Fredrich Scheleirmacher says, “[Protestantism] makes the individual’s relation to the Church dependent on his relation to Christ, [while Catholicism] makes the individual’s realation to Christ dependent on his relation to the Church.”

Protestantism makes the individual’s relation with the Church dependent on “his relation” to Christ? I agree with this statement, but how can a person have a relationship with Christ without the revelation that God gave the Church, known as the Bible. As stated in previous posts, one cannot have the Bible without acknowledging those that put it together (remember, the Bible was not handed over by Jesus or dropped from the clouds by the Holy Spirit)?

This “relation to Christ” that the Protestant believes he has is based on his own authority, or at best a piecemeal authority that only exists as an ideology; an ideology that can never come into existence due to its foundation of esoteric anti-creationism (Gnosticism).

The temptation would be to say that Protestantism is acceptable as an immature stage in ones walk with Christ. This is true to the extent of God using everything for his glory (he used an ass to speak to Balaam), but God does not sanctify and “ordain” everything he uses to be ecclesial. We do not go to the local donkey farm to hear God’s revelation and confirm our faith, even though God has used a donekey before to reveal his Word before.

The conversion of ones soul has everything to do with their conversion FROM autonomy TO authority - the authority that Christ has established for us. What authority did Christ establish for us? One will say, “The Holy Ghost.” The Holy Ghost through whom? Anyone and anything? This is known as the heresy of pantheism! Christ did not establish an authority that is esoteric, he established the Church as our authority.

We do not confirm our relationship with Christ by our own heart; our own fallen nature; we confirm our relationship with Christ through the authority that he has given us. Christians are not autonomous people! We are united to Christ’s body, which is His Church.

Regarding Protestantism as being some sort of immature step within the faith: One can certainly “grow out of” Protestantism, but that does not mean that they were once just immature. Repentance needs to be sought when one realizes they have been basing their relationship with Christ on their own sinful nature rather than Christ’s divine ordinance. Next time you Catholics have a religious conversation with your Protestant friends, ask them what is holding them back from being catholic and you will likely find that they are opposed to the bishopric, the very office that holds the keys to their liberation (Matthew 16:19). Can one enter heaven without the keys; without what St. Paul calls “the pillar of truth?” Well, who would be so bold to chance this?

Origen (circa 185 to 354 AD) Origen is generally considered to be one of the greatest theologians in early Christian movement (If you were a heretic). He stressed Jesus’ humanity, and believed that God might eventually receive all people (even Satan and his demons) into heaven.

Jan Huss, a Bohemian church reformer and martyr, was burned at the stake in 1415 CE.

Michael Servetus who wrote “On The Errors of the Trinity” which led to his execution at the stake in 1553 in John Calvin’s Geneva for his unitarian heresy.

King John Sigismund of Transylvania (now a part of Romania and Hungary) in 1568 issued the first edict of religious freedom. This allowed citizens to hold diverse religious beliefs and still be loyal to the state.

Writers, scientists, and others who promoted religious tolerance, including Alcott, Bryant, Holmes, Locke, Milton, Newton, Florence Nightingale, and Thoreau.

["Founding Fathers"] American politicians such as John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Adlai Stevenson and William Howard Taft.

John Murray, who in 1779 [Gee, just three years after the American Revolution] became the minister of the first Universalist church in the U.S. at Gloucester, MA.

Joseph Priestly, chemist and Unitarian Minister who established the first Unitarian Church in the U.S. in 1796.

Hosea Ballou, author (in 1805) of “A Treatise on Atonement” which argued against the existence of miracles, the Trinity and of Hell. He is sometimes referred to as “The Father of American Universalism“.

Preachers and theologians Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Ellery Channing and Theodore Parker.

Julia Ward Howe, a fighter in the abolition of slavery.

Clara Barton, who worked for penal reform.

Susan B. Anthony, who advocated women’s rights.

