Computer Problems

Experiencing some computer problems, so postings will be less frequent during the next week or so.

But the reading and prayer goes forward.

Council of Orange (529), Calvin, Anselm, Bradwardine, Wycliffe, English Reformers, XXXIX Articles

THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE , 529

The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin. As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life.

The Council of Orange dealt with the Semi-Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a sinful nature, is still "good" enough to able to lay hold of the grace of God through an act of unredeemed human will.

As you read the Canons of the Council of Orange, you will be able to see where John Calvin derived his views of the total depravity of the human race. THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE (529 AD)

CANON 1.

If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:126); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2.

If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

CANON 3.

If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4.

If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5.

If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism - if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6.

If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7.

If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8.

If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 9.

Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.

CANON 10.

Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works.

CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have we given thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

CANON 12.

Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 14.

No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, "Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:8), and again, "My God in his steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).

CANON 15.

Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

CANON 16.

No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17.

Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 18.

That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 19.

That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20.

That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

CANON 21.

Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolish them [the law and prophets] but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

CANON 22.

Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

CANON 23.

Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CANON 24.

Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

CANON 25.

Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

CONCLUSION.

And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul [sic] commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient. According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.

De Regnis Duobus: Cult, Culture, and the Christian's Dual Citizenship: Preliminary Hearing Before the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA

De Regnis Duobus: Cult, Culture, and the Christian's Dual Citizenship: Preliminary Hearing Before the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA

Posted using ShareThis

An important meeting before the Standing Judicial Committee (SJC) of the PCA. To be held tomorrow.

Rev. Spellman and two others have filed a complaint against their presbytery to an higher level, the SJC. Subject: the Pacific Northwest Presbytery has failed to take substantive action re: a Federal Visionist pastor, Rev. Peter K. Leithart.

The General Assembly of the PCA last week condemned FV as out of accord with the Westminster Standards.

We'll be following this important case.

onetimothyfour: Repenting of the Reformation – a sermon by Stanley Hauerwas

onetimothyfour: Repenting of the Reformation – a sermon by Stanley Hauerwas

Posted using ShareThis

Exactly what you'd expect from a Romanist inside the Anglican Church.

Calvin on Psalm Singing in Worship « Heidelblog

Calvin on Psalm Singing in Worship « Heidelblog

Posted using ShareThis

Sola Scriptura: Hillary of Poitiers

Posted by Martin Downes at http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2009/11/thus-every-whisper-of-blasphemy-is.html

"Thus every whisper of blasphemy is silenced": Hilary of Poitiers

Here are some great words from Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367) found in Book One of his work On the Trinity:

For he is the best student who does not read his thoughts into the book, but lets it reveal its own; who draws from it its sense, and does not import his own into it, nor force upon its words a meaning which he had determined was the right one before he opened its pages.

Since then we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of Himself, and bow with humble reverence to His words. For He Whom we can only know through His own utterances is the fitting witness concerning Himself.At the close of Book One, Hilary offers the following prayer:

"I know, O Lord God Almighty, that I owe Thee, as the chief duty of my life, the devotion of all my words and thoughts to Thyself. The gift of speech which Thou hast bestowed can bring me no higher reward than the opportunity of service in preaching Thee and displaying Thee as Thou art, as Father and Father of God the Only-begotten, to the world in its blindness and the heretic in his rebellion.

"But this is the mere expression of my own desire; I must pray also for the gift of Thy help and compassion, that the breath of Thy Spirit may fill the sails of faith and confession which I have spread, and a favouring wind be sent to forward me on my voyage of instruction.

"We can trust the promise of Him Who said, Ask, and it shall be given you, seek, and ye shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you and we in our want shall pray for the things we need.

"We shall bring an untiring energy to the study of Thy Prophets and Apostles, and we shall knock for entrance at every gate of hidden knowledge, but it is Thine to answer the prayer, to grant the thing we seek, to open the door on which we beat.

"Our minds are born with dull and clouded vision, our feeble intellect is penned within the barriers of an impassable ignorance concerning things Divine; but the study of Thy revelation elevates our soul to the comprehension of sacred truth, and submission to the faith is the path to a certainty beyond the reach of unassisted reason.

"And therefore we look to Thy support for the first trembling steps of this undertaking, to Thy aid that it may gain strength and prosper. We look to Thee to give us the fellowship of that Spirit Who guided the Prophets and the Apostles, that we may take their words in the sense in which they spoke and assign its right shade of meaning to every utterance.

"For we shall speak of things which they preached in a mystery; of Thee, O God Eternal, Father of the Eternal and Only-begotten God, Who alone art without birth, and of the One Lord Jesus Christ, born of Thee from everlasting. We may not sever Him from Thee, or make Him one of a plurality of Gods, on any plea of difference of nature.

We may not say that He is not begotten of Thee, because Thou art One. We must not fail to confess Him as true God, seeing that He is born of Thee, true God, His Father. Grant us, therefore, precision of language, soundness of argument, grace of style, loyalty to truth.

Enable us to utter the things that we believe, that so we may confess, as Prophets and Apostles have taught us, Thee, One God our Father, and One Lord Jesus Christ, and put to silence the gainsaying of heretics, proclaiming Thee as God, yet not solitary, and Him as God, in no unreal sense.

Irish Reformed Churchman: ABP James Ussher (1580-1656)

Part two beginneth.

The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland (London: Whittaker and Co., 1847).

Calvinistic divines with a Prayer Book really existed, once upon a time. He knew the idiot of Canterbury, William Laud.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GoZLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=james+ussher+volume+1&as_brr=1&ei=y3H_Su2dLZPKywT19OjVAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Observations:

1. James VI of Scotland doubted he would succeed Elizabeth to the throne.

2. James IV sends two emissaries in 1585 to Dublin, James Fullerton and James Hamilton, to maintain correspondence with the Protestant nobility. They opened a school. Hence, Calvinistic theology in Ireland. Fullerton had been a. student of Andrew Melville of Glasgow. Both Fullerton and Hamilton may have been class fellows of Melville’s at St. Andrews in 1558. All three names appear on the list of admission. Age issues are discussed in this introduction as well as the interactions of these Scots Reformers.

3. To this school, James Ussher was sent at the age of eight. 1588, the same year as the Spanish assault against England. Ussher continued at the school for five years. Ussher is a third generation Calvinistic or Reformed Anglican.

4. January 1593-94, Trinity College, University of Dublin was erected. Ussher’s family was instrumental in the establishment of the College. His Grandfather, Stanihurst, made the motion for such in Parliament. His uncle, Henry Ussher, Archdeacon of Dublin, later Archbishop of Armagh, went to England twice to negotiate the matter. In 1591, Henry returned with letters of approval by Exegete the First.

5. Page, 18, footnote 5, is instructive re: the course of training in logic, rhetoric, grammar, math and classical literature. Also, instruction in Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Syriac. Also, the use of the finest systematic theology written and used as the basis of lectures—Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. The importance of this latter point cannot be underestimated---it reflects the state of things in England also.

6. Ussher will be the man who marshals the Irish Articles of 1615 into force for the Church of Ireland. These Articles are taken over, by and large, into the English expansion of needed revision of the XXXIX Articles. The Calviniphobes of modern Anglicanism and hyper-allergic AC/TRACTO’s need a re-introduction to the grand Master, the French sovereign in skill and attainment…over the English Reformers.

7. Ussher’s name remains to this day as the “very first enrollee” in Trinity College.

8. In addition to language studies, he became an avid reader in theology.

9. Ussher vowed to read “everything” in the Church Fathers. Age 20. Completed when age 38. Ergo, started in 1600 and completed in 1618.

10. He obtained the BA in 1597.

11. 1600, MA. Ussher was appointed as the “Catechetist to the College” and first Proctor of the College.

Correlations:

1. Travers in London. Timeline and arrival in Ireland. Relations with Whitgift. Laud's name will appear in later correspondence with Ussher.

2. Comparison to other baccalaureate programs, e.g. Cambridge, Oxford.

3. Comparison to non-classical backgrounds of current seminary students.

4. The Institutes. Impact on Irish clergy besides Ussher. The Irish Articles will be ratified by a Convocation of Irish Calvinists with the Prayer Book.

Interpretation:

The Reformation was led by upon well-trained men and, yet, Ussher’s works are largely ignored by Anglican leaders. If you listen to modern Anglicans, you'd think the Reformation was over. In fact, we heard tell of one influential "evangelical Calvinist" in the ACNA--this week--who said that; what's he been smokin'? That proposition by this "influential evanglical Calvinist" could be destroyed in a nano-second if pushed. Dumb statement by a dumb churchman, more political than theological. (Sola stupida.) People still vote for idiots as Bishops. So glad to be retired, owned by no one, serving as a simple lay person (though still ordained), and not influenced by sola getta accepta by'a da'a crowd. Tremendous freedom to call it like we see it. And laugh too.

Application:

1. “Maintain course and bearing.” No one else is talking about Calvinistic Anglicans.

2. Support Calvinists, even though most have no Prayer Book piety. Beata pazienzia.

7-Why I Use the Book of Common Prayer

7- The text is immediately below. Below that are my own observations, correlation, interpretation, and applications. Why I use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for daily and evening Prayers?

Real men kneel in heart, mind and body in prayer. These low views of God and this sitting-stuff has to go!! Sitting on the bottoms must go!! My Marines soon learned and soon were doing as these men on the right did and do--often!!

----------------
Kneeling:

Priest. O God, make speed to save us. Answer. O Lord, make haste to help us.

Here all standing up, the Priest shall say,

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Priest. Praise ye the Lord. Answer. The Lord's Name be praised.

-------------------

Observations:

1. Scriptural verses on sin, Exhortation to Confession of Sin, Confession of Sin, Declaration of Absolution, and the Lord’s Prayer precedes these versicles and Doxology. Following these versicles and Doxology comes the saying or singing of Psalm 95 (the Prayer Book is full of Psalms…more than enough to make the head spin for a Psalm-singing Covenanter). See our earlier posts on “Why I Use the Book of Common Prayer 1-6.”

2. Here is the spirit of importunity. “Priest. O God, make speed to save us. Answer. O Lord, make haste to help us.”

We’ve already addressed the “priest” question. An appropriate rubric needs to be added, to wit, that this is a vocational and lawfully called priest serving among fellow priests, the laity.

3. The entire Psalter breathes this spirit of importunity. This is why the recovery of singing the Psalms is an important corollary to Prayer Book piety. If Prayer Book piety is anything, it is supplicatory and reflects utter reliance upon God for support. It is Augustinian throughout, not synergistic Greek Orthodoxy.

4. Psalm 31.2 is representative of the versicles: “Bow down your ear to me, deliver me speedily; be my rock of refuge, a mighty fortress to save me.” The sense is deliver me quickly, promptly, and at the appointed time. There is "no commanding" of God as is seen in the "Pentecostal Word of Faith" movements.

5. This spirit is infrequently manifested in non-Reformed liturgies in the Protestant world. In fact, it is lessened in the Reformed liturgies. We are Prayer Book Anglicans here. We are unfamiliar with Lutheran liturgies but we do expect a similar ethos; they weren’t Radical Reformers and they weren't enthusiasts. We fear that some of the Puritans were forerunners of enthusiasts. Baptists have no liturgy and no connection to historical worship.

6. The sense of the word “to save” us is widely understood including many things as well as justification, adoption, sanctification, and preservation therein. Evangelically and evangelistically, it is highly appropriate for the confession of sin and the “calling on the name of the LORD.” This evangelistic perspective needs to be pointed out. Also, it is highly appropriate for the justified saint for the prayer for strength and persevering faith.

7. The people move from kneeling—appropriate to prayer—to standing and giving praise.

8. The versicle of petition is met by the Trinitarian Doxology sometimes called the Gloria.

“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

This phrase recurs regularly throughout the Prayer Book and is recited after every Psalter lection, like a refrain or coda to an hymn. Disciplined use of the Gloria is a given.

9. The Priest and fellow-priests, or believers, offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving:

Priest. Praise ye the Lord. Answer. The Lord's Name be praised.

Interpretation:

In sequence to the praying for the opening of the lips, the petition for divine aid of enablement to worship, the praying priests seek speedy deliverance along with the expression of praise, the Trinitarian Doxology or Gloria.

Applications:

1. It becomes clearer why this scribe cannot tolerate or go near contemporary worship; it is also clear why this scribe cannot abide non-liturgical and often--quite unbiblical--worship services; advise youth to avoid professors, seminaries, elders or deacons that advance this shallowness re: Law and Gospel said to include, but not limited to Rick Warren, general evangelicals and others ; advise them to get into Confessional Churches that are liturgically mature; however, we cannot recommend the American Anglican breed (ACNA); their Prayer Book is as defective as the educations and "confessions" (sola mish masha) of their leaders (sola confusa). Seek a Confessional Reformed congregation where the theology is solid, while tolerating the non-liturgy. Use the Prayer Book privately until any Reformed Anglican works develop.

2. Use the Prayer Book daily until death. As the evangelical Anglican, Charles Simeon, stated (in essence), “I never was or felt closer to heaven than when praying and reading the prayer book.

3. Advocate for the recovery of Psalm-singing rather than hymns in connection with the BCP.

4. No revisions except the standing objection: one rubric to identify the laity as “fellow priests and kings” with the lawfully called and ordained priest. Without the rubric, the mischief continues. Or, adopt the 1552 BCP by Cranmer or the 1873 BCP of the REC that wisely replaced "priest" with "minister." We've identified this objection previously.

Blog 224: 4.17.21 - 4.17.24 - Blogging the Institutes

Blog 224: 4.17.21 - 4.17.24 - Blogging the Institutes

Posted using ShareThis

An excellent post on the "is" of hoc est corpus meum from the Master.

Poll Update: 18 November 2009

Duncan thinks the ACNA should be Calvinistic?

3 “yes.” 8 “no.” About 37% to 73%. It is difficult with short questions to provide adequate definitions. We think as Dordtian Calvinists, as most Calvinists in the Reformed world do. The Amyraldian view of Calvinism, e.g. Sydney, is not Calvinism Confessionally defined. We think that Bob of Pittsburg believes in sola ad mixta and that Calvinism and Greek Orthodoxy are compatible. The Greeks disagree; their Confessional documents call Calvinism "abominable, impious and blasphemous." Or, Bob's view that Calvinism and Anglo-Catholicism are compatible. Or, again, that everybody should play go alonga and sola confusa. Calvinism, from what we’ve seen, is a sola non issua. The ACNA is a "half-baked" cake. The "half-baked" is a justifiable sobriquiet.

Duncan became a Calvinist during seminary days at General Seminary, NY?

1 “yes.” 7 “no.” 13% to 87%. We don’t have Bob’s transcript, but we’ll say this. Bob may have escaped the rampant liberalism of biblical vandalism while at General. The place is notoriously liberal. What solid Churchman would spent three cents or three years there? This itself testifies to the uter weakness of his pre-seminary days---then three years in a biblical ghetto of liberal Episcopalianism. We still have no doctrinal statements or developments from Bob or his associates re: liberal views of Scripture. His view of women’s ordination is a symptom of his deeper difficulties, e.g. sola cultura et sola moderna. Bob didn’t go to a good seminary. Who really knows what Bob believes, let alone Calvinism. We feel fairly confident that Bob did NOT-repeat, did NOT--become a Calvinist at General. The "yes" voter is "out to lunch" on the question.

One does not go to General Seminary to become a Reformed or Calvinist Anglican.

Duncan believes predestination and that only the elect are the intended recipients of redemption?

2 “yes.” 4 “no.” 3 “who knows?” 22% said “yes.” Not a trick question, but we assumed “unconditional election,” something abhorrent to Anglo-Catholics and their Orthodox friends. About 65% said “no” or “who knows.” A large problem has emerged. Sola nighta and sola confusa. Given our own darkness about Bob's theology, any answer could apply. The "who knows?" voters are probably the most correct.

Duncan hopes Calvinists will not be too loud about it?

6 “yes.” 4 “no.” 60% to 40%. Either way, Bob doesn’t have to worry. The Calvinists believe in ad mixta, ad confusa, sola cultura, doctrinal go alonga and sola enthusiastica. He can look straight at the sola capitula of every bishop in the Reformed Episcopal Church, as well as AMiA Churchmen. Whatever Rev. (bp.) Roger's leanings once were, we hear no "principled statements" from him on Reformed Theology. Having known the REC bishops, no possible trust can exist for those who know them---NONE. Sola needa accepta by'a others. Will sell theology for it too.

The 40% voters are sensitive on the question. English Reformers were Calvinist. The 40%-ers hope Calvinism does NOT become an issue. No need to worry. Principled, biblical, theological and historical exegesis will not govern the discussions.

Romans 3.9: Why I am not Roman, Orthodox, or Evangelical Arminian

Romans 3.9

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,

9 τι ουν προεχομεθα ου παντως προητιασαμεθα γαρ ιουδαιους τε και ελληνας παντας υφ αμαρτιαν ειναι
Observations:

Observations:

1. Verse 9. “To return to the discussion,” following Romans 3.1-8 and the casuistic questions about God’s faithfulness, truthfulness, and justice. What should be said? Are Jews superior? Or are Gentiles? There’s nothing to choose here since both were equally indicted, the Gentiles (Romans 1.18-32) and the Jews (Romans 2.17-29). Both ethnic and all linguistic groups are under sin.

2. Whether Jew or Gentile regarding privileges, one over the other in either direction, such is answered by a “sweeping denial. (Murray, 102). Paul answers: “No, not at all.” The sense of the answer is: “not by any means,” “in no respect,” or “altogether not.”

3. Irrespective of birth or privilege, e.g. the Hebrew exposure and possession of the “oracles of God” (Romans 3.1), all--without exception or exemption, are “under sin.” παντας υφ αμαρτιαν ειναι

4. Romans 3.9-20, if we may, is the closing argument of the universal indictment of Romans 1.18-2.24. The gavel has dropped. "All are under sin."

5. The series of statements drawn from the Old Testament are decisive for Paul. There are no rabbis, apocryphal literature or self-statements. The Scripture triumphantly concludes the case.

6. This section deals with sin, loss of communion with God, the fugitive impulse in the fallen human, the alienation of affections, the twistedness of fallen reason in theological matters, inherent opposition to God and His kingdom, and the specifics of sin’s venomous anti-God character, its internal and external nature.

7. This will raise the question of the origin of sin: confer Romans 5.12ff., inter alia. To be discussed later.

8. Murray powerfully summarizes it this way: “To be `under sin’ is to be under the dominion of sin, and the pervasiveness of the resulting perversity is demonstrated in the manifold ways in which it is manifested. The apostle has selected a series of indictments drawn from the Old Testament and covering the wide range of human character and activity to show that, from whatever aspect men may be viewed, the verdict of Scripture is one of universal and total depravity. The quotation of verses 10-18 is not deprived from any one place in the Old Testament. The apostle places together various passages which when thus combined provide a unified summary of the witness of the Old Testament to the pervasive sinfulness of mankind.”

Correlations (larger considerations and relationships):

1. The classic religions contained a general view that the gods are offended and must be propitiated some way. Humans are hard-wired for his.

2. Contemporaries still think—often—that entrance into Christ’s kingdom is works-based, self-propitiation perhaps with layers of Christian theology. “God judges the heart.” Contemporary evangelicalism has no sensitivities about Law and Gospel.

