March of 1923, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Damiaos, in the name of the Synod, wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, stating that the Holy Orders of the Anglican Church have the same validity as the Roman Church since they have the same “elements,” as the document says. In 1936 the Rumanian Commission of the Orthodox Church declared Anglican Holy Orders to be valid. Three years later the Rumanian Commission, as well as the Holy Synod of Greece, declared Anglican Holy Orders to be valid.
On September 18th of 1896, with the strong consent of a Roman Catholic commission, and without the presence (defense) of an Anglican, Pope Leo XIII declared in his Bull, Apostoliciae Curae that Anglican orders lack the necessary “form and intent” to be valid.
The theology of the Catholic Church requires that there be “form, matter, minister, and intent” to convey grace to the recipient of Holy Orders. The “form” involves the words themselves in the service. The “matter” is the outward sign of the Sacrament. The “minister” is of course the Priest, Deacon, or Bishop. And the “intent” is what the Church intends to do as the Church has always done. These requirements would seemingly match Anglican Orders, but not according to Pope Leo’s Apostolicae Curae. In section 33 of this article, it explains that there was a defect of form and intention in the consecration of Matthew Parker, the first Archbishop of the Anglican Church. The Pope implied that there was a new rite that was not met in the consecration. The paper implies that there was no correct intention since, to the Pope’s and his council, the Anglican church did not intend to hold to and continue apostolic orders through time; a rather cheap and ambiguous shot, especially since the Pope did not refer to the Preface of the Edwardine Ordinals, which clearly state the intention of the English Church to continue the practice of the Early Church.
Leo also basis his argument on the Anglican Orders lack of “Form” by quoting the Council of Trent and its proclamation that when a man is ordained he receives the power “of consecration and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord.” The Anglican Church added the words “for the office and work of a Bishop or Priest” in the Edwardine Ordinal after the Council of Trent was an admission on the part of the Anglican Church that the first Orders, such as the Ordination of Archbishop Matthew Parker, was “defective and inadequate.” But what the Pope did not know or take in consideration was that the words “for the office and work of a Bishop or Priest” were added to ward off the Presbyterians and draw a distinction in Orders between the Anglicans and the Presbyterians. They were not added because the Anglican Church thought there to be some sort of theological defect in the form.
It seems to me that Pope Leo XIII would have rejected Anglican Orders even if that particular phrasing as well as any other phrasing was included in the English Ordinal. He really did not have to say such a meticulous and absurd thing about the linguistics of the Anglican Form of Ordination. Certainly linguistics do matter, but linguistics matter no further than theology matters. In other words, there was no breach in theological form with the Anglicans. The Pope knew that Anglicans have been ordaining “Deacons, Priest, and Bishops” from day one and to say that their form or intent was not to ordain in this way is simply immature and out right childish.
From the evidence of Rev. John E. Upham’s document, On The Validity of Anglo-Catholic Holy Orders, Pope Leo’s Apostolicae Curae was clearly a political move to stop the flow of converts into Anglicanism. If the Pope would have declared Anglican Holy Orders to be valid, many people would have flocked to the Anglican Church, knowing that they would receive both “present and historical” grace. It has been said that Pope Leo XIII was not a vindictive man and was indeed trying to promote the unity between Roman and Anglo Catholics but we must remember that the Papacy “is served by a very fallible bureaucracy that can be manipulated and by politically driven motives.”
It is clear to me that Anglican Holy Orders are indeed valid; valid to take up the gifts of prophet, priest, and king. There is no void of form or intent in the Orders and they hardly differ from the Roman Catholic Form. Further support lies within the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church has recognized Anglican Orders.
Perhaps there will come a day when this debate will be reexamined. We shall see what direction the CofE heads after the Lambeth conference next year, determining their commitment to the universal church.