Source: EAEC

I just added a “cult news” link to the sidebar. Rick Ross runs the site. I believe he does work for the FBI when they need cult information to crack a case. I searched out a couple of my old evangelical churches on there and found Calvary Chapel to be suspect. If Calvary Chapel is a cult then so are a host of other Evangelical churches. I think it has much to do with their lack of accountability and their self-proclamation…leads to many problems. But then again, didn’t the entire Reformation begin like this? :O

Here is a fun post by my Anglican, Orange County friend, Andrew Matthews. I’m not sure I could hang with the teacup initiative.. maybe if they were extra large sized with bigger handles, but that brings us back to mugs.

Speaking of the Queen… it looks like we may have a mock queen and king in office if Osama Obama does not win the State. Interesting! It seems that we are headed in either one of two directions: Islamic Fascism or a type of ancient imperialism. May God’s will be done! Oh yeah…  and may God save the Queen! Right?

Have you ever thought of the Church actually leading the State? Here is a new site that I found for all those who wonder what a Christian rule should could look like.

Many think that America - constitutional America, that is - was formed by Christians. Early America was indeed formed and founded by Christians, but late constitutional America was reconstructed by heretics! This is why we have the complete mess of liberalism today. There is no standard that is based on antiquity, but rather the Constitution itself is based on moral relativism and Unitarianism.

“John Adams (October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826) was one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States. He was elected second President of the United States (1797–1801) after serving as America’s first Vice President (1789–1797) for two terms.

Adams came to prominence in the early stages of the American Revolution. As a delegate from Massachusetts to the Continental Congress, he played a leading role in getting Congress to adopt the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776. As a representative of Congress in Europe, he was a major negotiator of the eventual peace treaty with Great Britain, and chiefly responsible for obtaining important loans from Amsterdam.

Adams’s revolutionary credentials secured him two terms as George Washington’s vice president and his own election as the second president. During his one term as president, he was frustrated by battles inside his own Federalist party against a faction led by Alexander Hamilton, and he signed the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts. The major accomplishment of his presidency was his peaceful resolution the Quasi-War crisis with France in 1798.

After Adams was defeated for reelection by Thomas Jefferson, he retired to Massachusetts. He and his wife Abigail Adams founded an accomplished family line of politicians, diplomats, and historians now referred to as the Adams political family. His achievements have received greater recognition in modern times, though his contributions were not initially as celebrated as other Founders’.”

See Wickipedia

I was in J.C. Penney’s the other day purchasing some clothing with my wife when the cashier says, “would you like to donate to…” Corporate America has no right or jurisdiction over who is to receive donations from the public and who is not to receive donations. They are a business and not a Church! They are not the arbitrators of society and it’s well-being - or in many cases the advocates of evil (McDonalds and homosexuality, etc.).

I once worked for a very large corporation that asks all of its employees every year for donations to United Way, an organization that supports abortion. If you did not give you were hounded by management and viewed as an outcast.

America has become a nation without spiritual authority! Because the Church will not proclaim the fullness of the gospel by taking up the ministry of the state, others take up this ministry through corporations and cults. Prior to the American Revoltion, the separation of Church and State was considered heresy. Today the separation of Church and State is considered indifferent, or at best, unmanageable.

Now that the Church of England seems to be in her final days, we can now finally turn to the ancient church that has weathered the storms with the orthodox flag still flying: Rome! The Roman Church models a true society by running her own state: Vatican City, with her own magistrate: the Pontiff, with intention to mother the rest of the world. Do you have a problem with this? If you do, then who do you think should represent our nation to God the Almighty? There is no spiritual neutrality, and so if you believe that some Unitarian (someone that believes God should be represented without the Trinity) president should represent us, then perhaps you should worship with them. If you believe that our country should follow the paths of the early Christian fathers, then perhaps you should worship as they did…in a Catholic church - a Catholic Church that is not in rebellion with her mother, but is either at home with her or seeking reconciliation with her.