3. Psalm 143.2; Prov.20.9; Ecc.7.20; Gal.3.22; James 3.2; 1 John 1.8,10 are a few among many texts on the universality of the fall and its effects.

4. Sin is not the result of imitating bad examples: Psalm 51.5; Job.14.4; Jn.3.6.

5. Federal theology re: imputed guilt and inherited corruption.

6. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Pelagius, Hugo St.
Victor, Peter the Lombard, Anselm, Bonaventura, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Socinus, Arminius, Reformation Confessions and liturgies, Barth and Brunner.

7. Arminians and man’s inherited inability and hence, guiltlessness. "God can't judge someone for something he or she is unable to perform," the operational assumption in Arminianism and Orthodoxy. Arminians and a “gracious ability” based on common grace, enabling them to turn to God.

8. Jonathan Edwards on the “natural ability” versus the “moral inability.” Freedom of the Will, 1741. How this corrupted New England Calvinism with the New Haven theology.

9. Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will, 1525.

10. Immaculate Conception and the Romish doctrine.

11. Trent, 6th Session, Canon 1: “…although in the free will by no means extinct, though its powers were weakened and bowed down.” In other words, though the will is injured, corrupted and defiled, yet it is not wholly lost, destroyed or annihilated. (Chemnitz, 1.413)

12. Greek patriarch, Cyril Lucar, 1631. Schaff’s Creeds, 1.57ff. Cyril, later repudiated by the Orthodox, believes: “…the freedom of the will before regeneration is denied. (Ch. XIV).” Pisteuomen en tois ouk anagennhqeisai to autexousion nekron einai. Cyril's views on the effect of the fall is summarized by Schaff: “This is in direct opposition to the traditional Greek doctrine which emphasizes liberium arbitrium even more than the Roman, and was never affected by the Augustinian anthropology.”

13. Arminius is straight from the play book of Orthodoxy: “God has from eternity predestined to glory those who would, in his foreknowledge, make good use of their free will in accepting the salvation, and condemned those who would reject it. The Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional predestination is condemned as abominable, impious, and blasphemous.” Confessio Dosithei, Schaff, op.cit., I.63. We understand that anti-Reformation man, Metropolitan Jonah, with his fooled appearance at the ACNA hugfest, 23 Jun 2009, tolerated by the duplicitous, cowardly, and un-Reformed in American Anglican leadership.

14. Romanism: “Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted.” Catholic Catechism, 405. (Misnamed: it should be called the Romanist Catechism since the Catholic Churches of the Reformation own the title. Another usurpation by them.) Paul will take a different view than the Papists.

Interpretation:

1. Paul presents total depravity of all humans. They “under sin” and the dominion of sin, with the resulting perversity substantiated by a series of indictments drawn from the Old Testament. These indictments cover the wide range of human character and activity to show that the verdict of Scripture is one of universal and total depravity. For St. Paul, what the "Word " says is what "God says."

Applications:

1. Continue to expose the lies of Rome, Orthodoxy, and contemporary evangelicalism (non-Reformed, Arminian).

2. Expose the weaknesses of the Reformed facilitators who are soft on the proud Wesley brothers.

3. Expose the sola duplicita, non solas, sola admixta, sola confusa, and sola stupida of the ACNA and its facilitators. The leaders know what they are doing; the poor sheep don’t know and perhaps don’t care. Caveat emptor.

Calvin's Institutes. 4.7.18: Rome's Imperial Lusts

Calvin’s Institutes, IV.7. 7.17-18: “Rome’s jurisdiction through relations with the usurpers Phocas and Pepin, and thereafter established to the injury of the church”

IV.4.7.18: The Decay of the Church until the Time of Bernard of Clairvaux”

Observations:

1. Calvin provides two quotes from Bernard of Clairveaux (1090-1153) that correctly illustrate the ambition, indiscipline and decadence of the church.

2. Bernard concerning corruptions: “Few pay attention to the mouth of the lawgiver; all, to his hands. And not without reason! For those hands do all the pope’s business. What thing is that, that those who say to you, `Well done, well done,’ are brought from the spoils of the churches? The life of the poor is sown in the streets of the rich; silver glitters in the mud; men rush to it from all sides; not the poorer man but the stronger carries it off, or perhaps he who runs more swiftly. Yet this morality—or rather, this mortality—comes not from you. Would that it might end in you! Amid these things you perform your pastoral duties, surrounded by much and costly array. If I dare say it, these are pastures of devils rather than of sheep. Of course, Peter made a a practice of this: Paul played at this! Your court is accustomed to receive goods rather than make men good. For evil men do not profit there; but good men fail there.”

3. Bernard concerning the unbridled covetousness of Rome in is lusts for power and imperious impulse at usurping jurisdictions: “I voice the murmur and common complaint of the churches. They cry out that they are mangled and dismembered. There are either none or few churches that do not lament or fear these cruel blows. You ask what blows? Abbots are pulled away from the bishops; bishops from their archbishops, etc. Strange, in deed, if this can be excused! By behaving in this way you prove that you have fullness of power, but not of righteousness. This you do because you can, but the question whether you also ought. You have been appointed to preserve for each his honor and rank, not to covet them.”[1]

4. Calvin’s summarization: “We accordingly see the character and prodigious extent of Rome’s profanation of all things sacred, and the dissolution o the whole church order in Bernard’s day. He complains that there converge upon Rome from the whole earth the ambitious, the greedy, the simoniacs, the sacrilegious, the keepers of concubines, the incestuous, and all such monsters, to obtain or retain churchly honors by apostolic authority; and the fraud, deception, and violence have prevailed.”

5. Calvin has cited two quotes from Bernard, although he notes that other quotes abound.

Correlations:

1. Hildebrandian developments before Bernard.

2. Papacy from Charlemagne to Hildedbrand.

Interpretation:

1. Calvin asserts that the Papacy grew through wicked and dirty hands; further, that Bernard correctly expounded the pride, ambition, and unrighteousness of the bishop of Rome. Godly theology and discipline were not to be had.

Application:

1. Search and destroy the "romanticism" with "Romishness," "anti-Confessionalism," and "Anti-Reformationism" amongst the AC/TRACTO's.

2. Expose the prinicples of sola stupida and sola getta alonga.

[1] Bernard, De consideratione I.iv.5; x.13; IV.ii .4,5; III.ii.6-12; III.iv.14.

Calvin's Institutes. 4.7.17: Romanism a Political Construct

Calvin’s Institutes, IV.7. 7.17-18: “Rome’s jurisdiction through relations with the usurpers Phocas and Pepin, and thereafter established to the injury of the church”

IV.4.7.17: The eventual establishment of the papal supremacy

Observations:

1. Calvin mentions Phocas granted to Boniface 111 what Gregory 1 had never sought, to wit, that Rome should be the head of all the churches. What Gregory denied, Boniface 111 affirmed.

2. Gaul reverenced Rome but “only insofar as it pleased.”

3. After Pepin took the kingdom, Rome was “reduced to subjection.”

4. Zacharias, bp. of Rome, helped Pepin (714-768). Zacharias was hard-pressed by the Lombards.

5. Pepin was the King of the Franks (751-768) and the father of Charlemagne. The reward was Rome’s “jurisdiction over the churches of Gaul.”

6. Here’s Calvin’s summary of the Zacharias-Pepin deal: “As robbers are accustomed to divide up the common spoil, so these good gentlemen arranged between themselves that Pepin should be allowed the earthly and civil lordship after the true king had been deprived, while Zacharias should become the head of all the bishops and hold spiritual power.”

7. The pope’s authority thereafter was weak. However, this authority was strengthened with Charlemagne “for almost the same reason: he also was behold to the Roman pontiff because he came to the imperial rank by the Pope’s efforts.”

8. Calvin refers to extant notes in the Court of Paris for substantiation of this new era of Papal temporal power, something distinct from the period of Gregory 1.

Interpretation:

Petrine Supremacy is a political, not theological construct.

Catechism

Catechism

Posted using ShareThis

Creideamh A-mhàin: The 12 Solas of the Modern ACNA

Creideamh A-mhàin: The 12 Solas of the Modern ACNA

Posted using ShareThis

Helm's Deep: 'JI'

Helm's Deep: 'JI'

Posted using ShareThis

Twelve Solas of the Modern ACNA

"The Twelve Solas of the (modern ACNA) Church:

1. Sola Cultura – Culture defines biblical message and preaching. Make anti-homosexuality the basis of collaboration.

2. Sola Successa – Numerical success determines truth. We need affirmation from other Anglicans in the "numbers game." Otherwise, we have no validity.

4. Sola Entertaina – Louder is better (AMiA). Doctrine must go. No catechisms or confessions from pre-1979.

5. Sola Mio – Meet my needs.

6. Sola Emotionala– Emote, dudes and dudettes. "Romanticize" and "feel" those Goth Medievalisms for the TRACTO-fullas. Ensure that you replace doctrinal preaching with a few dozen liturgical pieties to be found no where in the historical Books of Common Prayer. "Emote" for the charismatic stream.

7. Sola Stupida –Thinking not allowed. No theologians, commentaries, confessions, liturgies, doctrinal hymns, or historical references. Pray, pay and obey (the Priest).

8. Sola Romana et Tractana - No Protestant, Reformed, Calvinistic, Confessional Anglicans. Grab the Canons and Constitution to guarantee and solidify your grip. Reformation theology is "heretical."

9. Sola Bootstrappa - Positively no Calvinism as the doctrinal core.

10. Sola Bambina - Only children for leadership. Only boys with no backbone or "principled convictions."

11. Sola Duplicita - Say one thing and behave in another way. Hold to the Thirty-nine Articles, contextually interpreted, and deny the Articles ala Newman. Make sure to cover this up or get rid of this somehow. Say you're all "one in Christ." Smiling and nice talking is required. A doctorate in palaver preferred. "Double-mindedness" is a virtue, so stress that.

12. Non solas - absolutely no five solas of the Reformation

1- John Whitgift (1530-1604): Third Archbishop of Canterbury under Elizabeth 1

Part one beginneth.

John Strype, The Life and Acts of John Whitgift, D.D., The Third and Last Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth in Four Books, Vol 1. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1822).[1]

Volume 1 is free and downloadable at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fti4aQKAbRsC&pg=PA161&dq=strype+whitgift+volume+1&ei=UU3_SrXeJp-CygTDxtD8Dg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Volume 2

http://books.google.com/books?id=4tMUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA602&dq=strype+whitgift&as_brr=1&ei=PEr_SuOMIaqGyQSVrMWoDw#v=onepage&q=strype%20whitgift&f=false

Observations:

1. 1530-1604, John Whitgift, the third Archbishop of Canterbury in Elizabeth 1’s reign.

2. John Strype writes a dedicatory introduction to the Archbishop of Canterbury, upon the completion of “good governors of this reformed Church of England.” We summarize those in 3-5 below.

3. Strype observes that the current ABC endeavours to walk in the good footsteps of John Whitgift.

4. Strype says Whitgift was a “man above the world, contemning all the faint and fading glories,” was “possessed with a firm and comfortable affiance and trust in God,” and was a man of “invincible patience.” With respect to the latter, he suffered “taunts, reproaches, calumnies, clamours, lies and insufferable abuses” in “Parliaments, in city, in country.” He'll suffer from Papists and Radical.

5. He laboured to “keep the Church of England, as it was legally established in the first reformation of it.” (16)
After the dedicatory piece, Strype writes a preface to the reader.

6. He wishes to conserve the history “of our reformed Church under Queen Elizabeth.” He observes that there have been many efforts to overthrow the “evangelical and apostolic discipline,” settled upon the “very wise and good men, our first Reformers.”

7. Strype will give us Whitgift’s life and governance of the church.

8. He promises to enlarge on the story at various points with the following names.

a. Archbishops and Bishops: Parker, Grindal, Sandys, Cox, Scory, Aelmer, Cooper, Overton, Hutton, Matthew, Pierse, Bilson, Fletcher, Still, Bickley, Heton, Bancroft.

b. Deans, divine, and university men: Noel (Nowell?), Perne, Goodman, Fox, Lever, Saravia, Sutcliff, Whitaker, Broughton, Reynolds, Baro, Hooker, Andrews, Abbot, Goad, Overal, Nevyl, charior.

c. New Reformers and Separatists: Sampson, Nicolls, Cartwright, Travers, Chark, Giffard, Browne, Randall, Fenn, Snape, Pagitt, Penry, Udall, Barrow, Greenword, Darell.

d. Papists: Ballard, Moor, and Priests in wisbich-castle.

9. Strype’s sources: authentic records, papers of state, original letters, registries of Archbishops and Bishops of Canterbury, and records from the University, Cotton Library, Heralds’ Office, Mr. Petyt’s library, the Harleyan library, and the library of the Bishop of Ely. He says he consulted other treasuries of “manuscripts of the greatest fame.” He promises to quote extensively.

10. From such, one will see what “the true principles of the Church of England be; what grounds it stands upon; what arguments it hath used to defend itself. The benefit whereof may be, to prevent any after-derivations from it, by any novel doctrines or modern practices, endeavoured to be superinduced on it. We may see what violent and dangerous assaults it hath met with from two sorts of ill-willers especially.”

Correlations:

1. Strype’s other monumental volumes.

2. Correlations to the writings as available in 9a.-9d. above.

Interpretation:

Strype promises to give a documentary and source-based account of John Whitgift, the third Archbishop of Canterbury during Elizabeth 1’s reign.

[1] Volume Two of Whitgift’s works is free and downloadable at: http://books.google.com/books?id=ztEQAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=strype+whitgift&as_brr=1&ei=PEr_SuOMIaqGyQSVrMWoDw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Cyberbrethren » Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the Reformation

Cyberbrethren » Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the Reformation

Posted using ShareThis

Mark Horne » Blog Archive » Huguenots v. Puritans

Mark Horne » Blog Archive » Huguenots v. Puritans

Posted using ShareThis

Daniel: A Rude, Written, Liturgical Confession. Too Confining

Daniel 9 (English Standard Version)

Daniel’s Prayer for His People

1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the) Chaldeans— 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

3Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. 4 I prayed to the LORD my God and made confession, saying,

"O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, 5 we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. 7 To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you. 8 To us, O LORD, belongs open shame, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against you. 9 To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him 10 and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God by walking in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. 11 All Israel has transgressed your law and turned aside, refusing to obey your voice. And the curse and oath that are written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out upon us, because we have sinned against him. 12 He has confirmed his words, which he spoke against us and against our rulers who ruled us, by bringing upon us a great calamity. For under the whole heaven there has not been done anything like what has been done against Jerusalem. 13 As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this calamity has come upon us; yet we have not entreated the favor of the LORD our God, turning from our iniquities and gaining insight by your truth. 14 Therefore the LORD has kept ready the calamity and has brought it upon us, for the LORD our God is righteous in all the works that he has done, and we have not obeyed his voice. 15 And now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and have made a name for yourself, as at this day, we have sinned, we have done wickedly.

16 "O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill, because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a byword among all who are around us. 17 Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant and to his pleas for mercy, and for your own sake, O Lord, make your face to shine upon your sanctuary, which is desolate. 18 O my God, incline your ear and hear. Open your eyes and see our desolations, and the city that is called by your name. For we do not present our pleas before you because of our righteousness, but because of your great mercy. 19 O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act. Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name."

Gabriel Brings an Answer

20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the LORD my God for the holy hill of my God, 21 while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He made me understand, speaking with me and saying, "O Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding. 23 At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.

The Seventy Weeks

24 "Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."

Romans 3.9-20: Sanday and Headlam

Observations from Sanday and Headlam, ICC. The death knell to Arminianism and any variants thereof.

Romans 3:9-20 (English Standard Version)

No One Is Righteous

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
10 as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips."
14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known."
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes."
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

9 τι ουν προεχομεθα ου παντως προητιασαμεθα γαρ ιουδαιους τε και ελληνας παντας υφ αμαρτιαν ειναι
10 καθως γεγραπται οτι ουκ εστιν δικαιος ουδε εις
11 ουκ εστιν συνιων ουκ εστιν εκζητων τον θεον
12 παντες εξεκλιναν αμα ηχρεωθησαν ουκ εστιν ποιων χρηστοτητα ουκ εστιν εως ενος
13 ταφος ανεωγμενος ο λαρυγξ αυτων ταις γλωσσαις αυτων εδολιουσαν ιος ασπιδων υπο τα χειλη αυτων
14 ων το στομα αρας και πικριας γεμει
15 οξεις οι ποδες αυτων εκχεαι αιμα
16 συντριμμα και ταλαιπωρια εν ταις οδοις αυτων
17 και οδον ειρηνης ουκ εγνωσαν
18 ουκ εστιν φοβος θεου απεναντι των οφθαλμων αυτων
19 οιδαμεν δε οτι οσα ο νομος λεγει τοις εν τω νομω λαλει ινα παν στομα φραγη και υποδικος γενηται πας ο κοσμος τω θεω
20 διοτι εξ εργων νομου ου δικαιωθησεται πασα σαρξ ενωπιον αυτου δια γαρ νομου επιγνωσις αμαρτιας

Observations:

1. Sanday and Headlam give a verse by verse summary before proceeding to a verse by verse analysis. We summarize that here.

2. Verse 9. “To return to the discussion,” following Romans 3.1-8 and the casuistic questions about God’s faithfulness, truthfulness, and justice. What should be said? Are Jews superior? Or are Gentiles? There’s nothing to choose here since both were equally indicted, the Gentiles (Romans 1.18-32) and the Jews (Romans 2.17-29). Both ethnic and all linguistic groups are under sin.

3. Verse 10. From Psalm 14. The Psalmist can’t find a single righteous man.

4. Verse 11. There is none that shows with “moral or religious intelligence” and none “to show any desire to God.”

5. Verse 12. They have all turned aside. They are like “milk turned sour and bad.” There is not one single right-doer among them.

6. Verse 13. Psalm 5.9 is quoted and affords details: a mouth like a grave spewing for the death-smells. The mouth “vents forth lying and depraved speech.” The tongue goes to the grave and is from the grave. We add that the Psalms repeatedly talks about lying lips, smooth speech and flattery as a cover for deceit, and worse. The venom of snakes lies under the smooth speech.

7. Verse 14. The throat, tongue, and lips are full “of nothing but cursing and venom.”

8. Verse 15. Eager to commit murder and bloodshed.

9. Verse 16. On target for “ruin and misery.”

10. Verse 17. Aliens to peace.

11. Verse 18. Summary standard? The fear of God does not supply any standard.

12. Verse 19. Thus all have sinned. Not even the Jew can claim this. The Law of Moses “stops” the Jewish mouth from “all excuse and that all mankind might be held accountable.”

13. Verse 20. This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By the works of the law, not mortal can “be declared righteous in God’s sight. Paul says: “20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight.” The only effect of the Law was to open men’s eyes to their sinfulness, not to enable them to do better.

Correlations:

1. Arminianism, Wesleyanism, contemporary evangelicalism.

2. Romanism.

3. Para-church groups like Campus Crusade, Intervarsity, etc.

4. Western theology, Synod of Orange, Augustine, Anselm, Bradwardine.

5. Liberal theology. J. Gresham Machen.

Interpretation:

The inescapable consequences and details of the Fall are brought to an excellent summary.