Luther, speaking concerning the authority which Bishops would have among the Reformers, if any of them should adopt reformed principles, says, “We would acknowledge them as our fathers, and willingly obey their authority, which we find supported by the Word of God.” Melancthon, after the adoption of Presbyterianism, says, “I would to God it lay in me to restore the government of Bishops; for I see what manner of Church we shall have, the ecclesiastical polity being dissolved.” “By what right or law we may dissolve the ecclesiastical polity, if the Bishops will grant to us that which in reason they ought to grant; and if it were lawful for us to do so, yet surely it is not expedient. Luther was ever of this opinion.” He says moreover, “Zwingli is not in his senses. At one stroke he would abolish all ceremonies, and he would have no Bishops.”
Martin Brucer says, “by the perpetual observation of all Churches, even from the Apostles’ times, we see that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, that among presbyters there should be one who should have the charge of divers Churches, and the whole Ministry be committed to him; and by reason of that charge he was above the rest; and therefore the name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly to those chief rulers.”
Calvin. Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, who favored Calvin’s theological views, records, that, in looking over some papers left by his predecessor, Archbishop Parker, he found that Calvin, and others of the Protestant Churches of Germany and elsewhere, would have had Episcopacy if permitted. And he asserts, that in Edward VI. reign, Calvin wrote a letter to the English reformers on this subject, which was intercepted by Gardiner and Bonner (Popish), who returned him such a reply, writing as if in the name of the Reformers, as effectually prevented his repeating the suggestion. (Chapman’s sermons, p.104. Boston, 1844.) Calvin, even when defending the new system that he had adopted, was true to the “historical precedent.” He does not deny a historical “succession,” even where he writes, “nothing can be more frivolous than to place the succession in the persons, to the neglect of the doctrine.” And in arguing against Romanists, employing for his purpose the fact of the existence of the Greek Church, he asserts that among them there “has never been any interruption of the succession of Bishops.” He holds (of course) the Presbyterian theory, namely: that Bishops and Presbyters are the same order. “In calling those who presided over Churches, Bishops, Elders, and Pastors, without any distinction, I have followed the usage of Scripture. For, to all who discharge the Ministry of the Word, it gives the title of Bishops.” But when he is speaking as a historian, he says, “To guard against dissensions, the general consequence of equality, the presbyters in each city chose one of their own number, whom they distinguished by the title of Bishop. The Bishop, however, was not so superior to the rest in honor and dignity, as to have any dominion over his colleagues, but the functions performed by a Consul in the Senate, such as *** to preside over the rest, in the exercise of advice, admonition, and exhortation, to regulate all the proceedings by his authority, and to carry into execution whatever had been decreed by the general voice - such were the functions exercised by the Bishop in the Assembly of Presbyters.” A very fair description of a Bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church. In the same passage he guards against the idea of “Divine right,” quoting Jerome - “let the Bishops know their superiority to the Presbyters is more from custom than from the appointment of the Lord.” But he proceeds in his defense of the “historical precedent,” to show “the antiquity of this institution,” by quoting from the same author (Jerome) “at Alexandria, even from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclos and Dionysius, the Presbyters always chose one of their body to preside over them, whom they called Bishop.” Then, in summing up, Calvin adds, “every assembly as I have stated, for the sole purpose of preserving order and peace, was under the direction of one Bishop, who, while he had the precedence of all others in dignity, was himself subject to the assembly of brethren.”[1]
1. The first conflict of the Church was not settled by a pontiff but by the Council of Jerusalem, lead by St. James rather than Peter, the supposed first pontiff.
2. When the Bishop of Rome, Victor, in A.D. 196, on his own authority excommunicated the Asiatic churches, he was rebuked by other bishops.
3. The great Arian heresy which denied the divinity of God, was not settled by a pope, but by the council of Nicea which was called by the Emperor.
4. The heresy that denied the Holy Spirit (Macedonianism) was settled by the Council of Constantinople (381) in which neither the Roman bishop nor his delegates were present. This council was so important that it reaffirmed the Nicene Creed.
5. The Eastern Church (now called the Eastern Orthodox) was in communion with the bishop of Rome until the 12th century, when suddenly they were commanded to submit to the Roman bishop as pontiff. They refused, of course, since this was an arbitrary concept with no support from tradition or Scripture.
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 »
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”;)
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.