The Latin phrase ecclesia supplet means the Church supplies. The Church supplies the Christian with the means of embracing God. When one embraces tradition one embraces Christ through what the Church supplies. When, for instance, a Christian makes the sign of the cross, they embrace their prayer through what the Church supplies. When a Christian prays his daily office he embraces God through what the Church supplies. In fact, if you really think about it, even when a Christian embraces a simple Bible reading they embrace what the Church supplies!

If one thinks that they can get to heaven without the ecclesia supplet then let him not read the Bible, nor do anything that the Church has supplied. This would leave the person in the hands of Satan’s realm where Satan is ready and willing to devour them.

Next time you use the sign of the cross, the Bible, or anything that gives you access to Christ outside the gathering of the saints yet still through what the Church supplies, remember that this is a divine avenue!  

BTW, the picture above is my desktop pic!

The word Canon comes from a Greek word meaning “rule.” This is an existential concept; a visible formula for the body of Christ to lean on and live by. It fulfills the Lord’s Prayer to have God’s will be done “on earth as it is in heaven.” This rule of life is not found in heaven, for in heaven there is no need for rules.

Canonicity is an existential value! The word and very doctrine of canonicity is “earthly” - heavenly power transcendentally transferred to God’s creation. 

The Church is also an exsenstential doctrine such as canonicity. Now my point: This doctrine/rule of living known as the Canon cannot be juxtaposed with the doctrine of the Church. One cannot be pitched against the other! You cannot say for instance, as Protestants say, that the “Canon formed the Church, not vice-versa.” This dichotomy creates a heavenly definition of the Canon and a mere earthly/existential definition of the Church. But we know both the Canon and the Church to be existential realities with heavenly foundations. Neither doctrine is purely heavenly such as the doctrine of aangels or the doctrine of heaven itself. The Church is rooted in the heavenly kingdom of God as is the Canon. Ultimately both the Canon and the Church are existential values. It is the logos that is purely divine not the written text in and of itself or the Church in an of itself. In order to get to the the Canon, eschatologically speaking, the logos must pass through the Church: Logos>Church>Canon

The fundamentalist argument is to quote John 1:1, “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God.” The word “Word” here doe not mean Canon or Bible. The Greek word is logos which means much more than just text, or even divine text. The word logos has many cultural roots but it seems fairly obvious that it has to do with God’s revelation, but not just his revelation as through text but his complete divine revelation of wisdom and power - beyond mere words.

In the beginning was the logos and the logos had to become readable. It became readable through the body of Christ, transcribing and authorizing through various study and council - at first local councils and then later larger councils such as Carthage, the largest council of ancient Africa in which Augustine of Hippo helped lead.

The logos/word could never have become text without the Catholic Church. In order to believe in the very existence of the Canon/Bible one must believe that the Church is capable of completing such a transmission. The cults and radical sects will say that the Church was able to transmit the Canon only for a short time and then the Church fell away until the sect was established. Some may say that those before the Reformation had a limited knowledge of God and his Word and are therefore not held as accountable as we are held. Such people that say these things are warped, mislead and clearly unlearned in the writings of the early Church.

Some will go as far as stating that the authority of the text was transfered to the Protestants in the medieval ages as if for the first 1500 years of the Church the Bible was corrupt. Where was this prophesied? Who came down from heaven to transfer authority to a new group of men who were attempting to take out books such as Revelation and James? along with many of the Old Testament Books?

Protestant Scholars such as R.C. Sproul will go as far as stating that this history is all “divine providence” and that the Protestants were able to redefine the Canon and take authority of the text. After all, isn’t it logical that such-and-such a thing is now in place (i.e. the new formation of the Bible and the Protestant Church)? Such a claim is not based on any authority but that of rationalism, which is the foundation of liberalisn, and in turn is what most of all the Reformed (Protestant) Churches have become: liberal (PCUSA, ELCA, etc.).