Applications:

1. Disseminate.

2. Support Pauline-based Gospel. Encourage those in Pelagian and semi-Pelagian churches, fellowships, etc., to get as far away as possible from them---said to include, but not limited to many so-called evangelical bodies.

3. Examine harmartiology in the Book of Common Prayer and Reformation Confessions.

Calvin's Institutes. 4.7.16. "He Lies Like a Pope"

Calvin’s Institutes, IV.4.7.11-16. “Attitude of fifth- and sixth-century popes: Rome vs. Constantinople.”

IV.7.16: “Pride of John the Faster and modesty of Gregory”

There's an old saying, "He curses like a `Sailor.'" We introduce a new and true saying, "He lies like a `Pope.'"


Observations:

1. The controversy arises between John the Faster and the bishop of Rome, Gregory the Great.

2. John the Faster (d.595) was the 33rd Patriarch of Constantinople (582-595). He assumed the title “Ecumencial Patriarch and is celebrated as a saint on 2 September, annually.

3. Calvin says of John the Faster: “…bursts forth with the claim that he was the universal patriarch.”

4. Gregory stedfastly opposed this. From Calvin: “The pride as well as the madness of John was truly intolerable: he wanted the boundaries of his bishopric to be the same as the boundaries of the Empire.” Gregory does not claim what he is denying to John, but rather “abominates as wicked, impious, and execrable that title, by whomever it is assumed.”

5. An Alexandrian bishop, Eulogius, attempts to fix the title on Gregory of Rome. "Universal Pope."

6. Here’s Gregory’s rebuttal and correction of the Alexandrian bishop: “See here by calling me `universal pope’ in the preface to the letter you have sent me, you have taken care to inscribe a word of proud address that I have forbidden. I beg your holiness not to do this henceforth, because when more is given to another than reason requires, it is withdrawn from you. I consider it no honor to see the honor of my brethren diminished. For my honor is the honor of the church universal, and the life and vigor of my brethren. But if your holiness call me `universal pope,’ that is to deny to yourself what you attribute wholly to me.”[1] The short of it: don't use the derogatory term again in any correspondence.

Correlations:

1. Hildebrandian Papacy. Hildebrand, called “Hell Fire” in Germany.

2. The Great Schism of 1054, which divided Eastern and Western Christianity, the result of long-standing political, doctrinal, ecclesiastical, geographical and linguistic contests.

3. The Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, wherein Petrine supremacy over the world was re-asserted.

4. Unam Sanctum, 1301-2. Boniface VIII.

5. The rise and history of pompous titles, e.g. "Your Holiness," "Your grace," "Your eminence," etc., and other fooled titles still in use, including the Goth medievalists in the AC/TRACTO crowd.

Interpretation:

The attitudes of fifth century bishops in the east do not cede to Rome a supremacy that she still obstinately claims other than a “place of honour.” Leo in the fifth century resented the recognition afforded to Constantinople, their growing influence, and their failure to embrace his views. So much for Petrine Supremacy. By the time of Gregory I in the late sixth century…continuingly…there is no claim to universal Petrine supremacy by the bishops of Rome. What comes later is a beaucratic growth with a beaucracy in search of biblical substantiation and historical precedent. Neither exists.

Applications:

1. Consider the silence in Confessional and wider evangelical circles.

2. Consider worldwide implications of this silence, e.g. Third World and Southern Cone countries.

3. Consider the impact on a solitary Romanist believer and the evangelistic necessity and tactics of informing such that he’s been lied to and that these continuing defenses by Rome as mere “imperialism” without support.

4. Pull—as should be done—"the integrity card" on the Romanists in denial. Rome has had centuries to get into a “rehab” and “detox” program. They are worse than alcoholics. They are—the whole bunch of them—corporate liars. “Remove from me, O LORD, proud and lying lips.” Play the integrity card, the trump card, with Romanists.



[1] Gregory, Letters, V.37, 39, 41, 44, 45. Cf. F.H. Dudden, Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought, II. 201-237.

Horton on Rome v. Protestest Discussions, Modern Reformation

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=120&var3=authorbio&var4=AutRes&var5=1

Dr. Michael Horton on Rome v. Protestant Discussions

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Open Question for Michael Horton

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Open Question for Michael Horton

Posted using ShareThis

VirtueOnline - News - Theology, Research ... - Charles Simeon: Evangelical Mentor and Model

VirtueOnline - News - Theology, Research ... - Charles Simeon: Evangelical Mentor and Model

Posted using ShareThis

VirtueOnline - News - As Eye See It - The Difference between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists - John Stott

VirtueOnline - News - As Eye See It - The Difference between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists - John Stott

Posted using ShareThis

English Reformer: Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556): Standing Alone

Part two beginneth, 20.

Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, 1556, Relative to the Sacrament of the LORD’s SUPPER. Edited for the Parker Society by the Rev. John Edmund Fox. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1844).

The frontispeice of the Parker Society series puts it:

"For the publication of the works of the fathers and early writers of the Reformed English Church."

http://books.google.com/books?id=mFgYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA422&dq=thomas+cranmer+parker+society&as_brr=1&ei=Wbf4Sq_xGYvazQTWuaSPBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Observations:

1. A note is made of the much-heralded gentleness of Cranmer, if not to a fault. “…altogether void of the vice of stubbornness, and rather culpable of overmuch facility and gentleness.” Patience was a leading characteristic. The common proverb was: “Do unto my lord of Canterbury displeasure of a shrewd turn, and then you may be sure to have him your friend whiles he liveth” (20).

2. Cranmer responds to “popish priests” who use ad hominems: "This is my question may well be found well answered in your service. But I now well perceive, howsoever you have judged heretofore of my learning, sure I am that you have none at all. But this is the common practice of all you, which are ignorant and superstitious priests, to slander, backbite, and hate all such as are learned and well affected to God’s word and sincere religion.” Cranmer continues in this vein for some time...the abuses of the ad hominems serve to underscore and highlight the paucity of learning of the popish priests.

3. We have noted previously that Cranmer resisted Henry's Six Articles, enacted by the Convocation and Parliament (1539) to sooth relations with Romish France and Spain and to curb the growing Reform movement. Hugh Latimer of Worcester and Nicholas Shaxton of Salisbury resigned their sees. Cranmer had to send his wife overseas. Cranmer stood alone for three long days debating against these in the Parliament. Henry, ever favourable to Cranmer, asked him to abstain from attendance while the vote was taken.

a. First, that in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ's mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man;

b. Secondly, that communion in both kinds is not necessary ad salutem, by the law of God, to all persons; and that it is to be believed, and not doubted of, but that in the flesh, under the form of the bread, is the very blood; and with the blood, under the form of the wine, is the very flesh; as well apart, as though they were both together.

c. Thirdly, that priests after the order of priesthood received, as afore, may not marry, by the law of God.

d. Fourthly, that vows of chastity or widowhood, by man or woman made to God advisedly, ought to be observed by the law of God; and that it exempts them from other liberties of Christian people, which without that they might enjoy.

e. Fifthly, that it is meet and necessary that private masses be continued and admitted in this the King's English Church and Congregation, as whereby good Christian people, ordering themselves accordingly, do receive both godly and goodly consolations and benefits; and it is agreeable also to God's law.

f. Sixthly, that auricular confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued, used and frequented in the Church of God:. . . It is therefore ordained and enacted.

4. About twelve Popish bishops came to Cranmer following passage thinking Cranmer would support them. Their hope was misplaced. “…he alone stood against them all in defense of the truth.” (24)

Correlations:

1. The political and ecclesiastical realities of France, Spain, Scotland, Germany, Switzerland.

2. Cranmer’s relationship to Henry.
3. The progress of reform from 1520 till 1539 compared to 1540-49.
4. The history of the Bible, Tyndale, and Coverdale.
5. Matthew Parker is 35 in 1539. Grindal is 20 and still at Cambridge University. Calvin is 30 and connected with Geneva. Luther is 56 and the German Reformation is in full swing. Cranmer is 49 years old.

Interpretation:

Cranmer, living in Romish country and under Henry VIII, evinces patience and courage. He was a man unafraid to stand alone and stand up to Henry VIII with arguments, reason, patience and courage.

6-Why I Use the Book of Common Prayer

6-The text is immediately below. Below that are my own observations, correlation, interpretation, and applications.

Why I use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for daily and evening Prayers?

-------------
Then likewise he shall say,

"Priest: Lord, open thou our lips.

Answer. And our mouth shall show forth thy praise."

--------------
Observations:

1. The Church or individual using the BCP has confessed his sins. He has considered and appropriated the Word of God with its plenipotent potency. He has embraced the infallible promises and assurances of forgiveness and absolution. He has exercised justifying faith in Christ alone. The LORD’s prayer followed. We considered this earlier. A google search at the blogsite will pull up earlier comments on "Why I Use the Book of Common Prayer."

2. In the "versicles" at hand, we offer our imploring prayer for the divine opening of the worship of praise, the hearing of God’s Word, our responses to God’s Word, and further prayers that follow. Again, Anglicans are a people who corporately pray. It is at Book of "Common" Prayer, that is, it is a book for the "commoners" or Churchmen, a book used throughout the national church--during the heydays when Anglicanism was the norm rather than the exception (as here in enthusiast-land).

3. Quite notably, the service is Augustinian like the Engish Reformers. Take away the divine blessing and enablement and one has a dead formality. Nothing exposes the "deadness" of worship than a worshipper "deadly" reading his prayers.

a. O Lord, open thou our lips. Answer. And our mouth shall show forth thy praise.

b. This reflects the ethos of Psalm 119 and that God and God alone empowers praise and worship.

c. One correspondent with our blogspot, a Reformed Anglican pastor, noted that some people dislike the “Anglican penitential flavour” of the Prayer Book. There may be some truth to that on first glance—that those who unfamiar and first-time users of the book might draw that conclusion. The claim is unfounded, premature, and reflects lack of exposure to the services.

d. However, having noted that above, let no Anglican take a back-seat to these enthusiasts thinking they have the “corner” on Praise & Worship. They equate their loudness, drum-driven enthusiasms and narcissistic sense of superiority with genuine piety. The Anglican earnestly prays and desires that his lips, mind and heart would be opened to praise God. How often we've heard and patiently endured their fruitless objections.

e. Let Anglicans resist this modern nonsense. Why? We are at this point beseeching God “to open our lips” and, as a consequence of justification and our redemption, then we “open our mouths and show forth thy praise.” The jaws move, the lips move, the tongue is employed, the heart is engaged, the mind is thinking and is focused. There's even "joy deep, deep down, moving joy." Undergirding this prayer is the Sovereign God who does that, helping, enabling, and encouraging our praises. Where two or three are gathered in His name, there is Christ.

f. This is exactly what is done when we move forward in the service. There are a few more versicles, but then—momentarily in seconds, we say or sing the 95th Psalm. Again, we use God’s infallible Word for praise. We highly prefer singing. This scribe uses the Covenanter Psalter for the congregational ease and simplicity of the tunes. Some have used the Anglican chant, although that can be difficult for a congregation to learn or use. Here's how we move from the versicles to the 95th Psalm, entitled the Venite.

1. “O Come, let us sing unto the Lord…

2. “Let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our salvation…

3. “Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving…

4. “Let us show ourselves glad in Him…

5. And so forth throughout the Psalm.

6. Who can complain here about no praise and worship among Anglicans?

g. Never let any non-BCP user say or accuse us of “poor praise” or that we are subdued by our Biblical form. That’s the enthusiast talking.

h. “Our lips shall show forth thy praise.”

1. That is, “our tongues,” in a known language, not the Babylonics, histrionics and theatrics of confused tongues that Pentecostal Babylonians babble about. Yeah, press on others. If the English Reformation did nothing else, it surely advanced informed use of the English tongue for worship, not the Latin. It advanced literate and intelligible worship.

2. This is a separate issue, to wit, Pentecostal blabbing. That can be handled in the comments section if further inquiry is desired.

3. We pray in the English language.

4. We use recognized sentences, syntax, words and message throughout the service.

5. We say and sing all this audibly, corporately, intelligently (mind, Romans 12.1-2), heartily (Ps.95.1-2) and with decency and good order (1 Cor.14.40).

6. Are there any further objections? If so, raise them in the comments section and we'll deal with them.

Interpretation:

Dependent fully upon His Majesty, His graciousness, and His Majestic Presence, the Prayer Book Anglican earnestly prays and seeks that his lips, mouth, mind, heart and soul will praise the LORD. What a great prayer we find as we enter more fully into divine worship---having proceeded from and through the Confession of Sin, Absolution, and the LORD's Prayer.

Application:

1. Humble, if needed, the bluster of enthusiasts' objections. Teach where opportunity is afforded. This includes, but is not limited to: Presbyterians and Reformed who churlishly ditched this book in the 17th century. (Being a literate and orderly tradition, many are more reasonable about it these days, may it be noted.) All this surely applies to the objections of the Baptists and other enthusiasts. Some will be offended that we refer to a literate tradition--Christianity is built upon a Book, a Bible, the Word of God. We make no apologies for being committed to intelligent, thinking, reasoned, hearty and full-souled c0mmittment to God's Word. If you need further inquiry, step up and put it in the comments section. The objection is often one of jealousy and, itself, one over which hearty repentance is needed. Clearly, a high schooler can understand these words. Younger people learn these prayers from memory, instructively, even evangelistically in some cases.

2. Do as you have prayed. "Open the mouth" and intelligently, heartily, and fully sing His Praises...which are to come shortly with the Venite of Psalm 95.

3. Teach Anglicans the importance of this point. Unabashedly, put the non-lits on the justifiable defensive..where they belong. They are the new comers to history.

Andrew Gosse on Watchmen, Liberalism and the TRACTO's

One correspondent has offered some insights. We publish his note below. He observes that "Watchmen" let their guard down and the twin dangers of liberalism and AC/TRACTO's, AINO's, have vitiated Reformed Anglicanism worldwide. That compromise and those consequences are evident to this day. This is particularly poignant for this scribe, given the daily readings in Ezekiel over the last three days, notably Ezekiel 33-34.

Andrew Gosse
November 12 at 8:29pm

I believe the liberals and Anglo Catholics/Tractarianism have entered into Anglicanism and its leadership through both well intentioned and lazy watchmen. I believe the liberals and AC/TRACT told the Reformed founders and watchmen everything they needed to hear all the while with their fingers crossed behind their backs biding their time til the got into positions of authority. Remember Tractarianism/Oxford Movement was originally outlawed til someone dropped their guard.

If this were not true or not the case Anglicanism would still be 100% Reformed Evangelical and the state of global Anglicanism and the false unity that has survived to this day is a testimony of that sad fact. I believe there are many saints still within the Anglican world but most are broken, wounded and heartbroken, not for the Anglican Church but for Christ and His sheep.

The Lord says you will know a tree by its fruit, a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit. Equally a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.With that I conclude no one can teach the truth of the Gospel of Christ unless they themselves believe it. We must not confuse Christ centered faith in teaching and preaching with Gods word just coming out of someone's mouth. Of course what is said will be true if it is Gods word.

However....The truth of God's word can be spoken but meant in error, that's what Satan did.I do not see any good fruit in standing by a Sheppard who denies the doctrine of Grace, the doctrine of Salvation, the Sovereignty of God and the Sufficiency of Christ.So I ask any minister, pastor, deacon, elder or overseer these questions. If there is a teaching or tradition you would not feed the sheep of your flock the Lord has entrusted to your guard and care for with your very life, why would you stand by and be in communion with someone who is abusing another flock of the Lords sheep by feeding them poison and leading them toward great peril?

Do you think the Lord will not judge your inaction or ambivalence toward their plight? Are you going to say to the Lord "I am innocent, they weren't my sheep". If you neighbour was abusing their children and you knew it would you do nothing? Gods Word is not a half truth its an all or nothing commitment, it is the fragrance of Christ to those who are saved and the stench of death to those who are perishing.

I would encourage anyone in ministry to read what I have just written, pray about, if it makes you uncomfortable, ask yourself why, if you already know why then step out in faith, if it does not make you uncomfortable, disregard it.

May His Blessing and Mercy be upon us.

I very much enjoy your blog and comments on others, may God continue to guide you in His service.

Calvin's Institutes. 4.7.15. Leo resents Constantinople

Calvin’s Institutes, IV.7.11-16. “Attitude of fifth- and sixth-century popes: Rome vs. Constantinople.”

Photo to the right is from a 9th-century work. It is a take on the Council of Constantinople, 381. It is important to recognize these issues are still standing matters of division between East and West.

Calvin busily puts Rome in its place as he defangs the claim of Rome to Petrine supremacy.

IV.7.15: “How Leo Resented the Recognition of Constantinople”

Observations:

1. The First Council of Constantinople, 381, clarified the divinity of the Holy Spirit as well as reaffirmed the Nicene Creed. Arianism had revived during the fourth century. Some have said the 381 Council was a “commentary” on the Nicene Creed. Gregory of Nazianzus presided. Notably, the Nicene Creed is still recited in Orthodox, Roman, Anglican and Lutheran worship services to this day.

2. Seven canons were directed at this Council, four doctrinal and three disciplinary.

3. The famous third canon reads:

a. “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is the new Rome.” This is based on an earlier understanding that metropolitan centres were to be allocated according to political units. The move of the Empire to Constantinople occasions fears.

b. Rome had long been viewed as an important persuasive centre of Christianity, but no one ever regarded the bishop of Rome as infallible nor a universal see. Alexandria and Antioch had been vigourous centres of Christianity.

c. This Council was a first step in elevating Constantinople, the new Rome of 50 years of age, a fact that would later irritate Leo of Rome. Often, the bishop of Constantinople--as well--sought supremacy over other bishops.

d. Rome was honoured, but they protested the elevation of Constantinople and the diminishment of Antioch and Alexandria. Jerusalem, as the site of the first Church (and church council), retained its place of honour. It is important to remember this preceded the ravages of the Muslim conquests in the east and that Christianity had been widely scattered throughout these eastern dioceses.

4. By 451 and the Council of Chalcedon, Constantinople would be recognized as the ecumenical jurisdiction of highest ecclesiastical appeal. Leo in Rome is unamused and in consternation.

5. Leo protested the elevation of the see of Constantinople, deeming “worthless what six hundred or more bishops had decreed.” Leo also “bitterly reproached them with having deprived other sees of that honor which they had dared to confer upon the church of Constantinople. What but sheer ambition, I pray, could stir the man to trouble the world with such a sheer trifle?”

6. Calvin objects to Leo’s trifle: “As though the Christian faith were imperiled if one church were preferred over another…”

7. No Eastern bishops objected to the Chalcedonian arrangement, but Leo. It was for the Eastern bishops to protest, not him.

8. Leo foresaw and feared that Constantinople’s elevation in the new Rome meant his diminishment and the possible “exaltation” over Rome. Sheer ambition.

Correlations:

1. Hildebrandian Papacy. Hildebrand, called “Hell Fire” in Germany.

2. The Great Schism of 1054, which divided Eastern and Western Christianity, the result of long-standing political, doctrinal, ecclesiastical, geographical and even linguistic contests.

3. The Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, wherein Petrine supremacy over the world was re-asserted.

4. Unam Sanctum, 1301-2. The bull by Boniface declared that the Church must be united and the Pope is the sole and absolute head of the Church: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster." "We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal" The temporal authorities must submit to Rome.
The bull ends "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." In the bull, Boniface reiterates what popes since the time of Gregory VII had been declaring, long after Gregory 1.

Interpretation:

The attitudes of fifth century bishops in the east do not cede to Rome a supremacy other than a “place of honour.” Leo resents the recognition afforded to Constantinople, their growing influence, and failure to embrace his views.

2-English Reformed. ABC Grindal: Chosen Leader

Part two.

The Remains of Edmund Grindal: Successively Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury, Parker Society Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1843)

This is a major primary work.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5xOYAWCNqSkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=edmund+grindal&as_brr=1&ei=LofrSqnjGoOwywSWvdCaDw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
As the frontispiece of all the Parker volumes say:

“For the Publication of the Works of the Fathers and the Early Writers of the Reformed English Church.”

Observations:

1. We made a brief tour of Grindal's life last time. We offered a summary of a Church Society article. You can do a search on “Grindal” at our blogspot for further amplification and other connections we’ve made to Grindal outside of our direct articles--like this one.

2. We confine ourselves now to working through the “Remains”—a rather dreary word, rather macabre—or the “writings” of this Bishop of London, York, and Elizabeth’s second Archbishop of Canterbury. Picked and approved by her upon his return from exile--Anglicans in the wilderness. Sound familiar? We are continuing to be struck by the paucity of discussion of theology and the history of the English Reformers in the current Anglican confabs and centres of advertisement. We asked if the Parker Society series were required for ordinands for Anglican orders. We put that to Dr. Mark Thompson at his blogspot. He wasn’t sure. We’re not either. McNeil's Anglicanism, called by one writer, a magnum opus doesn't quite for to such approval with this scribe. We see no such sensitivities in the public market place of advertisement, except for the Church Society, a veritable and commendable website. http://www.churchsociety.org/. Of note, nothing much appears at http://www.virtueonline.org/ from the Church Society. We've commented on that previously and sent emails of inquiries to both side, without response. We smell nothing but fear of knowledge and information. We know that Newman, Keble and Pusey earnestly, but most quietly, resented and opposed the “Oxford Memorial” being erected during their time. Let it be clear--these men were VEHEMENT. We know of their vitriol and hatred for the English Reformers. Be that as it may—and is—one has to do one’s only heavy lifting. We try to summarize these things here.


3. In the opening of this Parker Society volume, we get the usual biographical introduction by the editor (s). Although we reviewed some of this from the Church Society article, we turn to the Parker biography here. We turn to that now, although the table of contents appears to have some fascinating gems in it. Some real gems for theological review. God help us, this is going to be fun...finding the archaeological facts for current discussion and relevance. Never will forget a Royal Navy Chaplain telling me that the XXXIX Articles were irrelevant.

4. We need to retour Newman’s writings—again—to detect his interactions with these Reformers.


5. Back to Grindal.

6. Born 1519, St. Bees in Cumberland. He was a young bibliophile. He was schooled by monks.

7. He was a boyhood “chum,” as Canadians would call it, with Edwin Sandys, another English Reformer whose works are available through a http://www.books.google.com/ search. Sandys would succeed Grindal in the sees of London and York. We look forward to a review of Grindal’s work in York, later on…especially the injunctions and his views of recusancy and Roman theology. We will be looking for the Reformers views and interactions with the Council of Trent. We know Cranmer was watching it closely, as were the Continental Reformers—Lutheran and Reformed. Yet, we find that men claiming the name "Anglican" do a "Poping out," as Dr. Paul Zahl noted of some of his friends. What do they teach in Episcopal seminaries. We'll raise that later.


8. Grindal goes to Magdalen College, Cambridge, later going to Christ’s College and Pembroke Hall. Of the latter, he become a fellow, president and master. BA, 1538 (age 19-ish). Ordained 4 July 1544 (25) by Bird of Winchester. MA, 1541. 1548, senior proctor (29). The question lingers here—what did he know? Whom did he know? Whom was he reading? Who were his connections? Lutheran literature was awash in Cambridge in the 1520’s. The White Horse. We probably need the same for our times, an "Anglican White Horse Inn," to work over the Reformation literature. We’re grateful for the work of Dr. Michael Horton and his radio program, as well as breadth with Lutherans and the Reformed. A good interview with Rev. (bp.) Dr. Fitzsimmons Allison, SC, on “justification by faith alone” recently. The good bishop appears to be well-schooled in the English Reformers.

9. Strype of the late 17th century, a solid secondary source on Grindal, says that Grindal was one of the “ripest wits and learnedst men in Cambridge.” We’re dealing with a sharp fellow if we follow Strype’s outlook. This is significant, to wit, that we see the "credibility factor." The Reformation was led by ex-Roman priests, men from the frontlines.


10. He was chosen during Edward’s time in 1549 to be one of the disputants on “the doctrine of transubstantiation,” held before king Edward’s visitors. We see here that the sacramental views of the English Reformers will be forged against the background of learned inquiries, deep research, and scholarly debate. This will be one of the centre pieces of inquiry during the Marian examinations of the martyrs. The Reformers also understood that this one “not a doctrinal island,” but had connections to the reformation theology they taught. See our work on Philpott by a search at our blogspot for more info.

11. 1549, appointed “Lady Margaret’s preacher” and Vice-master of his college. A leader.

12. 1550 (age 31), appointed by Ridley as one of his chaplains, along with Bradford and Rogers. The latter two will be martyrs in Mary’s reign. Grindal will flee to Strasbourg and then Frankfurt, being fully acquainted with Cox and Knox—with the row over the 1552 BCP. We're dealing with a man who had convictions, stood for them, sufferred, and went into the "wilderness." There was no promise of a return either; Mary might well have ruled for forty years. That takes faith and strength of character. We're not dealing with weak men here, accomodators, but men of "principled conviction." Dare we ask that of today's leaders? Theologically?

13. Ridley’s letter to John Cheke gives this estimate: “Now the man master Grindal, unto whom I would give this prebend [that of Cantrells or Kentish Tow], doth move me much; for he is a man known to be both of virtue, honesty, discretion, wisdom, and learning.” Does Ridley's letter carry weight? Is Grindal to be heard? Ridley thinks so.

14. 24 Aug 1551, is preferred to the office of precentor of St. Paul’s, London. Under Ridley’s employ, he “was constantly employed in preaching throughout the diocese.” Seal of Ridley's approval. The Reformation was conducted by more men than Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer.

15. Ergo, we will need to uncover Grindal connections, theologically, to Cranmer and Ridley as well as Vermigli and Bucer. The English Reformation was on quite solidly by this point. Choice men were “selected for pulpits, in order to impress the popular mind in favour of the reformed religion.

Correlations:

1. The entire Reformation frontlines.

2. Grindal’s place in modern discussions.

Interpretation:

We are dealing with a well-schooled and chosen man for Reformation work in England, one schooled not just at Cambridge and with the martyrs, but one who suffered as an expat to Germany—for his faith. A man who stood and went into exile with no promises of a return, given Mary's behaviours. That counts for something.

Applications:

1. Praise and thanksgiving.


2. Dissemination.

3. Other studies to be pursued.

4. Just as Grindal's leadership background was critical for Ridley and the Reformation, a chosen instrument for instruction, so similarly, examine the backgrounds, resume, and bibliographic work of ACNA leaders.

Part two herein endeth. To be continued, Lord willing.

English Reformed: Philpott (1511-1555): Real Leadership

Part ten begins, middle of page. 163

The Examinations and Writing of John Philpott (Parker Society Series, 1842). Archdeacon of Winchester (1511-December 1555).

Free and downloadable at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=WhT67MqcFDIC&pg=PA319&dq=examinations+and+writings+of+john+philpott+parker+society&lr=&as_brr=1.
Observations:

1. Shall we grow weary of examining Rev. (archdeacon) John Philpott of Winchester? Examination after examination? Here we are with part ten with 400 more pages to go. Well, Philpott spent a year and half in prison for the Reformed faith, so any complaints on our end are purely modern, empty, childish, Australian, English, American, and Canadian. What's on offer here is a real leader, a genuinely inspiring one.

2. We do coordinate this observation with that from Archbishop Grindal, to wit, in 1566, in a letter to Henry Bullinger, explaining that he and “all the others” embraced the Helvetic Confession." The RINO’s, or Reformed in Name Only, won’t want this too loudly published. The AC/Tractors will insist they belong to historic Anglicanism. They surely won’t want consistency and theological integrity. Enough. We’ll have more to say about ABC Grindal in the days ahead, Lord willing.

3. The examination—wearisome to all and probably to Philpott—resumes with Christopherson.
Poor Bonner is at it again, whining about Rome’s supremacy. Ludicrously and laughably, he cites Romans 1.8 to support his view: “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” Philpott shreds this in a nano-second. It actually is pretty humourous, were it not so deadly. We've seen him at this in earlier exams. So it is pretty tedious, but the tedium coupled with the continuing stedfastness is quite instructive.

4. He’s standing and manfully resisting numerous leading bishops on theology. Sound like something that needs to be done from real men of the Reformed faith?

5. Philpott to Bonner and Christopherson: “It is a shame for you to wrest and writhe with the doctors as you to maintain a false religion; which be altogether against you, if you take them aright. And indeed your false packing of doctors together hath given me and others occasion to look upon them, whereby we find you shameful liars and misinterpreters of the ancient doctors.”

6. Let that one sink in. “False religion,” “false packing of doctors,” shameful liars” and “misinterpreters?” Will you hear that in the ACNA, Sydney, Packer, or the Virtual Windbag?

7. He’s chided by Chistopherson re: his use and understanding of Cyprian. Philpott replies: “I thank God, I understand them better than you: for you have the blindness of heart; so that you understand not truly what you read, nor more than the wall here, as the taking of Cyprian doth well declare. And afore God you are but deceivers of the people, for all your brag you make of learning; neither have ye scripture or ancient doctor on your side, truly taken.”

8. Again, sheer gold. “Blindness of heart?” No more understanding “than the wall here?” “Deceivers of the people?” Men who “brag?”

9. We can’t go one inch further. This is gold. Leadership. Insight. Courage. Resistance. Integrity. Principled leadership backed up with learning. Bonner’s use of Romans 1.8 for Petrine supremacy is howler! Did you catch it above? Let it sink in.

10. Philpott has expressed earlier that he knows his end: death. He's not selling anything. He's not looking for income streams from magazines, radio programs, books, conferences, net-working opportunities, or affirmation from others. "Acceptance by others" isn't Philpott's game. The bishops have repeatedly used the "numbers game," to wit, all of England is again st you (meaning the elite, not the abused sheep). Ever hear the "numbers game" played, as if St. Athanasius and St. John Philpott have nothing to teach us? He going to die. There's not one square of capitulation, accomodation, weakness, or fear in the man. Do such leaders exist today?

11. This scribe is a former Marine. We expect leadership; we're used to it; we love good leaders; when we transfer to civilian life, we'll follow them if they're good (and 95% of them were, estimating on the short end). We seen little principled consistency among Reformed leaders, including now Sydney. RINO's. "If your going to call yourself Protestant and Reformed Anglicans," then be one and be consistent. Disappointing? Yes. But, then there's Philpott. What would Philpott think of the AC/Tractarians in the ACNA? Good Lord, deliver us!

Correlation:

1. Continental Reformers. They all call Rome's Gospel false and "another Gospel."

2. Lutherans.

3. All the other English Reformers.

Interpretation:

Philpott genuinely stands the ground, yields not an inch, and provides a most respectable vision of Reformed, courageous, manly leadership.

Application:

1. Get more of this stuff out there. Tell the next generation.

2. Deal with the RINO’s, AINO’s, and LINO's (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran in Name Only).

3. Follow good leaders like this one.

4. Continue to thank God for solid training in leadership learned from Marines. But this fella, Philpott, would inspire any U.S. Marine if told the story. Philpott apparently says little to modern American Anglicans, e.g. Romanism as a false religion, full of deceivers, braggarts, and liars.

2-Infant Baptism: Luther and Confessional Lutherans

2-Sacraments. Infant Baptism

By Dr. Francis Nigel Lee


http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/index.html


Luther's antirebaptismal work Concerning Rebaptism


In his own work Concerning Rebaptism (1528), Luther thrashed the Anabaptists. They had over-emphasized the subjective and downgraded the objective side of the rite. Yet, Luther retorted, important as faith is -- the Word, and not faith, is the basis of baptism. Any would-be baptizer who regards faith on the part of the baptizee as essential for the validity of the baptism -- can never consistently administer baptism. For he can never be certain that faith really is present.

It is possible, conceded Luther, that some might conceivably doubt the validity of their own infant baptisms. For they might well have no irrebutable evidence that they even then already truly believed. They might then conceivably wish to request (re-)baptism -- when adults.

That request, however, should not be granted. Instead, insisted Luther, the one making this request should be told that even if he were thus to be 'baptized' a second time -- Satan might well soon trouble him again, as to whether he then too really had faith. Then he would have to be 'baptized' yet again -- a third time -- and so on, ad infinitum, for just as long as any such doubts kept recurring.

"For it often happens that one who thinks that he has faith," explained Luther, "has none whatever -- and that one who thinks that he has no faith but only doubts, actually believes. We are not told 'he who knows that he believes' [shall be saved]..., but 'he that believes [and is baptized] shall be saved!' [Mark 16:16]....

"The man who bases his baptism on his faith -- is not only uncertain.... He is...godless and hypocritical.... For he puts his trust in what is not his own -- viz., a gift which God has given him -- and not in the Word of God alone." Consequently, even though at the time of baptism there be no faith -- the baptism, nevertheless, is still valid.99

The condemnation of Anabaptism in the Lutheran Symbols


The 1530 Augsburg Confession (later endorsed also by John Calvin), declared100 that the Lutheran churches "condemn the Anabaptists...who imagine that the Holy Spirit is given to men without the outward Word, through their own preparation and works.... They condemn the Anabaptists who allow not the baptism of children....

"They condemn the Anabaptists...who teach that those who have once been holy, cannot fall again.... They condemn the Anabaptists who...contend that some men may attain to such a perfection in this life that they cannot sin.... They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid...civil offices [to Christians].... They condemn the Anabaptists who think that there shall be an end of torments to condemned men and the devils."

Also in the Formula of Concord, the later Lutherans declared101 that "the Anabaptists are divided into many sects -- of which some maintain more, some fewer, errors. Nevertheless, in a general way -- they all profess such a doctrine as can be tolerated neither in the Church; nor by the police and in the commonwealth; nor in daily [domestic and social] life."

The Formula then mentions "Anabaptist Articles which cannot be endured in the Church." It claims that "this 'righteousness' of the Anabaptists consists in great part in a certain arbitrary and humanly-devised sanctimony, and in truth is nothing else than some new sort of monkery."

These intolerable Anabaptist Articles include the one "that infants, not baptized, are not sinners before God -- but just and innocent." Concerning "baptism," continues the Lutheran Formula of Concord, "in the opinion of the Anabaptists, they [infants] have no need" of baptism or of salvation. "Infants [say the Anabaptists] ought not to be baptized until they attain the use of reason, and are able themselves to profess their faith....

"They [the Anabaptists] neither make much account of the baptism of children, nor take care to have their children baptized -- which conflicts with the express words of the divine promise (Genesis 17:7 sqq.). For this only holds good to those who observe the covenant of God and do not contemn it."

The Anabaptists again quite wrongly further teach "that a godly man ought to have no dealings at all with the Ministers of the Church who teach the Gospel of Christ according to the tenor of the Augsburg Confession, and rebuke the preachings and errors of the Anabaptists." Thus, they 'shunned' saints!

The Formula also condemns "Anabaptist Articles which cannot be endured in the Commonwealth. I. That the office of the magistrate is not, under the New Testament, a condition of life that pleases God. II. That a Christian man cannot discharge the office of a magistrate with a safe and quiet conscience. III. That a Christian man cannot with a safe conscience administer and execute the office of a magistrate if matters so require against the wicked, nor subjects implore for their defence that power which the magistrate has received of God. IV. That a Christian man cannot with a safe conscience take an oath, nor swear obedience and fidelity to his prince or magistrate. V. That the magistrate, under the New Testament, cannot with a good conscience punish criminals with death." Anabaptism spurns the Bible's death penalty!

The Formula next condemns "Anabaptist Articles which cannot be endured in daily life. I. That a godly man cannot with safe conscience hold or possess any property, but that whatever means he may possess he is bound to bestow them all as common good. II. That a Christian man cannot with a safe conscience either keep an inn, or carry on trade, or forge weapons. III. That it is permitted married people who think differently in religion to divorce themselves, and to contract matrimony with some other person who agrees with them in religion." Anabaptism hates capital, weapons, and marital fidelity!

The Formula further condemns the following "Errors of the [Anabaptist] Schwenkfeldians. I. That all those who affirm Christ according to the flesh to be a creature, have no true knowledge of the heavenly King and His reign. II. That the flesh of Christ through its exaltation has in such wise received all the divine attributes, that Christ as He is man is altogether like to the Father...and that the flesh of Christ pertains to the essence of the Blessed Trinity. III. That the ministry of the Word...is not that instrument whereby God the Holy Ghost teaches men.... IV. That the water of baptism is not a means whereby the Lord seals adoption in the children of God."

Charles Simeon, Evangelical Calvinist at Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge

Curiously, Rev. Kendall Harmon published this.
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/

The modest article is drawn from Christianity Adrift. The author failed to mention that Rev. Simeon was a Calvinist...although perhaps of that most problematic breed, Amyraldianism.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/pastorsandpreachers/simeon.html
Charles Simeon
Evangelical Mentor and Model
posted 8/08/2008 12:56PM

"On the Wednesday of Holy Week began a hope of mercy. On the Thursday, that hope increased. On … Easter Day … I awoke with these words upon my heart and lips: Jesus Christ is risen today, halleluja, halleluja!"
Though he became a model for modern figures like John Stott, Charles Simeon started his life in Cambridge as anything but a model.

Timeline

1738 John & Charles Wesley's evangelical conversions
1740 Great Awakening peaks
1742 First production of Handel's Messiah
1759 Charles Simeon born
1836 Charles Simeon dies
1845 The Southern Baptist Convention Founded

In 1779, the young Simeon, from an aristocratic family, came to Kings College, Cambridge, to study, and he was told that he must attend chapel on Easter Day to receive Communion. Simeon's main interests to this point had been horses, games, and fashion. He considered that "Satan himself was as fit to attend [the sacrament] as I." Still, he sought hard to see how he might sort out his conscience. He began to read the Scriptures and various devotional books.

As he read about propitiatory sacrifice in the Old Testament, he thought, "What, may I transfer all my guilt to another? Has God provided an offering for me, that I may lie my sins on his head?" He immediately laid his sins "upon the sacred head of Jesus."

On the Wednesday of Holy Week, he wrote, he "began a hope of mercy. On the Thursday, that hope increased. On the Friday and Saturday, it became more strong. And on the Sunday morning, Easter Day, April 4, I woke early with these words upon my heart and lips: Jesus Christ is Risen Today, Halleluja, Halleluja!"