The Canon was formed by the Church which was formed by God’s logos. You cannot have the Bible unless you first have the Church!

Heresy involves many temptations, but one that I wish to log into this site is the temptation of intellectual simplicity! Simplicity is a double-edged sword. We need simplicity when referring to the Gospel and its theology but we need this simplicity to be orthodox. This is not “simple.” Really, the simplicity that we need is not so much simple as it is concise. There is a huge difference. When one is simple in theology one overlooks many suppositions in order to arrive at the simplistic plain. This is what heresy does! It paints a picture without prepping the canvas. The paint will not hold up under time or examination and thus peel right off. But being concise means prepping the canvas while painting the picture, a skill reserved for those with experience and calling in a particular spiritual field.

Heresy many times speaks to the undereducated and lower classes - or, simply put, people without proper resources (many times even the “educated” do not have proper resource). Heresy makes a theologian out of just about anyone, giving them quick access to ”theology” through a minimal amount of study. An exception to this rule would be heresies that demand extensive linguistic studies which seem to be primarily designed to replace the Church itself.

Heresy usually involves denying much of the Church’s teachings throughout history in order to show how some type of modern - even in the medieval sense - prophet or teacher has suddenly found the truth. They tend to imply that the Church was hiding for the past thousand or so years and this person or group has suddenly found it in the form of new doctrine and practice. Some will even attempt to prove that this new-founded theology was practiced in the first century - a very bold move considering the fact that the vast majority of First Century documents were destroyed during persecution.

Heresy spreads very fast due to the despondent crowd that is targeted by the master heretic. These hopeless and uninformed people will eat the heresy straight from the palm of their new master’s hand desperately panting for intellectual status.

When the desperate soul is found by the heretic and proselytized to they usually feel very enlightened and enriched, at first, believing that they have finally discovered what God has intended for them. The propositions begin to hit them very fast and hard, leading them to feel overwhelmed yet also joyful due to the nature of what is being pitched. It is overwhelming because of many reasons but it is joyful because it has just the right amount of historical revelation - usually in the form of Bible verses - sprinkled throughout the recipe. It’s laced with “truth.”

This supposed truth that the heresy is laced with is usually very easy to understand and speaks to the flesh in many ways. Instant supposed sanctification through knowledge is many times the culprit. The ancient heresy of Gnosticism was like this. It appealed to people because it stimulated their intellect. It appeased their need for secret knowledge and smarts.

The Gospel does not sanctify like Gnosticism or its contemporary counterparts. The Gospel works through humility, submission, pain, and even turmoil. One must become “childlike” to receive the Gospel. After one receives it one can or may begin to exhaustively study its implications, but for the most part the Gospel involves just a lot of hard work and discipline - hard work in the sense of dying to one’s self!

God said in Matthew that nothing would EVER penetrateHis Church. We all know by looking at history who the Church is, but some insist that there “is more” than what the Church can immediately offer them and thus begin to revert to some sort of reformed model where the Church is being reinvented every couple years - ultimately excommunicating itself - sometimes unknowingly - from the historical Church. The Church is the safe-house for God’s elect. It is the “pillar of truth,” as St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:15. The Church will indeed let you down at times but it will never kill your soul. Only your arrogant desire for “truth” will do that.

When defining the Church many Anglicans refer to Article XIX of the Thirty-nine Articles.

“The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”

This definition does not adequately summarize the Prayer Book, in my estimation. First, nowhere within the Prayer Book do we see a statement even implied that the visible Church consists of only “faithful men.” There are many in the Church that are not faithful! This particular article contradicts itself by first stating that the Church consists of the faithful and then only a few sentences later explaining that the Church errs. Erring is not faithful!  Even if the original intent was to combat the doctrine of papal infalibility, it still says what it says and cannot be expected to stand as a profession of our theology. 