Simeon went on to be ordained, and after a short stint at St. Edwards, Cambridge, at age 23, he was appointed vicar of Holy Trinity Church. The parish had wanted another minister, and this fact—combined with Simeon's evangelical preaching—quickly alienated them. They locked their rented pews against him, and those who came to hear Simeon were forced to stand in the aisles.

When Simeon moved to put benches in the aisles, the church wardens threw them out. He battled with discouragement and at one point wrote out his resignation.

"When I was an object of much contempt and derision in the university," he later wrote, "I strolled forth one day, buffeted and afflicted, with my little Testament in my hand … The first text which caught my eye was this: 'They found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; him they compelled to bear his cross.'""Conversation parties"
Slowly the pews began to open up and fill, not primarily with townspeople but with students. Then Simeon did what was unthinkable at the time: he introduced an evening service. He invited students to his home on Sundays and Friday evening for "conversation parties" to teach them how to preach. By the time he died, it is estimated that one-third of all the Anglican ministers in the country had sat under his teaching at one time or another.

Simeon, an untiring activist, also helped found evangelistic organizations like the London Jews Society, the Religious Tract Society, and the British & Foreign Bible Society. He was also one of the founders of the Church Missionary Society, and he inspired dozens of young men from his church to take the gospel to the far corners of the world.

In 1817, with money inherited through a brother's death, he created what became known as the Simeon Trust to purchase rights to appoint evangelical clergy to the parishes. He remained a bachelor his whole life, and his entire ministry was at Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge—even today a focal point of evangelicalism in England.

AINO's: Another New Term

AINO = Anglicans in Name Only

Thanks to a correspondant from Face Book, a term that may be employable and applicable to the Tractarians.

Is Jack of Texas a Tractarian? Thoughts? We believe so, e.g. his direct dismissal of the XXXIX Articles and the Reformation with his uncouth remark at GAFCON.

RINO's: A New Term

RINO = Reformed in Name Only. Like Rhino viruses.

Even the "Reformed," like Church Society, provides cover for that positively anti-Calvinist breed of Wesleyans. RINO?

Charles and John Wesley were positively pests from the Arminian swamp. How anyone could claim them theologically says alot about the claimants.

Have they read the vicious Wesley tirades against Whitfield, Toplady, and, above all, God in His Sovereign Majesty?

The Reformed Evangelist » Blog Archive » Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism – John Piper

The Reformed Evangelist » Blog Archive » Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism – John Piper

Posted using ShareThis

Strong reasons for Calvinistic evangelism and not yielding "one inch" to the Arminians in its varied forms of self-glorification.

Anglican Journal Notes » Blog Archive » Anglican Journal presents… Re-thinking how we do Church

Anglican Journal Notes » Blog Archive » Anglican Journal presents… Re-thinking how we do Church

Posted using ShareThis

The Canadians are in trouble. The interviewee offer his answers and solutions. The Anglican meltdown continues.

Northern Plains Anglicans: Celebrating an Anglican who resisted our "all-consuming interest in self-esteem...self-assertiveness...self-enhancement and self-realization"

Northern Plains Anglicans: Celebrating an Anglican who resisted our "all-consuming interest in self-esteem...self-assertiveness...self-enhancement and self-realization"

Posted using ShareThis

A memorial on Charles Simeon, a Calvinistic Anglican, from the days when the Bible was the supreme standard of faith.

Reasonable Christian: Lady Deacons May Preside Over Holy Communion: Sydney Gives Women Unbiblical Authority

Reasonable Christian: Lady Deacons May Preside Over Holy Communion: Sydney Gives Women Unbiblical Authority

Posted using ShareThis

Sydney Anglicans with a Charlie Horse Between the Ears

We offer a story from the Sydney Anglicans, another story of more Manglicanism and muddling mediocrity. Weakness if you will. Compromise of principle. Lack of a strong centre of conviction. Sydney has long portrayed and believed itself to be Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical Anglican.

The Head of Moore College in Sydney, Dr. Mark Thompson, has given that impression. But according to the article, he yields "to the moment." He calls it the "opportunity of the moment to forge new understandings with orthodox Anglicans--anglo-catholic, evangelical, charismatic--and through principled co-operation ..." What a pile of nonsense.

We've had 150 years to understand anglo-catholicism; we know what it is. We've had 50 years of exposure to hand-waving enthusiasts. And disciplined Prayer Book piety comports with hand-waving, jean-wearing, guitar-pluckin' enthusiasms? Did I miss something here? We're n0t sure what "evangelicals" means above; but we think Dr. Moore thinks he is one; if so, it means weak compromise.

But while Mark speaks of "principled co-operation," how about sage, consistent, "principled application" of the Protestant, Reformed, and Evangelical faith he touts?

We stress the words "principled" and "application," that is, the governance by those "principles" touted---Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical. Stress on the word "application" of those principles to the affairs of daily decision-making, ecclesiology, leadership, statesmanship, including the ACNA, Anglo-Romewardizers, and charismatics.

Talk is cheap. Non verbum, sed actum is the phrase on the arches of the high-end Merchant Marine Academy.

I highlighted Mark's vertigo in the final paragraph. More theology with the governing hermeneutic as "institutional demands." Another hugfest. Another chairos-moment of enthusiasm.

The title of the article is entitled "We see them and embrace them." "Gosh-golly-gee-whiz, fellas, let's just all love Jesus and get along. Let's just emote and embrace them. Let just put our faith and principles to the side."

More double-, triple-, and quadruple-mindedness. Say one thing, do another. Say one believes one thing and betray that belief and statement by action. It's more of the old John Stott-weaknesses when he and other "so-called" evangelicals buried the hatchet with the Anglo-Romanists during the 1970's.

We wonder when Phillip Jensen will have a Mary-invoker at his next diocesan convocation---have Jack of Texas to lead or Keith of Quincy. Why not? It's orthodox Anglicanism, right? Or, offer Paul of FIF an opportunity to give lectures on the "orthodox Anglicanism" on the subject of Purgatory? Or, why not bring Metropolitan Jonah to the next Sydney convocation to lecture about the "heresy" of the Reformation? Why not, Mark tells us these men are "orthodox Anglicans." And not just Mark, but the entire Diocese of Sydney.

Another Anglican group: " They've got baggage." Rather than being principled, we find them half-hearted, enthusiastic, and double-minded. Thank God for exposure to leadership principles afforded from United States Marines. And thank God for my earthly father, a man of life-long consistency, fidelity, principle and honour. "Principled, consistent" leadership is not evident here.

We're not here to be weak, but honest Churchmen.

Where else and on what else will they compromise?

Another college we won't recommend to others as well...for theological training.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/we_see_them_and_embrace_them/

We see them and embrace them
Russell Powell
October 28th, 2009

On the final night of the 2009 Synod, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney has passed a resolution embracing the new Anglican province, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

In the words of the resolution “Synod welcomes the creation of the Province of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) under the leadership of Archbishop Bob Duncan and notes the GAFCON Primates’ Council recognition of the ACNA as genuinely Anglican and its recommendation that Anglican Provinces affirm full communion with the ACNA. Synod therefore expresses its desire to be in full communion with the ACNA.’
The resolution also asks the Standing Committee of the diocese to seek a General Synod motion affirming the national church be in full communion with the ACNA.

In moving the motion, Sydney rector Gavin Poole, who spent time in the US working at an Episcopal Church, spoke of his first hand experience with the liberalism of TEC and paid tribute to what he called ‘the courage of Archbishop Duncan’.

“Canterbury may be blind to them, but we see them and embrace them. Please offer the ACNA your right hand of fellowship” Mr Poole told the Synod.

The motion also asks General Synod Standing committee to note the publication of the Jerusalem Declaration and to encourage its study as a means to Anglican identity and cohesion.

Photo: Archbishop Jensen and diocesan officials during debate.

The motion was seconded by Sydney layman Robert Tong who helped in the creation of the province as a consultant to its governance taskforce.

Mr Tong was also at GAFCON when the Jerusalem Declaration was formulated and hailed it as “a clear statement about Anglican identity and coherence and based clearly on scripture.”

The resolution also contains a section on the recent Vatican offer to disenfranchised Anglicans.

The motion “Welcomes Archbishop Duncan’s assessment that the recent Vatican offer of a Personal Ordinariate ‘will not be utilised by the great majority of the Anglican Church in North America’s bishops, priests, dioceses and congregations’ and urges all Anglicans to reject the Vatican’s proposal”.

The President of the Anglican Church League, Dr Mark Thompson described that as an important part of the statement, even though it was a separate issue to the welcoming of the new province.

“The opportunity of the moment is to forge new understandings with orthodox Anglicans from different traditions – anglo-catholic, evangelical, charismatic - and through a principled co-operation, and the emphasis needs to be on principle, to rescue the denomination from the liberal agenda to which it has been captive for over 50 years” Dr Thompson said.

The motion was carried on the voices in the last hour of Synod.

Continuing Apology

Again, we are unable to get the posts to correctly have spacing or paragraphs. For new readers, this has gone on for some time. So, repeated efforts fail to yield results.

9-English Reformer. ABC Matthew Parker (1504-1575): A Thankless and Troubled Start

Part nine herein begins. "Results of the Royal Visitation"

Archbishop Parker by William Paul McClure Kennedy (London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1908).

Observations:

1. The last time we spoke of the passage and Act of Uniformity, its varied regulations and the impending results of that “visitation” through the dioceses of England.

2. A “considerable number” of clergy did not submit and were deprived. McClure is uncertain about the numbers. (128)

3. McClure notes that “sometimes a whole or parts of a cathedral body remained true to the `old religion.’” No details at all. Not good.

4. McClure does note that Rome failed in its charges that “the changes were not agreeable to the vast majority of clergy and laity.” (128) But again, no details. If McClure argues 2 and 3 above, his point in 4 is weakened.

5. Other discoveries: the vast majority of parishes destroyed vestments and ornaments contrary to the BCP and the Act of Uniformity. London parishes had the “old spirit of wanton vandalism” and “unrestrained license.” McClure is too murky or unclear on the extent of recusancy or radical puritans.

6. During all this, Parker was involved “regulating religious affairs at Cambridge.”

7. Things got sticky when Parker returned to London to serve on the “Ecclesiastical Commission.” The Royal Visitors gave him a “considerable number of papal recusants.” Parker advised “persuasions” to conformity. Elizabeth elevated the “Ecclesiastical Commission” to a permanent footing with the “Court of High Commission.” This enabled the court to conduct surveys, enforce uniformity, deal with ecclesiastical suits, administer the supremacy oaths, and to dispatch without appeal of difficult cases. Regular meetings began in Lambeth, the London residence for the Archbishop of Canterbury. McClure notes that this court continued its business in this fashion for a "full century" following Elizabeth and that “no court has a more invidious name in English Church history.” (129) That appears to be code for Anglican theocracy or conformity unto it.

8. This court would be known to have no appellate process and would be known for “high-handedness.” No exhibits offered by McClure. Parker’s chaplain (unnamed by McClure) had the “arduous duty” imposed on him of executing the plan of uniformity according "to the exigencies of the time."

9. Allegedly, several new nominations to Episcopal sees were not confirmed. Meanwhile, according to McClure, Elizabeth was using her court to “survey bishoprics and to arrange what lands she should seize, and what return should be given.” (130)

10. Parker and the bishops elect drew up and submitted a protest. They wanted repairs for the churches, “just livings for the incumbents” and monies for schools and charitable works. There are numerous details argued in behalf of church rights and properties.

11. Bishop Cox, defender of the 1552 BCP from Knox’s attacks while both were expats to Frankfurt, was a notable defender of Parker and the other bishops. This is same Cox who said the 1552 BCP was the “most perfect BCP.”

12. A resolution was reached, a compromise measure worked out by Cecil who feared that “evil reports will circulate abroad and bring the course of the Reformation in England into ill-repute.” No doubt there was a theological component to this.

Correlations:

1. Episcopal “reappropriations” under Henry VIII (Dissolution of Monasteries, 1536) and Mary’s reign.

2. The history of the permanent “Ecclesiastical Commission.” Relationship to the Star Council and our good friend, William Laud.

3. Educational backgrounds and resumes on Cecil and Cox.

Interpretation:

The entire beginnings of Archbishop Parker is fraught with confusions, conflicts, and an uncertain beginning, on McClure’s account.

Part nine ends. To be continued.

3-The Thirty-nine Articles

A History of the Articles of Religion: To which is added a Series of Documents from A.D. 1536 to A.D. 1615; Together with Illustrations from Contemporary Sources. Author: Charles Hardwick (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, S.W. Corner Chestnut and Eighth Streets, 1852). Hardwick published this from St. Catherine’s Hall, Cambridge, 19 Mar 1851.
Part Three.

Some observations on the background to the English Reformation.

First, we call attention to Von der Hartdt referred to above who collected all the sermons given during the years 1414-1418. One such man was an Oxford man, Hottric Abendon, who preached his sermon on 28 October 1415. Hardwick tells us that even a “most cursory perusal of these sermons will demonstrate the general corruption of the Church, and also the very ardent desire which was then manifested in all quarters for an immediate and effectual remedy.”[1]

Second, Gerson, the Chancellor of the University of Paris, produced a list of Roman abuses needing correction, including the Curia. Hardwick asserts that Gerson’s list concerned mostly “temporal and disciplinary matters,” but that with further consideration they would have led to deeper analyses “de Fide.”[2]

Third, remarkably and notably, during this Council of date 15 June 1415, a committee was formed under the title the “Reformation College.” This is a wonderful name. It consisted of three cardinals and deputies from every nation, together with leading divines and civilians. Unfortunately, we must wait through the generations until another Reformation would come.

Fourth, from a Roman and stoutly anti-Protestant source, this quote sums it up well.

“It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter. There reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.

“The canonical irregularities of the council seem less blameworthy when to this practical vacancy of the papal chair we add the universal disgust and weariness at the continuance of the so-called schism, despite all imaginable efforts to restore to the Church its unity of headship, the justified fear of new complications, the imminent peril of Catholic doctrine and discipline amid the temporary wreckage of the traditional authority of the Apostolic See, and the rapid growth of false teachings equally ruinous to Church and State.”[3]

This Roman description accords well with Hardwick’s and our contentions about the state of the Church in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. As in the life of Christ and the apostles, Satan, hell and demons were nefariously at work. They always will be. The Reformation was the recovery the True Churches of Christ from the false Gospel.

We must pause to insert the Battle Hymn of the Reformation, Ein Feste Burg ist Unser Gott, penned by a later Reformer, Martin Luther, on the basis of Psalm 46.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgpMcwNImww"

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

"That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

Another good rendering of Psalm 46 comes from the 1650 Scottish Psalter. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGzuUfQD-G4

Yes, Satan, hell, her demons and her human pawns were at work in the Church of Christ--she'd been corrupted in doctrine and life.

Fifth, Wycliffe was condemned. His writing had been condemned in Rome (1412-1413) under John XXIII. Forty-five propositions of Wycliffe were condemned at this Council, something already declared by the Universities of Paris and Prague. A list of 260 errors was crafted. All his writings were ordered to be burned. His body was exhumed, dug up, the bones burned and the ashes cast into the Severn River—from thence, metaphorically, Wycliffe’s influence would spread to the nations in a very literal sense.[4] In 1418, Martin V in his Bull, “Inter Cunctas,” approved of the action. We wonder whether Benedict XVI continues to support a predecessor, Martin V. Infallible?

Sixth, Jan Hus was condemned. His errors included: the Church consists only of the elect and predestined (invisible church), the role of the Pope, the rule of Faith (sola scriptura), Communion under both kinds, the un-necessary role of auricular confession, and Civil Authority dependent upon Christian Churchmen, not Rome.

We bring Part Three to a close for now, with amplifications in our next post on Wycliffe and Huss, precursors to Martin Luther and the English Reformation.

Using one prayer from the Reformed Anglican Church, 1662 BCP, "The Third Collect, for Aid Against All Perils:

"Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord; and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night; for the love of thy only Son, our Saviour. Amen."

The war has not ended with the Reformation, unless you're at ease in Zion.

[1] Hardwick, op.cit, 10.
[2] Hardwick, op.cit, 10. Hardwick also refers to Bishop John Jewel’s note from Epistola de Concilio Tridentio (Works VIII, 86, ed. Jelf). The Bishop of Salisbury, John Jewel, states that there were seventy-five issues on the list. We do not have access to them here; it is noteworthy that a leader like Gerson penned these many criticisms of the Romish Church for Reformation. This continues to give to the Roman lie of unity...popular these days for Romish fabricators and apologists.
[3] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm of date 22 July 2009.
[4] It must be re-asserted for this younger generation that reading the Bible by the laity has been relaxed in the last forty years. I, my father, and grandparents well remember the day of Latin Masses and the prohibition against reading the Bible. Many others will remember that also; older Roman followers remember that as well. Their response is, literally and have heard it, “Why worry? The infallible church lets us know what we need to know.”

5-Why I Use the Book of Common Prayer

This is #5 and we are still looking at "Morning Prayer."

#5- The text is immediately below. Below the text are my own observations, correlation, interpretation, and applications.

Why I use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for daily and evening Prayers?

---------

The people shall answer here, and at the end of all other prayers, Amen.

If no priest be present the person saying the service shall read the Collect for the Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity, that person and the people still kneeling.

Then the Minister shall kneel, and say the Lord's Prayer with an audible voice; the people also kneeling, and repeating it with him, both here, and wheresoever else it is used in Divine Service.

"OUR Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen."

-----------

Observations:

1. Three rubrics or instructions with varied directions of order: the people shall say Amen following collects, the use of the 21st Sunday after Trinity if led by a non-cleric, the use of the Lord's Prayer (notice the word "shall," directive in nature), the minister shall speak audibly, and all are kneeling. The "audible" element was a Reformation point of insistence: no "Mumbling Matins," but clear and distinct prayers. One accustomed to this worship experiences substantive culture shock with forms of "irreverence" and "unseemly" worship. Some may think us mean or judgmental, but we'll take our lead from Scriptures on the manner of approach to His Majesty.

2. The BCP uses the King James version. We would love to see a BCP in modern, updated English, although we’ve been acculturated and accustomed to the KJV for decades...and without apology. It's still an excellent version. Objections to use of modern English, however, is traditionalism and, from our perspective, a tad hidebound. We respect the traditionalists and their insistence on the King James, but we've moved beyond that. Some continuuing American Anglican jurisdictions have been notorious for having clergy that are ill-trained; they admit it; we've seen it too. As such, they are not exercised in the rigours of exegesis typically and rightly associated with the Confessional Catholics of Reformation Churches, such as the Reformed, Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions, e.g Westminster, Concordia. We are working with the ESV and finding it quite good thus far.

3. I don’t have immediate access to notes—at hand—for an explanation of the requirement of the Collect for the Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity for the non-cleric leading the service, which is presumed in the rubric. I'm not sure what drove this inclusion. As a collect, it's excellent. The Reformed Episcopal book does not have this for Morning Prayer. We'll infer that this is an additional prayer beyond what a cleric would use.

4. 21st Sunday after Trinity is an excellent and godly prayer: “Grant, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace, that they may be cleansed from all their mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” What Churchman can find Biblical fault here?

5. People kneel during Prayers and they pray together. It’s not just a Presbyter kneeling, but the congregation kneeling...doing the “prayer work in concert and symphony,” as it were. Leitourgos means work and service. Prayer is work and an ordinary means of grace. It is "work," glorious work--involving mind, heart and body. Easy believism of charismania and entertainment is not in view and is foreign to the ethos of the book. It's not "preliminaries with a sermon attached."

6. It has become extremely difficult to be in services that never kneel. While we’ve been patient for many years and have served in numerous wider contexts (broader evangelical, mainline Protestant), liturgical worship with working priests—praying together, kneeling together, with a priest praying among fellow priests—is no longer optional, but required for this scribe. Culture? Yes, of course. Biblical, absolutely...unless we can be shown otherwise. Formative, instructive and shaping of worship? Yes. It shapes culture as much as reflects it. It's just not going to work to say, "Well, that's Anglicanism and its cuIture." Rather, "It is the Bible shaping Anglican prayers and culture." It reflects an extremely "High" theology of the Truine God. We may even sound bigoted and prejudiced to some; we definitely favour and believe it a better approach to worship than what is on offer widely. We'll risk the "slings and arrows" of the inexperienced--without schooling in it--while we cling to prayers saturated, from front to back end, from God's Word. Show us something more Biblical? Some will say, "This is just too confining," to which we say, "Any more confining than the close exegesis of Scriptures required in good pastors? Any more confining than singing hymns? Or for Presbyterians, any more confining than your Confessions? Or for the Baptists and Charismatics, we realize you prefer `Easy Listening' and enthusiastic worship, but any more confining that the demands of preachy preachers...who are pretty confining and demanding?"

7. Some have noted that use of the Lord’s Prayer rises to level of “vain repetitions.” Or, that by repeated use, we think God will hear us more. We’re not taken by either objection; it assuredly has good answers. If you wish to raise the objections, raise them in the comments section and we’ll answer them.

8. We cite Jesus as our authority. “2 And he said to them, "When you pray, say, `Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come.…’” (Luke 11.2, ESV). 2ειπεν δε αυτοις οταν προσευχησθε λεγετε πατερ αγιασθητω το ονομα σου ελθετω η βασιλεια σου. The force of the verb is a present continuous, plural imperative. “…Say…” (λεγετε ) The sense is: “You shall say and shall pray this continuously with the following words…” If there are objections to Christ’s sovereignty here, may it be noted.

9. Similarly at Matthew 6.9 (ESV): “Pray then like this: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.” 9ουτως ουν προσευχεσθε υμεις πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις αγιασθητω το ονομα σου. The force of the verb is similar. “Pray.” (προσευχεσθε ). The sense is: “You shall pray and this continuously so.” Given that we are to teach the nations, baptizing them in His name, to do “whatsoever” Jesus commanded us, the Lord’s Prayer is in view. Liturgy is instructional as well as a biblical vehicle for praying…and a good one.

10. This Prayer has commendably been preserved and used in Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran circles. It is occasionally used in Reformed services in my experience (there may be exceptions), but the rule has been otherwise. If there are wide exceptions, please comment in the comments section. We believe the Directory of Worship requires it, but we’ll need to check. Any Reformed commentators are welcome to advise. I can never recall it being used in worship services at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia.

11. Wide tracts of evangelical services omit this Prayer routinely. Who authorized that?

12. Some dispensationalists have claimed that the Lord’s Prayer does not apply to this dispensation but to a “future kingdom.” That’s another story.

13. Most Reformation catechisms recognize the importance of the Lord’s Prayer.

14. We’ll append one in a separate post, although it is one of many.

15. Again, daily use of the Lord’s Prayer is directed in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with good reasons.

Correlations:

1. Studies of non-liturgical services, although this would be difficult since they appear to have none.

2. Review of Owen’s negative comments on liturgy.

Interpretation:

There are no good reasons on offer to dispense and dispatch the Lord's Prayer for daily, evening and weekly worship services.

Application:

1. Use until death.

2. Recognize that worship is "spiritual work" involving the total person: mind, soul and body. Work is involved in singing Psalms, hymns, hearing of God's Word read and hearing of God's Word preached. There is discipline, personal self-discipline, under God's aegis and government, in the matter of prayer.

3. Study the theology of the Truine God, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology of the Book of Common Prayer.

Romans 3.5-8: Predestination Lurks Beneath

Romans 3.5-8

5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

5 ει δε η αδικια ημων θεου δικαιοσυνην συνιστησιν τι ερουμεν μη αδικος ο θεος ο επιφερων την οργην κατα ανθρωπον λεγω 6 μη γενοιτο επει πως κρινει ο θεος τον κοσμον 7 ει δε η αληθεια του θεου εν τω εμω ψευσματι επερισσευσεν εις την δοξαν αυτου τι ετι καγω ως αμαρτωλος κρινομαι 8και μη καθως βλασφημουμεθα [και] καθως φασιν τινες ημας λεγειν οτι ποιησωμεν τα κακα ινα ελθη τα αγαθα ων το κριμα ενδικον εστιν

Observations.

1. Two questions come to the fore as possible-likely abuses of Romans 3.1-4: that the unbelief and infidelity of humans (many) being unable, but rather, serving to advance, the righteousness of God.

a. 5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say?

b. 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

2. Human “unrighteousness” and the “righteousness of God” are brought into close relationship. “Serves to show” (συνιστησιν) indicates: “put together,” “make good by argument,””prove,” “establish.” This question still obtains and applies in discussions about predestination and election.

3. Murray catches the sense: “For it is plausible and apparently inevitable logic to say that God cannot justly inflict punishment upon the action of which is instrumental in the more glorious display of the truth and righteousness which are his glory.” (96)

4. It is evident that some Jews (Jewish Christians?) and other anti-predestinarians (Gentile Christians?) didn’t like Paul’s arguments about predestination (supra vide 3.1-4). No doubt, Paul had heard these raucous calumnies before.

5. Murray puts the objection another way: “The inference proposed in verse 8 is that if the truth of God, that is to say, his faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, has been more abundantly exemplified by man’s unbelief and contradiction and God thereby glorified, then the agent of this unbelief cannot any longer be regarded as a sinner.”

Correlation:

1. History of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, as unities, yet in its diverse forms: Romanism, Arminianism, Tractarianism, modern day evangelicalism.

2. Study of denominational proclivities. Modern Anglicans, e.g. ACNA, could care less about the question; they would like it to go away. Article XVII is not a matter of concern. We know that Anglican Evangelicals have long associated themselves with Wesleyans. Methodists, Pentecostals and other enthusiasts, Baptists, and the mainline liberals.

Interpretation:

Paul is placing two common objections to predestination before his reader.

To be continued.

1-Sacraments: Infant Baptism

http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/index.html

By Reverend Richard Bacon

It has been my good pleasure to know Doctor Francis Nigel Lee for many years. This is the third booklet by him that Commonwealth has been privileged to publish. His previous two works from us are Revealed to Babies and Pentecostalism. Both works are presently sold out in the United States.

Doctor Lee is author of over three hundred books and pamphlets. His subject matter has covered such topics as the covenantal Sabbath, Christianity and Communism, a Christian view of the history of philosophy, church architecture, the importance of family devotions, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, etc.

This present work on Anabaptists and their history is another fine, well-documented book that is much in need by the Reformed community. Dr. Lee explains both the history and the strange beliefs of the groups that were on the radical fringes of Christendom during and shortly after the Middle Ages.

This work breaks some interesting ground in the ongoing controversy between modern-day Baptists and the rest of Christianity over the subject of paedobaptism. In this booklet, Dr. Lee demonstrates conclusively that the mainstream of the Church has always baptized covenant infants. He further demonstrates that when a body or Church departs from the precious doctrine of paedobaptism, it usually departs in other fundamental teachings of Scripture as well.

The reader may be surprised to discover that the early Anabaptists did not submerse candidates for baptism, but either sprinkled or poured. What is even more surprising, is to learn that the Mediaeval Roman Church did submerse, and that the Romanist Council of Nemours allowed the Scripture mode of sprinkling only in the case of "emergencies."

Modern Baptists are fond of claiming that the Reformers simply adopted their doctrines concerning the Sacraments (especially Baptism) from the mediaeval Roman Church. Anyone who has studied the history of the Reformation knows better, but Dr. Lee has brought together a multitude of documents written by the Reformers themselves. In these various documents, the Reformers from Wycliffe to the Westminster Assembly consistently argue against the false doctrine of anti-paedobaptism from Scripture as well as the whole history of the Church.

The Reverend Professor Doctor Francis Nigel Lee is Professor of Systematic Theology at Queensland Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Brisbane, Australia. His doctoral degrees include those in philosophy, jurisprudence, education, and theology. Dr. Lee's career has included callings as: official Translator for the South African Congress; Barrister of the Supreme Court of South Africa; Minister of the Word and Sacraments in both the United States and the Republic of South Africa; Professor of Philosophy; Scholar-in-Residence at a Christian "think-tank"; and Academic Dean at a North American College.

Dr. Lee's articles and booklets include publications on history, law, philosophy, politics, theology, etc. His major publications include: About Sunday; Calvin on Creation; Calvin on the Sciences; A Christian Introduction to the History of Philosophy; Communism Versus Creation; Communist Eschatology; Effective Evangelism; Origin and Destiny of Man; The Central Significance of Culture; and The Covenantal Sabbath.

Richard Bacon, First Presbyterian Manse, Rowlett, Texas.

I N T R O D U C T I O N
By Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee

In recent years, Paternoster Press published a book with a very surprising title: The Reformers and their Stepchildren. The author was the noted Mennonite or neo-Anabaptist theologian, Dr. Leonard Verduin. Its aim was to try and establish an affinity between consistent Christianity and the Anabaptists.

This present work is a reply to that of Verduin. Hence its title: The Anabaptists and Their Stepchildren. It seeks to show the affinity between those earlier wildcat heretics on the one hand, and their modern sectarian descendants on the other.

To a lesser extent, it also seeks to show that Reformation Protestantism alone is the true daughter of the patristic Catholic Church. In particular, it would demonstrate that especially Calvinism is the true granddaughter of Biblical Christianity -- of which contemporary churches need to be, and yet shall become, the true great-granddaughters.

I am grateful to my friend Rev. Richard Bacon, President of Commonwealth Publications in Dallas, for printing up the first edition of this work several years ago. I have kept his own Foreword thereto, also for this present publication. Since the production of the first edition, however, this work was expanded to twice its original length -- in the second edition. And now, it has been expanded yet further (with the addition of new Calvin material) into this its third edition (1996).

As with the previous two editions, this work goes forth with the prayer that it may open the eyes of many sincere yet hitherto misguided (Ana)Baptists. May they, as did Mrs. John Calvin of old, repudiate their religious deviations -- and then join the historic Christian Church of the Protestant Reformation, and thus come into true apostolic succession with unadulterated Christianity!

-- Rev. Prof. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, Department of Systematic Theology, Queensland Presbyterian Theological Hall, Brisbane, Australia. 1996.

In Principio ... Deus: Knox on Family Worship

In Principio ... Deus: Knox on Family Worship

Posted using ShareThis

Calvin's Institutes. 4.7-14: "Popes on the Ropes"

Calvin’s Institutes, IV.7.11-16. “Attitude of fifth- and sixth-century popes: Rome vs. Constantinople.”

IV.7.14: “Rome and Constantinople in conflict over supremacy.”

Observations.

1. Rome and Constantinople were in constant conflict over supremacy.

2. When the empire began shifting to Constantinople, efforts were under way to lift the see to the dignity of Rome.

3. Being in the centre of the Roman Empire, Rome itself: “nothing did more to bestow the primacy upon Rome than the fact that the capital of the Empire was then there.”

4. A rescript from bishop Lucius that “where metropolitans and primates ought to preside have been marked out according to the scheme of government that previously existed.”

5. Primates and metropolitans were “allocated” according to political conditions. Some places were elevated beyond those with greater dignity and authority.

6. The Roman pontiff saw the ancient dignity decline after “the seat of empire was transferred to Constantinople;” fearing declension, he opposed the plan.

Interpretation.

Historic misuse and abuse of Scripture has existed to support Papal pretensions and the repression of the Gospel when, in fact, it arose in close association with political directions and when lame people (like English Romanists, e.g. Bonner, Gardiner, ABC Williams, Tractarians) lie down like stupid sheep.

Why Is Justification So Important? | Ligonier Ministries

Why Is Justification So Important? Ligonier Ministries

Posted using ShareThis

Another reason the ACNA is profoundly suspect. An excellent post by Keith Mathison of Ligonier. Lest we forget and become American Anglicans without Reformation roots and led by weak men.

Cyberbrethren » Happy Birthday, Dr. Luther

Cyberbrethren » Happy Birthday, Dr. Luther

Posted using ShareThis

10 November 1483, our hero was born. Martin Luther, a man who profoundly influenced, shaped, and governed the English Reformation.

Reasonable Christian: Phillip Jensen and David Knox: Gospel Growth/People Growth Conference in Chicago

Reasonable Christian: Phillip Jensen and David Knox: Gospel Growth/People Growth Conference in Chicago

Posted using ShareThis

An interesting look at Sydney Anglicans...who look increasingly problematic. CCM, seeker-sensitive approaches, and the incompetent handling of election and predestination, e.g. Amyraldianism.

Peter Abuja, GAFCON and Romanism

We offer our edits to Peter in "red, bold ink."

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

GAFCON Primates Respond to Apostolic Constitution
November 10, 2009Statement from GAFCON/FCA Primates Council

RESPONSE TO OFFER OF AN APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION TO ANGLICANS

We have received the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter informing us of the Pope’s offer of an ‘Apostolic Constitution’ for those Anglicans who wish to be received into the Roman Catholic Church. We believe that this offer is a gracious one and reflects the same commitment to the historic apostolic faith (PV: Absolutely incorrect. The R0man Gospel is a false Gospel. Here was an opportunity for Peter and GAFCON to speak of the Gospel and call Romanists to flee from Romanism and the false gospel and to join the True Catholic, Reformational Church. This phrase, "same committment to the historic apostolic faith," is egregiously ill-advised. It's cruel and unloving to grant any appearance that Romanism teaches "the historic apostolic faith."), moral teaching and global mission that we proclaimed in the Jerusalem Declaration on the Global Anglican Future and for this we are profoundly grateful.

We are, however, grieved that the current crisis within our beloved Anglican Communion has made necessary such an unprecedented offer. It represents a grave indictment of the Instruments of Communion whose very purpose is to strengthen and protect our unity in obedience to our Lord’s clear command. Their failure to fully address the abandonment of biblical faith and practice by The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada has now brought shame to the name of Christ and seriously impedes the cause of the Gospel. (PV: Excellent, direct, and a solid rebuke to the Western non-Gospellers.)

The Primates Council of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON/FCA) is convinced, however, that Anglicanism has a bright future as long as we remain grounded in the Holy Scriptures and obedient to our Lord Jesus Christ’s call to reach the lost and make disciples of all nations teaching them to observe the whole Gospel. We also believe that there is room within our Anglican family for all those who hold true to the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’. (PV: This is code for we tolerate Anglo-Catholics. Peter has the virus also and he learned it from Westerners. No one is raising the issues, except the Church Society and one Bishop in Brazil.) We would like to encourage those Anglicans who are considering this invitation from the Roman Catholic Church to recognize that Anglican churches are growing throughout the world in strength and offering a vibrant testimony to the transforming work of Christ.

We are convinced that this is not the time to abandon the Anglican Communion. Our Anglican identity of reformed catholicity, that gives supreme authority to the Holy Scriptures and acknowledgement that our sole representative and advocate before God is the Lord Jesus Christ, stands as a beacon of hope for millions of people. We remain proud inheritors of the Anglican Reformation. This is a time for all Christians to persevere confident of our Lord’s promise that nothing, not even the gates of hell, will prevail against His Church. (PV: Reformed catholicity? What is he thinking of with the term "reformed?" This needs the teeth of doctrine and definition without "whistling in the dark." Notably and commendably, he speaks of the "supreme authority" of Scriptures. He appears to put "saint invocation" to the side. He claims we are "proud inheritors of the Anglican Reformation." Excellent, but we've seen enough from GAFCON-participants, like Jack of Texas, Keith of Quincy and others to raise lawful, legitimate, and necessary questions, theologically. We don't think Peter of Africa has dealt with the neo-Tractarian squatters--nor has there been the discipline that's needed by those of "the Anglican Reformation." You can bet that Jack Iker, Keith Ackerman and other AC-enthusiasts aren't clapping at that claim about the Reformation. It's a superior statement than the one muddling Bob of Pittsburg, a graduate of "Lance Corporal Theological Seminary," NY, in the 70's.)

+Peter Abuja, Chairman,
GAFCON/FCA Primates Council

Helm's Deep: The Logic of Imputation

Helm's Deep: The Logic of Imputation

Posted using ShareThis

A nice article on why "impute" is a critical word in Romans that cannot be surrendered to Romanists, Arminians and Billy Graham evangelicals. Moderns without the backgrounds will go, "Huh? Is the word even in Paul's Epistle to the Romans? And if so, who cares?"

Galatians 1.15–16 « Read Better, Preach Better

Galatians 1.15–16 « Read Better, Preach Better

Posted using ShareThis

Horton's Response to Two Kingdom Questions » White Horse Inn Blog

Horton's Response to Two Kingdom Questions » White Horse Inn Blog

Posted using ShareThis

Poll Update: 10 Nov 2009

By way of background, Duncan or Bob to us, is the new Primate in the American Anglican "experiment" (or zoo, if you prefer). They call him an "Archbishop." We call him Bob. The second player is Iker or Jack to us, in question three, another Reverend, or bishop, in Fort Worth, TX, a neo-Tractarian. So, we are dealing with Bob and Jack, two players in the new experiment of muddling chaos. For Anglicans reading this, we have no theological, ecclesiastical or exegetical warrant for calling them bishops; you might; I don't. I'm not in the ACNA and doubt if I ever could. Indeed, Anglicans in the Wilderness. Exegetically, Peter, Paul and John went by their "first names" and so do we. And theologically, we assuredly do not recognize them--in any way--as our superiors...this would be laughable. Now, for the Poll Update. Drum roll please...

First question.

Duncan is Protestant, Reformed, and Confessional?

27% said “Yes.” We wonder if Bob would agree? We'd wonder about Jack in TX?

73% said “No.” The majority of voters don’t think he is.

Can the “ayes” have it, although in a slam dunk minority? Could it be? Is it possible? Yes, if we accept wide definitions. Let’s try that.

1. “Protestants = non-Romanists.” Of course, under this definition, since Bob (Duncan, we use first names here) isn’t a Roman Catholic, he is a Protestant. Such is sheer dilution and evacuation of the meaning of the term. What else might one expect from Episcopalians? If that's your background, we're sorry to hear it. We hope you can get better training. From PECUSA ---> ECUSA --->TEC in terms of names speaks volumes.

2. “Reformed = non-Romanists.” After all, Anglicans “reformed” the Prayer Book. While after all, one could say Lutherans were “Reformed” (although, if you say that to them, they’ll say “no.”) One could say the Arminian Wesley was "Reformed" since he wasn't a Papist and subscribed to the XXXIX Articles. Ergo, surely, in this wider sense, Duncan is "Reformed" since he’s not a Papist. We'll just say that this isn't a very good reading of Reformed English Churchmanship.