Assuming the “intention argument” the document is not properly written to stand as a profession. The original intention of the words “faithful” and “err” hardly matter. What matters is what it means according to what it says in plain English, that the Church consists of the faithful. This supposes that the Church is invisible and merely an ideal - theology straight from the Puritains. But the fact that it says the Church also errs confuses the matter and implies a completely different theology. It’s obvious that they slid this in thier to refute Rome’s doctrines - just your typical overzealous Puritanism.

The Prayer Book, as a whole describes the Church by using the Creeds. This means that the Church is made up of an ecclesiastical body of bishops, priests and deacons - since this is what “Apostolic” means - as well as what the church administers, which is the Sacraments and the very revelation of God through the Holy Scriptures.

The above definition does not mean that God in Spirit does not govern the Church and that it has no “faithfulness” or heavenly aspect to it. The Collect on Good Friday states that the “Spirit” governs and sanctifies the Church. But how could this be if the clergy governs?

 As Christ states in the Gospel of Matthew, the Prayer Book, in its Office of Institution of Ministers, states that the “keys of the Church” are given to the ordained minister. This means that the Holy Spirit is working through him to “loose and bind” the sins of the people. He is Christ’s ambassador! The Office of Institution also describes the Church as being founded by the Holy Apostles, the Prophets and Jesus Christ himself as being the “chief -cornerstone.”

 The Church is a tangible entity and not a mere concept. When one is baptized one enters into it. In the Office of Instruction (p. 290 BCP) the question arises: “What is the Church? The Church is the Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head, and all baptized people are the members.” The new believer was once born into a carnal life of worldliness but is now, through baptism being born into the spiritual life.  But all of these baptized people will not be faithful, even though they are a part of the Church; even though they are Christians.

Interesting article on what I believe to be the beginning of a great revival within Christendom:

See the entire article here.

Congratulations to Jonathan and Kim Byrd from St. James Anglican Church. They just had a 7lb. baby boy!

Here is a very honest summary of GAFCON. It cannot be emphasized enough that women’s ordination to Holy Orders (this includes the Holy Order of Deacon) is heresy. Yet GAFCON seems to think that it is not a vital issue that effects the salvific calling of the Church. It seems clear that there are liberals within this group that have weakened the barrier for future betrayal.

Today marks the One Year Anniversary of AnglicanThought! There have been 598,847 hits (35,198 visits) since its inception in July of 2007. Hope you have enjoyed thus far.

Blessings,

Mike

One of the most overlooked sins within the Christian faith is the tenth commandment: Though shall not covet - this in light of the fact that the Scriptures place heavy emphasis on avoiding it. 

St. Paul explains in 1 Timothy 6:10 that coveting money is a root of all types of sin. This does not mean that coveting is not the root of all sin. Here, St. Paul is addressing a certain need and is obviously not writing a systematic theology paper. The desire for anything that is contrary to God’s will is covetousness (idolatry).

Covetousness is so serious that (1) It is one of the Ten Commandments (2) St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:11 that we should avoid covetous men, and (3) St. Paul also says in 1 Timothy that men who practice this sin are disqualified from the ministry.

How does one know that they are coveting or know that another is coveting so that we may avoid them? One may know that they are coveting if they suddenly discover that they have neglected certain responsibilities that God has given them to chase after what they may think to be a higher calling of some sort. Men do this in the ministry quite often. I once knew a man that wanted so badly to climb the ecclesiastical ladder that he neglected his flock and family only to eventualy find out that both his flock and family were given up to foreign faiths.

Many times covetousness involves taking paths that do not involve any type of spiritual or even basic existential growth but only places ones self in harms way, as St. James says in James 1:14; that man is drawn away into sin by his very own desires.