3. “Confessional” = “Holds to some ancient Creeds.” We would dare to say the Apostles, Nicene, Constantinople and Chalcedonian Creeds? We think so. Ergo, he’s “confessional.” Further, he "confesses" his own sins and, hence, he's confessional. We know he “confesses” that homosexuality is wrong, that Jesus is Lord and Saviour, that apostolic succession is an essential mark of the church, etc. He emerged from GAFCON alleging to hold to the XXXIX Articles, so he “confessed” something. Ergo, he's Confessional. In fact, quite confessional.

4. With these wax-nose definitions, the “ayes” can vote or make their claims.

The “No” vote at 73% apparently have different definitions.

1. Protestant = Reformational in theology, including the English Reformers, five solas, and the XXXIX Articles. We have a deeper sense of the term than the above.

2. Reformed = Calvinistic, in the general sense of the term. This is why Confessional Lutherans would never admit the term "Reformed" as applied to them. We admit that Calvinism is how we defined the term. And we defined Calvinism confessionally so we have a much tighter awareness, depth of understanding, deeper exegetical backgrounds, and a wider background in Calvinism than the other voters.

On the other hand, if you want to see a lot of pooled Anglican ignorance on this matter, see: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24947/#407478 Have at it; it's quite revealing.

3. Confessional = XXXIX Articles. Bob says he hold these, but has no problem with his buddies, Jack and Keith, denying them. Ergo, he confesses what? Again, confesses what again?

The vast majority of the voting members say Bob is not Protestant, Reformed and Confessional.

Second question:

Duncan is Reformed?

75% said “No.”

25% said “Yes.”

This is probably for the same reasons as above. No need to expatiate.

Third Question.

Iker reads the XXXIX Articles like Newman, Pusey and Keble.

90% said “Yes.” A slam dunk by the voters. It’s true. Rev. (bp.) Jack of Fort Worth, TX, made the claim publicly in connection with, in attendance at, with the visibility thereof, in response to the GAFCON conference and its affirmation of the XXXIX Articles.

How does Jack “confess” these Articles? In the sense of Tract XC, or John (Newman) of Oxford, “confessing them into oblivion.” The “ayes” are correct here. We know how Jack reads them because he told us.

Romans 3.3-4: Murray

Pickup with Cranfield and Murray on 3.3-4.

Romans 3.3-4:

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

3τι γaρ ει ηπιστησαν τινες μη η απιστια αυτων την πιστιν του θεου καταργησει 4μη γενοιτο γινεσθω δε ο θεος αληθης πας δε ανθρωπος ψευστης καθαπερ γεγραπται οπως αν δικαιωθης εν τοις λογοις σου και νικησεις εν τω κρινεσθαι σε

Observations:

1. One question is in view, to wit, “If some of Israel did not believe in Abraham’s Messiah, or did not embrace the OT oracles, shall that unbelief make the fidelity of God and His promises of no effect…shall those Abrahamic promises, yeah that Gospel, yeah those oracles centuries before, be overcome, defeated or over-turned?”

2. We get an emphatic denial in strong terms. “4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar.” Paul affirms that "every one" without exception or exemption, King, Provincial Governor, High Priest of Israel, rabbis or others who would claim that God's promises to Abraham and His children had failed---liars! Of course, Re-baptizers or Baptists must be included in this astounding claim. Murray says this is an “arresting way of placing in the forefront the indefectible faithfulness of God to His Word.” (95)

3. The context is Jewish unbelief during Paul’s day. The Gospel of John puts it this way (1.11-13): “11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

4. Although this matter will arise later, if one examines Romans 3.1-4, John 1.11-13, and Romans 9.5ff, one will see that embracing the promises in the first place, the act and life of faith, is at the divine initiative—believers of any genetic stock are born again by only One’s will, the Divine, not the human’s will or belief…”who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” The widespread rejection of Christ was because they were not His elect sheep. John and Paul develop this throughout their writings. That's why we're Calvinists, because like Calvin, we accept the Scriptural testimonies. No Arminianism is tolerated in John 1.13. Just read the text.

For examples of confused nonsense amongst Anglicans, especially in the comments, see: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24947/#407478. It comes from exceedingly weak Churchmen and Bible exegetes.

5. Following upon this passage, God’s determinations and purposes are not governed by what is extraneous to Himself. This is why we believe in unconditional election and with its indubitable corrollary, to wit, that Jesus sheep and the sheep only are redeemed. The atonement has its design and intent, co-extensive with its application to the elect. At the above URL, you'll see the Anglican confusions.

Interpretation:

God’s Word is not invalidated by human response, in this case, the unbelieving genetic Jew. The Gospel preached to Abraham and his children is still in force, despite denials by vast multitudes of genetic Jews.

A few corrollaries by deduction.

First, Christ is not made "Lord" by human decision. That would be like the blind man saying no sun existed because he saw no light.

Second, God's Word is not "made" God's Word by human response (e.g. neo-orthodoxy). It is what it is, even if millions denied it's authority like Romanism. Eight were left during Noah's time. 7000 during Elijah's. Paul lived to see the majority of genetic Jews reject the promises to Abraham and his children. We live in a day where children are, willy nilly, by Baptists cut off from the Abrahamic promises.

Calvin's Institutes.4.7.13: Gregory 1's Limitations

Calvin’s Institutes, IV.7.11-16. “Attitude of fifth- and sixth-century popes: Rome vs. Constantinople.”

IV.7.13: “Limitations of the office under Gregory"

Observations:

1. We continue to speak of he 6th century bishop of Rome, Gregory the Great or Gregory 1 (540-604).

2. Calvin has been whittling down papal pretensions to universal supremacy, section by section, inch by inch. Over many posts thus far, papal pretensions are legless, crippled and dwarfed...significantly.

3. Gregory undertook to “stand against obstinate and unrestrained prelates where there was need of extraordinary remedy—and that to help, not hinder, the other bishops."

4. We reassert again that Calvin in an earlier passage spoke of the “office” of a bishop as “an holy office,” without the rancor one might hear from Presbyterians or the independents and enthusiasts.

5. Gregory assumes no more than what he recognizes in other bishops—the right to correct, but also to be corrected by other bishops. No Petrine supremacy.

6. A controvery arose between himself and an African bishop. The Emperor directs the African to come to Rome. However, Gregory puts the question to a Synod for adjudication, not himself and not by an appeal to his office. The bishop of Rome stood neither higher nor lower than the African bishop—as we’ve seen from earlier posts—and was subordinate to Synodical action, as it should be today.

7. Gregory complains that he is limited by vice of numerous administrative burdens, moreso than if he were a layman.

8. “Such great administrative burdens weigh me down that my mind cannot at all rise to heavenly things. I am tossed by many waves of causes; and after that quiet leisure I am afflicted with the storms of a troubled life; so that I may rightly say, `I have come into the depths of the sea, and the storm has engulfed me.’”[1]

9. Gregory did not interfere in others’ business unless directed by the Emperor or by pressing necessity.

Interpretation.

Calvin observes that Gregory did not claim, assert, seek or practice what later Roman bishops would earnestly seek, assert, and attempt to practice—universal jurisdiction and supremacy.

[1] Gregory, Letters. II.1. I.5, 7, 16, 25.

Church Society: Church of England is Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic

We probably won't find the Windbag of "Virtual Voice of Euphorics and Puff-pieces in Enthusiastic American Anglicanism" posting this. He calls himself the "Global Voice of Orthodox Anglicanism," including his Tractarian Reverends. Over the years of patient reading, we've come to a tough stand on this "Global Voice." We're not even pleasant about it anymore. Yeah, the voice in VOL's own head. VOL published NOTHING, nada, zippo, zero....why...from Church Society which has more scholarship per square inch than all the ACNA Bishops combined. We've grown quite tired of the non-Reformed Americans dominating leadership. But then, what can you expect from an Archbishop schooled at "General Theological Seminary," perhaps more rightly entitled "Lance Corporal Theological Seminary." Anyways, here a measured and balanced statement from the Church Society.

Church Society Response to the Roman Catholic Church: The Church of England is Reformed and Protestant
Response to proposals from Rome

Response from the Council of Church Society to the plans by the Church of Rome to receive disaffected Anglicans.

According to its own doctrinal standards and history, the Church of England's true nature is that of a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic (in other words, universal) church. Orthodox Anglicanism is therefore defined by reference to these characteristics only, which are set out in the Thirty-nine Articles and the Church of England's submission to the over-arching authority of Scripture alone.

Church Society seeks to defend and promote these defining characteristics, especially the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone which is at the heart of the message and mission of the Church of England. While acknowledging the correct stand taken by Anglo-Catholics against theological liberalism (the features of which do not represent true, Biblical Anglicanism), it should also be noted that the true doctrine of the Church of England does not embrace any of the teachings or practices which characterise the Church of Rome.

For instance, the Church of Rome is fundamentally flawed in its claims about its own nature and authority and in its teaching about the means of salvation. A proper rejection of theological liberalism should therefore not be accompanied by a turning to the Church of Rome and its unbiblical teachings and practices.

Rather, both theological liberalism and the unscriptural teachings and practices of the Church of Rome are contrary to the Bible and to the historic doctrines of the Church of England as a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic church. The longing of Church Society is that all Anglicans, whether in England or elsewhere, would see and understand both the destructive nature of theological liberalism and the false nature, teachings and practices of the Church of Rome. We grieve that the Church of England, along with our nation, has fallen so low in its spiritual and moral condition.

We pray that God would pour out His Spirit on both church and nation.We rejoice that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and we pray that the Church of England will return to full adherence to its doctrinal standards, acknowledging the supreme authority of the Bible as God's Word and seeking to shape its teaching and practices by what He has revealed.

The statement was agreed by the Council at its meeting on 4 November 2009.Church Society exists to uphold biblical teaching and to promote and defend the character of the Church of England as a reformed and national Church.

For further information visit www.churchsociety.orgFurther information relevant to this statement can be found here

Anglican nuances: the Evangelicals « Churchmouse Campanologist

Anglican nuances: the Evangelicals « Churchmouse Campanologist

Posted using ShareThis

1-English Reformed: Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556): A Hero

Part one, 14ff.

Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, 1556, Relative to the Sacrament of the LORD’s SUPPER. Edited for the Parker Society by the Rev. John Edmund Fox. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1844).


For the publication of the works of the fathers and early writers of the Reformed English Church.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mFgYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA422&dq=thomas+cranmer+parker+society&as_brr=1&ei=Wbf4Sq_xGYvazQTWuaSPBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Observations.

1. This volume treats Cranmer’s latest reflections on the Table, including his disputations at Oxford, prior to his martyrdom, 1556.

2. We now talk more largely of his life, state and story.

3. Cranmer was lifted to the ABC by Henry VIII’s preferment. He gave answers to Henry on the matrimonial question that pleased the Tudor king.

4. Rev. (Bp.) Stephen Gardiner and many others would become implacable foes.

5. Foxe’s Acts and Monuments gives a good life story on Rev. Cranmer, notwithstanding efforts to debun Foxe.

6. 1489-1556. Luther was six years older and Calvin twenty-years younger than Cranmer.

7. Chosen to be a fellow at Jesus College, Cambridge University.

8. Entering Jesus College at 14 (c.1503), it took him 8 years to get his B.A.

9. Three years later, he earned an M.A. He looked more closely at the humanists, Erasmus, d’Etaples, and other humanists.

10. He married, temporarily lost his fellowship and, upon her death, was readmitted.

11. He devoted himself to Scriptures and divinity and became a doctor of divinity (not the conferred types cheaply obtained today). He became one of the few examiners of bachelor’s and doctoral students of divinity. He was every after, Dr. Cranmer. Cranmer would have remain a "man of the book."

12. He is known to have turned many men back from further progress until they mastered Scriptures. Many who were well-studied in the medieval doctors were turned away and “were commonly rejected by him.” He was known for a “severe examination.”

13. We skip some of the well worn stories about Cranmer and the development of the matrimonial cause. We will be looking for the entanglements with Continental Reformers, medieval schoolmen, and patrology. Cranmer, like all good Anglicans, insist on the study of church history.

14. The issue is removed "from canon law by an appeal to Scriptures." Cranmer argues this in the pope’s presence and to his face. Also, he and the other English representatives do not bow to kiss the foot, as was customary 17.It was noted that the Pope was wearing "sandals." Cranmer sees the Emperor on his return trip to England.

15. Cranmer continued his studies when he became the ABC. He argued stoutly in Parliament against the Six Articles, the six scorpion whips of Henrician Romanism.

Interpretation.

In a day of compromise, accomodating pulpits, entertainment, non-liturgy and cheap enthusiasts, it's good to have some heroes. And scholarly ones also. Cranmer is one of among many.

To be continued. Part one endeth.

2-The Thirty-nine Articles

Part two.

Background to the Thirty-nine Articles drawn from the following source. For those wish an email with pdf.files on Hardwick's work, let me know. reformationtoday@yahoo.com. No cost.

We draw attention to this fact. Whenever any article is posted on the Articles or the Reformation at www.virtueonline.org, the claques, happy handwavers, enthusiasts and other ignoramuses go quiet.

A History of the Articles of Religion: To which is added a Series of Documents from A.D. 1536 to A.D. 1615; Together with Illustrations from Contemporary Sources. Author: Charles Hardwick (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, S.W. Corner Chestnut and Eighth Streets, 1852). Hardwick published this from St. Catherine’s Hall, Cambridge, 19 Mar 1851.

Also, the publication of the New Testament and the Primitive Fathers “gradually” convinced the serious scholars of the errors and “deadly weeds which had mingled with its growth, and during the torpor of the Middle Ages.” [1] This century could be called a “period of fermentation.”

Another factor throughout this period was the greed, avarice, and grand possessions of the Roman Church. This was duly noted by the laity who were not fools; this is like the avarice and grand possessions of the false teachers and false prophets in charismania-land. We think of Joel Osteen, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland, Pat Roberts, Joyce Meyer, Paula White, and Benny Hinn, for starters, TV-heroes of the modern blank-heads who, like the Renaissance Popes, had turned their message to a great profit.

The gullible—including leaders, then as now—tolerated it while the discerning, laity and Churchmen included, criticized it. John Wycliffe, of the late thirteenth century, is one representative calling upon the church to change; the strength of these feelings was wide and deep for elect and honest Churchmen.

The fifteenth century had inherent forces at work for reform and that the highest authorities in the Church and State saw the “virulence of the disease by which Western Christendom was afflicted.”[2]

Questions had been forced to the fore by several things.

First, the bold movements in Bohemia with Jan Huss and others were at work as were the efforts of the Lollards in England, though repressed on both fronts. In addition to these bolder movements, there was also a quest among more conservative elements for a “gradual restoration of discipline of moral, to a reorganization of the ecclesiastical system fast dying and decomposing, and ultimately to the recovery of the Primitive Faith, which is embodied in our English Service-Books and The Articles of Religion.”[3]

Some striking examples are set forth.

The Council of Pisa was assembled on 25 March 1409. The Great Schism had lasted thirty year, since 1378. No measures, ecclesiastical, political or military had brought the rivalries of the Avignon and Roman papacies to a resolution, aided and abetted by the pride, obstinancy, nepotism and greed of the dueling factions.[4] The Council of Pisa was designed to bring peace and establish order. The eyes, attention and hopes of Western Christendom centred on this Council.

Attendees at the Cathedral of Pisa, Italy: 4 patriarchs, 22 cardinals, 80 bishops, proxy clergy representing 100 absent bishops, 41 priors and generals of religious orders, 300 doctors of theology or canon law, as well as ambassadors from all the Christian kingdoms. Following the admission of testimonials and affidavits, the rival Popes were declared “contumacious” by this numerous and august body of medieval leaders.
Things heated up when the Patriarch of Alexandria, Simon de Cramaud, addressed the assembly about the rival Popes:

"Benedict XIII and Gregory XII" are recognised as schismatics, the approvers and makers of schism, notorious heretics, guilty of perjury and violation of solemn promises, and openly scandalizing the universal Church. In consequence, they are declared unworthy of the Sovereign Pontificate, and are ipso facto deposed from their functions and dignities, and even driven out of the Church. It is forbidded to them henceforward to consider themselves to be Sovereign Pontiffs and all proceedings and promotions made by them are annulled. The Holy See is declared vacant and the faithful are set free from their promise of obedience."[5]

This met with applause, the singing of the Te Deum, with the order for a solemn procession and the Feast of Corpus Christi. The members signed the decree deposing the Avignon and Roman Popes.[6] How's that for Rome's vaunted claims of "unity?"

The Council through the College of Cardinals elected the new Pope, Alexander V. The election was expected. It was announced throughout Christendom and was joyously received.

This Council itself would set up additional questions: How could Cardinals, appointing by anafractuous, dueling Popes convene with apostolic authority? Ergo, was their decision canonically valid? Can a General Council overturn Papal decrees? Ultimately, Vatican One would solve that one.

Suffice it to suffice, for our purposes here. The fifteenth century was turbulent and reform was in the air.

We continue to discuss the antecedents to the Thirty-nine Articles as discussed previously and in antecedents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. If we take the generational perspective of the 2nd commandment, we can see that generational sins were visited by divine judgment on “our” Church. New leaders arose, under the divine blessing, to cleanse her and restore Christ and His Sovereign Word above and to His Bride. It still is “our” Church as the True Catholic and Reformed Church.[7]

We were discussing the Council of Pisa, convoked 25 March 1409 on account of the Papal schism, one Pope operating in Rome and the other in Avignon, France, replete with their own dueling appointments to cardinal-ships and bishoprics with their competing claims to apostolic succession. This creates an insurmountable problem for Romanists with their claim to offer, solitarily, apostolic succession to whom they appoint; that’s an internal issue to them we need not worry about since apostolic succession is measured against the sovereign standard of the apostolic record and message. Does Rome just make it up as she goes?

However, in the disastrous conflict of our church, twenty-two cardinals who called it “pledged themselves that whoever was elected Pope, the council should not be dissolved until it had commended a purification of the Church, `both heads and numbers.[8] Their choice fell unanimously upon Peter of Candia (Alexander V) and one of the first promises which he made after his election betoken the willingness of the pontiff `to forward the work of Reformation.’”[9] However, Hardwick tells us that other issues arose between the sessions, and it judged wise to postpone discussion of abuses until a convocation of a future synod.

A reformation of “heads and numbers” is the language of Reform.

We turn our attention from the Council of Pisa to another opportunity for Reformation at the Council of Constance of date 5 November 1414, five years after the former. One of the purposes of this council was “the Reformation of the Church.”[10] The issues were the healing of the factions, the reestablishment of the Papacy, and the extirpation of heretics. We bring some observations about this Council of Constance, meeting variously from 5 November 1414 to 22 April 1418. Forty-five sessions were held for three reasons: end the

Papal schism, reform Church government and life, and repress heresies (e.g. Huss, Wycliffe).[11] How thoroughly modern.

It is not an overstatement to say that chaos, machinations, resolutions, broken promises, excommunications, canonical changes and unedifying factions characterized this period, as previously asserted.

Part two ended.

[1] Hardwick, 16.
[2] Hardwick, op.cit., 9.
[3] Hardwick, op.cit., 9.
[4] The Avignon Palace in France has a cool basement in more than one sense of the word. Very large. Very cool in terms of temperature. And very “cool” since it was large enough for all the money and taxes they collected. The cash was kept on the premise. The Pope also had a secret stairwell to his chambers for late night trysts with local ladies, a rather un-Petrine thing to have. The papal chambers have various graffiti markings through the centuries since them. I observed one dated 1648.
[5] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12112b.htm of date 19 Jul 2009.
[6] We do well to remind ourselves that Roman apologists will often crow about the unity of the see of Rome. The Great Schism and the numerous and repeated inter-mural hostilities between various orders characterized the period. Where possible, unity was enforced by the interdict, inquisition, and outright murders, e.g. the Lollards and Waldensians.
[7] Rome’s historic impenitence disqualifies it from being called the Catholic Church. We refer readers to Bishop Jewel’s Apology of the Church of England. In the light of centuries of denial of the Biblical Gospel and unlike weak, modern Protestants in our day, we must with the Reformers call her an Anti-Christ, a counterfeit of the True Church.
[8] An interesting footnote occurs in our Hardwick text, p. 9, footnote 3, to wit, “In the fourteenth century, before the time of Hus, Mattias von Janow, confessor to the emperor Charle IV, had pressed the importance of commencing a reformation.” [emphasis added]. The footnoted source is Guerike, Kirchen-geschicte, I.774, Halle, 1843. It’s just one more piece in the puzzle of the fifteenth century which we are saying was profoundly troubled. Here we find a comment about the fourteenth century, the age of John Wycliffe.
[9] Hardwick, op.cit., 9. We regret we do not have access to two earlier sources here. First, Lenfant, Histoire du Concile de Pise, I. 290, Amsterdam 1724. The second important paper, a primary source, is a paper drawn up by a Church of England man, Richard Ulverston, as a memorial for the Bishop of Salisbury from this council. Von der Hardt, Council. Contstant, I. 1226
[10] First, Lenfant, Histoire du Concile de Constance, I, 46, 373, Amsterdam, 1727 as cited by Hardwick, op.cit., 10. Somehow we have never heard any Romanist say there were fifteen century Reformers interested in the “Reformation of the Church.” The usual line speaks of the historic unity, not divisions.
[11] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm of date 22 July 2009. John Wyclife was condemned in early 1413.

4-Why I Use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer

The text is immediately below. Below that are my own observations, correlation, interpretation, and applications.

Why I use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for daily and evening Prayers?

The Absolution, or Remission of sins, to be pronounced by the Priest alone, standing; the people still kneeling.

ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live; and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins : He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Observations.

1. At the outset of any worship, prior to praises and worship, prior to hearing God’s word, and prior to any other prayers, the matter of “sin” as an obstacle is handled and handled well leading one again to Christ alone. This is far better than Presbyterian forms of worship, by far. We saw one Presbyterian clerk, this week in fact, call it the "Anglican Popish service." This too, done in a forum with many nation's leaders and without rebuttal. Their better educated Churchmen don't make such silly statements. The Lutherans are far better here. Expect nothing from the revivalists. Phoohey at that ignorance.

2. As previously noted, moderns in U.S. churches haven’t stretched this far.

3. As to Shepherd-theology and Westminster Seminary and his concern for good works, had he been disciplined—for years—on Prayer Book piety, we believe his concerns would have been addressed.

4. Notice the word “priest” in the red rubric. We take issue with that here. This has yielded all manner of mischief for Anglicans. While Protestant and Reformed Anglicans have always taught the “priesthood of all believers,” yet this term—here and elsewhere—has practically and pastorally created the distinction between the cleric and laity. A revision or the rubric, to wit, The Absolution, or Remission of sins, to be pronounced by the Priest alone, standing; the fellow priests still kneeling. This would accord with the NT and teach the people about their priestly duties.

5. Reformed Churchmen have rightly taught that Christian ministers are NOT “priests” in any other sense than that which all believers are a “royal priesthood,” offering up the sacrifices of themselves (faith, duty, loyalty, dedication and consecration, Romans 12.1-2) and their praises.

6. Cranmer’s 1552 Book of Common Prayer had the term “ministers” to avoid this problem, but Queen Exegete the First and her acolytes, bishops, were—in their minds—wiser than Cranmer. Cranmer was closer to the Reformation. Reformed Anglicans were not heard in the 1662 revision--unfortunately.

7. The “absolution” or “remission of sin” probably frightens some but a few observations here. If the introductory sentences are exegeted carefully, one will see that absolution, the life of repentance, and the life of faith are daily and life-long. The revivalists have none of this in their thinking.

a. The power or authority resides with those lawfully called and ordained. That is another issue. This service does not authorize self-appointed cowboys for divine worship. Authority for Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians is carefully exercised and care governs whom they ordain. If you go to a doctor, do you want him trained or self-appointed? If fly by air, do you want a trained pilot or some fella "who feels the needs and has a Word?" Examine the Scriptures re: ministerial authority.

b. The authority is to declare the “Gospel” authoritatively.

c. Notice “He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel.” Christ alone pardons and absolves penitent sinners, not the cleric.

d. The declaration applies to those “that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel.” There is no universalism.

e. Having said this, we feel the revision by the old Reformed Episcopal Church (before she yielded to Tractarians and modern muddlers and manglican movers of mediocrity, ACNA) was excellent. The edit was: “…but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live, hath in holy Word given assurance that He pardoneth and absolveth all those who truly repent and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel.” This edit preserves the church from sacerdotalism. The old REC surely made an excellent advance and revision of the BCP.

f. We invite “new joins” or the “unconverted” to follow us, to repent and believe the Gospel. Let that be pointed out often. There may be grounds to edit the rubric to this effect, calling sinners to Christ, the "new joins." Having said that, we invited them as well as justified saints to follow us as we continue the good works of repentance, change of life, habit, custom, or practices unbefitting the life of the saint. Notice: “Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit.” Luther would agree.

g. This is a life-long war. It is not the oft-seen practice of “once saved, so I can live as I please and still have remission.” That perversity is not here. It is a life-long fight. “…and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy.” New joins need to be told this. Saints, if at ease in Zion, need to get in the game in the Church Militant.

h. The book is eminently Christological. The declaration closes with “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Cranmer pruned, ruthlessly, all saint or Marian invocations. The Tractarians hate this observation. The new ACNA leadership does nothing to correct its anti-Reformers.

Interpretation.

This superior discipline of Morning Prayer, vastly in conflict with American devotional patterns, is excellent as an evangelistic tool and for a tool of growth in grace for the Christian. It needs the recommended edits above to be suitable for a discerning Confessional Reformed Churchman. (Expect nothing from ACNA clerics for Anglicans reading this...some of them think the Reformation a "heresy.")

Romans 3.3-4: Sandlay and Headlam

ICC, Sandlay & Headlam

Romans 3.3-4:

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

3τι γaρ ει ηπιστησαν τινες μη η απιστια αυτων την πιστιν του θεου καταργησει 4μη γενοιτο γινεσθω δε ο θεος αληθης πας δε ανθρωπος ψευστης καθαπερ γεγραπται οπως αν δικαιωθης εν τοις λογοις σου και νικησεις εν τω κρινεσθαι σε

Observations.

1. The “some” is important in 3.1. “Some” but not “all” descendents of Abraham were unfaithful. Roman 9-11 is the commentary on this personal pronoun, “some.” Who was the “seed of Israel?” What is the “seed” of Galatians 3.16, but “Christ and His seed,” believers. The promises to Abraham are not dashed; they have continuing and abiding validity as missions are done throughout the nations.

2. Anyone asserting otherwise is a liar, ψευστης. This puts a nasty and judicial condemnation and squeeze to the Anabaptists or Wiedertaufer. Asserting that God’s promises to believers and their children (Gen.17.7; Gal.3.6-9; inter alia) is the opposite of truth. The Southern Baptists and the other 500-type Baptists in the U.S. won’t like these verses, among others. Same for the enthusiasts. It also puts the squeeze on anyone group, genetic Jews included, that denies the Abrahamic promises and covenant of grace for this admininstration of it, post-resurrectionally.

3. Paul affirms that God is a God of truth over against human denials of the infallibility of God’s promises. ο θεος αληθης

4. “Even as it is written,” is Paul’s constant refrain. He does not quote rabbis or apocryphal literature. καθαπερ γεγραπται. Paul’s use of the OT indicates the abiding role and rule of the OT (Romans 15.3-4; 1 Cor.10.1ff).

5. Paul quotes from Psalm 51.5: “…so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.”

6. S & H, summarize it: “The sense of the original is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God’s judgment on him. The result of his sin is that God is pronounced righteous in His sentence, free from blame in his judging. St. Paul applies it as if the Most High Himself were put on trial and declared guiltless in respect to the promises which He has fulfilled, though man will not believe in their fulfillment.” The Anabaptists and, especially, the dispensationalists are on public report for their indecent, unjust and lying denials of the continuing Gospel promises to Abrahamic descendents, that is, Churchmen and their children.

7. The pronouncement of God’s justice, over against the denial of the promises, is juridical. “…That you may be justified in your words…” Every man who denies the Abrahamic promises is a liar and God is—juridically—pronounced righteous. Δικαιωθης, that you may be pronounced just and right. The term “justify” is the storm centre of the book, as it is today. Hence, our photo above.

8. The text speaks of God’s sovereignty in his judgment, to wit, “…and prevail when you are judged." Or “conquer.” Other terms might be triumph, defeat, or overcome. The ESV uses the suitable rendering, “prevail.”

Interpretation.

The question at bar is the advantages of the genetic (and by implication spiritual) Jew. The promises to Abraham have not fallen to the ground at all. Anyone who says otherwise, e.g. Baptists, dispensationalists, or genetic Jews are liars. God is true, just and shall prevail in his words and judgments.

Calvin's Institutes. 4.7.12. Roman Imperialism

At the outset, we commend to our readers to read "everything" written by Benedict XVI, as this scribe has done. B16 is a scholars' scholar; his allegiance to the false Gospel continues, yet he must be read (among other important Romanist works). This forum deplores anti-intellectualism; further, it deplores yielding one square inch to Rome, e.g. ECT. With all Reformers, we continue to claim that Rome's Gospel is anti-Christ and that the leaders are Baalamites. That's not impolitic or impolite, but true; they promote another Gospel, an accursed Gospel.

Calvin’s Institutes, 4.7-12

Observations.

1. This section, 4.7.11-16, deals with the attitude of the fifth and sixth century bishops of Rome: Rome versus Constantinople. Where’s Petrine supremacy?

2. Vandals, Goths and other invasions caused great tumult in Italy, Spain, Gaul and North Africa. Continual disasters.

3. Many bishops pulled together with Rome that “the faith might remain whole;” the same phenomenon occurs in the second and third centuries when Christians were being persecuted, to wit, rallying around bishops (senior presbyters) to preserve the faith.

4. This itself—the political chaos—resulted in a marked increase of Rome in the west. The power of the papacy was increased.

5. Yet, having said (4), it was far from the “unbridled domination in which one man could command others according to his pleasures.”

6. Gregory the Great argues for his rights in preserving the faith, but argues for others’ rights also.

7. “Nor do I deprive any man, when he is pricked by ambition, of what is his right: but I desire to honor my brothers in all things.” Letters III.29; II.52; IX.27.

8. He takes upon himself the right to correct others; other could protest against him with impunity.
Interpretation.

Calvin continues to show that the papacy did not claim universal supremacy, let alone exercise it; in fact, when attempted, it was rebuffed.

Applications.

1. Consider the silence on this in Confessional and wider evangelical circles.

2. Consider worldwide implications of this silence, e.g. Third World and Southern Cone countries.

3. Consider the impact on a solitary Romanist believer and the evangelistic necessity and tactics of informing such that he’s been lied to and that these continuing defenses by Rome as mere “imperialism” without support.

4. Consider the failure of leadership to confront Roman hubris; the Orthodox surely do and have for centuries to their credit...on this point.

Westminster Larger Catechism (157-158) and WSC 90

So very glad to have been well taught before entering the Anglican wilderness. Imagine children NOT being taught this? We post it in the event that young people may read or check in--each generation needs to be taught this material. Your Anglican rector won't be disciplined in this thinking--over his head and beyond his past and background. American Episcopalians would rebel at God if so instructed...their big issue is gays. Let us help converted infants in whom there is more hope than these impoverished leaders.

LC 158

November 8, 2009

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached?

A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted,[1015] and also duly approved and called to that office.[1016]

LC 157, SC 90

November 7, 2009

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 157. How is the Word of God to be read?

A. The holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them;[1005] with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God,[1006] and that he only can enable us to understand them;[1007] with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them;[1008] with diligence,[1009] and attention to the matter and scope of them;[1010] with meditation,[1011] application,[1012] self-denial,[1013] and prayer.[1014]

Westminster Shorter Catechism

Q. 90. How is the Word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation?A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer;[186] receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.[187]

Heidelberg Catechism: Lord's Day 44. (Q/A.113-115)

There still are Reformed Confessional Churches that will preach this at the evening service. And they still require the lads and lasses to memorize it. Most suitable to Anglican (historical) Prayer Book theology.

http://reformed-renegade.blogspot.com/2009/11/lords-day-44-heidelberg-catechism.html

Lord's Day 44
Heidelberg Catechism

Lord's Day 44Scripture Readings: Colossians 2:20-3:17; 1 John 5:1-4

Q. 113.What does the tenth commandment require of us?

A.That even the smallest inclination or thought, contrary to any of God's commandments, never rise in our hearts; but that at all times we hate all sin with our whole heart,and delight in all righteousness.

Q. 114.But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?

A. No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God.

Q. 115.Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?

A.First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin,and righteousness in Christ; likewise, that we constantly endeavour and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come.

For reflection:

What is different about this commandment from the other nine?

English Reformer. Philpott (1511-1555): Tenacious in Combat

Part nine begins, 153.

The Examinations and Writing of John Philpott (Parker Society Series, 1842). Archdeacon of Winchester (1511-December 1555).

The Oxford Memorial to the Reformers martyred in England for the Reformed and biblical faith.

Newman, Pusey and Keble, in private correspondence, abhorred this monument. We reasonably infer that Mr. (bp.) Iker, Ackerman, Hewitt, and Schofield would also, if the "Reformed Faith" became the Confessional core of the ACNA.

Free and downloadable at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=WhT67MqcFDIC&pg=PA319&dq=examinations+and+writings+of+john+philpott+parker+society&lr=&as_brr=1.
Observations:

1. Another examination—the poor archdeacon of Winchester, John Philpott, is being examined near unto death, as it were. Over and over and over. One can hear the thoroughly modern argument, "C'mon, old boy, just go along to get along. We can get this over in short order. No need for this doctrine. We've got the numbers and everyone else on our side. C'mon good man!"

2. Chichester takes to correcting Philpott re: Augustine and the Donatists. Philpott responds: “And St. Augustine speaketh of such as were thoroughly persuaded by manifest scriptures, and yet would resist of stubborn willfulness.”

3. Additional exhortation to comply with the “catholic faith” (=Papist) is enjoined.

4. Philpott: “I am of the same catholic faith…” (= Reformed). This is why Reformed Churchmen do not surrender the term "Catholic."

5. Chichester to the other bishops: “…but he meaneth otherwise than you do…” This old go-around is getting tiring.

6. Durham and the numbers-game: “…will you believe as we do, and all the learned of the realm, or no…and be of one church with us?”

7. Philpott then lectures on the “true church and false church.” He notes that Abel and Cain were in the same church, with one slaying the other. He points 10 of 12 tribes that were the attached, false church. God cut off the false appendage. The implication is clear. Papistry, Romery, and Romanism is a "false church." Committed to the biblical Gospel, every Reformer, held this. It was true then. It's more so today. One can hear modern objections, to wit, "We can't say that any longer in light of the ecumenical discussions, not to mention our pluralistic context. These are just exaggerated statements of these beseiged Reformers." We think not.

8. Chichester: that is true in the OT, but not in the NT.

9. Philpott: Judas in the NT. Simon Magus. Two churches when Paul mentions the antichrist in Thessalonians with a false generation.

10. Durham concedingly: the church is a fisher’s net with good and bad fishes.

11. London (Bonner): Accuses Philpott of saying that the Holy Spirit is Christ’s Vicar on earth.
Christopherson (a friend of Philpott’s from earlier years when in Rome together) interrogates Philpott: “I marvel why you should dissent from the true catholic church since it hath thus long universally been received, except within these five or six years here in England.)

Interpretation:

The Romanists are working hard to get Philpott to repent of his Reformed ways. The Reformed faith of the English Reformed Church was established by courageous and principled men, grounded in the Supreme Word of God and also by men well-schooled in patrology. If we see anything here, it is Philpott’s tenacity. That’s how reformation wars are won and fought.

Part nine ends.

8-English Reformed. ABC Matthew Parker: National Reforms

Part eight, page 123. The Legality of the New Measures, Enforcing Supremacy.” Lambeth Palace, c.1685, the London residence for the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Archbishop Parker by William Paul McClure Kennedy (London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1908).

Observations.

1. McClure chats over the legality of the new Prayer Book.
2. The Supremacy Act was acted upon quickly. All the Marian Bishops, except Kitchin of Llandaff, were deprived. Eleven bishops were deprived. Bp. Tunstall of Durham also. Tunstall did not persecute Protestants during Mary’s bloody rule. He was 85-years old.
3. Tunstall was sent to lodge with Parker at Lambeth Palace, a "fit place." He was well treated and Parker thought Tunstall might submit. Like many bishops before and after, Tunstall died at Lambeth Palace, 18 November 1559.
4. Dean Alexander Nowell, Calvinist, Reformer, Catechetist, and Dean of St. Paul's throughout Elizabeth's reign, preaches a funeral sermon “worthy of the occasion.” Parker sent Tunstall’s papers to Cecil.
5. A Royal Visitation was organized for the nation. This was to include examination for compliance to the new Prayer Book. The Elizabethan Injunctions belong to this period—in earlier reviews elsewhere, Roman jurisdiction was vigourously being driven from English soil; in the 19th and 20th century, Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics will disapprove.
6. Regular preaching was to be provided in the nation's parishes.
7. The people throughout the nation were to be taught the Creed and 10 Commandments in English. Divine worship would be in English, not Latin.
8. Each church was to possess the great Bible, Paraphrases of Erasmus, and registries for baptisms, weddings, and deaths.
9. Clergy were to be examined on pre-arranged studies. McClure does not mention anything further, but we are—tentatively, yet with some strength, the timeline being under inquiry—inclined to believe this included studies in Bullinger’s Decades with notebooks with notes by every clergyman on one chapter of the Bible daily. On information and belief, examiners were appointed to oversee clerical developments, theologically and biblically. They were to review notebooks. Also, Dean Nowell would later write catechisms for the nation's clerics.
10. All monuments of superstition were to be destroyed. McClure does not elaborate.
11. Simony was forbidden.
12. Clerical marriages were permitted but with Episcopal approval of the “ladies of choice.” Elizabeth never liked this and she never got her way on it.
13. School masters were to have an Episcopal license.
14. Parishes were to have an over-seer to ensure compliance with attendance upon divine worship. Fines were applied for the delinquent and obstinate.
15. Plainsong was to be continued, but hymns and anthems were permitted, provided the “sense of the words was not rendered obscure.”
16. Altars were to be removed.
17. Books collected for burning during Mary’s reign were to be collected.