Look at your life and see! We all have coveteousness within us, just some more than others; some to the point of being involved in mortal sin (Ephesians 5:5). It is so obvious in some that one can hardly stand the stench of being in the presence of the person. Every little thing that is discussed in the basics of conversation is so heavily weighed by the covetous person that he/she becomes very insecure and inconsistent in their actions and overall ethics. As St. James says, the person who is insecure in his faith is “double-minded.” The double-minded man says one thing to one group of people in order to satisfy them but then goes on to say something completely contrary to another group. This can many times be a sign of covetousness! The person is spreading their nets wherever they can in order to catch the first prey that comes along. If this person is one of Christ’s he will likely and hopefully never prosper, having a tight disciplinary reign on them from God. Their riches will, as Proverbs 23:5 says, “fly away as an eagle toward heaven.”

The covetous man is a compromising opportunist. We all are “opportunists” in some sense. We should always be ready for blessings that God has in store for us. But we should never covet these blessings to where we begin compromising the beliefs that God has shown to us, becoming double-minded.

The worst coveters are those that are in positions of authority. These men cast their nets even within the front yards of their own disciples. They insist that the disciple disregard godly ethics that they have once learned so that they may embrace the coveter’s personal ethic. These types of men that are in authority, as St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:5, use their faith as a means of gain. They say that God calls them to “take dominion” of the earth, only they fail to realize the ethic of Christ: that this is spiritual dominion and not materialistic dominion (not to exclude the spiritual element of the culture).

The covetous man in authority will manipulate - sometimes even unconsciously - his disciples for his gain. He will build mini empires for himself where people are trained to do the same thing he does, thus creating armies of coveters - almost like a tri-level marketing scam. The coveter in authority is a greedy manipulator. He should be avoided at all costs! He is not truly on ones side but he is on his own side.

Good Lord, deliver us.

From all inordinate and sinful affections; and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh and the devil. - 1928 BCP Litany

This is one reason why the Anglican Church/Rite must continue to exist! The Pontiff recently proposed a more conservative change to the Novus Ordo mass, taking out particular wording that seemed…well, to say the very least, ambiguous and unclear, compared to what the Roman Catholic Church has taught through the first nineteen-hundred and sixty some years; got to love those hippies. The Pontiff proposed some of the Latin language that was and has been being used in the Tridentine mass.

So far the Bishops of America - a country never very fond of traditional or doctrine - have rejected this proposal. Perhaps the Pontiff will speak Ex Cathedra (prophetic) on this matter - something that has not been done in quite some time!

The Anglican liturgy and mass was designed so that the ancient Latin mass could be understood by the common people - not that the common people could not already spiritually feed upon the mass in Latin but so that the common people could begin to digest the liturgy intellectually. Now, of course, this has gotten out of control both in the Protestant as well as Catholic Churches. We seem to be changing the liturgy so that any barbarian and his brother can feel comfortable at church and not have to learn anything new or become sanctified (set apart) for what is meant to be set apart for: God. But the Anglican liturgy, as presented in the format of the 1928 and 1662 Book of Common Prayer, contains no such radical changes. It is a true representation of the way the Church has been worshiping prior to the Reformation - some sixteen-hundred years. I am convinced that it is one of the most godly ways to worship God and become blessed by him.

“Twice a year I put weed-killing fertilizer on my lawn. One applies the finely granulated material when the lawn is damp from the dew, and it sticks to the broad leaves of the weed, infiltrating the plant through the leaf and, within a few weeks, destroying it at the root. It does not bother fine-leaved grasses, but encourages their growth, not only by fertilizing them but also by freeing them from competition with weeds for water and nutrients.

If one severs an accomplished weed above the root, the plant will disappear for a while, but the living root will send up a new one; in fact, it is likely to send up multiple new plants. To deal effectively with it, the root must be killed.

A Christian must, I believe, think like that about the application of God’s Word [as it presents itself through not only the written text but through life itself] to deep-rooted human problems. The object is to get a grain of real, undiluted truth to stick to one of the leaves, in hope that the plant itself will make it systemic, and destroy the evil thing at the root. The grain does not look like much, or its chances of success very hopeful, when it first goes down. Only later do the effects become evident.”

- S.M. Hutchens