"The Arminian tone of the ACNA Catechism is simply inconsistent with true Anglicanism."
You could still read the above Question and Answer as not being against the Articles but its deficiency is made clear in Question 14. Question 14 looks at how a person may repent and place faith in Jesus Christ. It's very first word sets the Arminian and non-Anglican tone.
14. How may a person repent and place faith in Jesus Christ?
Anyone may repent and place their faith in Jesus Christ at any time. One way to do this is by sincerely saying a prayer similar to the Prayer of Repentance and Faith given above. (John 15:16; Acts 16:31-34; Romans 10:9; Hebrews 12:12)
Really? Anyone at any time? I was under the impression from both Scripture and the Articles that because we are Totally Depraved not just by deeds but by nature that
"The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have good will, and working with us when we have that good will." Article 10.
Clearly, contra the Catechism, we cannot just turn to God and "at any time" because we need God's grace to 'prevent' us - that is 'enable us' to do so.
Arminians, especially of the Wesleyan kind, generally argue that God gives everybody 'Prevenient Grace' thus enabling 'anybody at any time' to turn to Him in faith. But Article 17 is quite clear that before the foundations of the world, before time itself and creation, God
"hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour."
The important phrase here is "those whom He hath chosen.... out of mankind" - that is, not everybody but only the elect. Only these people may turn to Christ, and even they only when God graciously and for no good works of their own opens their hearts to His Word. The Historical Formularies of the Church of England are unashamedly Reformed - uncompromisingly Calvinist (not in the 5 point Dort sense but the historical sense). To claim that true and historical Anglicanism is not Reformed concerning election is nothing but an insidious lie. There are good reasons why Wesley rejected the Articles and removed the ones about election when he rewrote them for his churches abroad - he was an Arminian. There are good reasons why Whitfield and Toplady and Ryle all railed against their opponents not just with Scripture but by wielding the Articles - because they plainly supported their position and claim to be the true heirs of Anglicanism.
The Arminian tone of the ACNA Catechism is simply inconsistent with true Anglicanism. Even its emphasis on 'praying the prayer' and its 'asking Jesus into your heart' mentality is painful to read from a historical perspective. Whilst it is not wrong to call people to commit their life to Christ and 'pray the prayer', without the Biblical doctrine of Assurance found only in the Reformed Tradition this revivalist spirituality is a recipe for disaster and cycles of fear and doubt in the life of the believer.
Secondly, we turn to the teaching on the Sacraments in the Catechism. All I can say is "Oh dear." It seems that the revisionist enterprise of the Tractarians has won the war in the USA so completely that on some issues people cannot see where Roman Catholicism ends and Anglicanism begins.
Questions 102-115 which are on the Lord's Supper and Baptism are fine, they largely just repeat the teaching of the 39 Articles and BCP Catechism. But in 116 comes the *facepalm* moment:
116. Are there other sacraments?
Other rites and institutions commonly called sacraments include confirmation, absolution, ordination, marriage, and anointing of the sick. These are sometimes called the sacraments of the Church.
The ignoring or subverting of the Articles is seen in Question 117 which asks how these five differ from the two Sacraments of the Gospel.
117. How do these differ from the sacraments of the Gospel?
They are not commanded by Christ as necessary for salvation, but arise from the practice of the apostles and the early Church, or are states of life blessed by God from creation. God clearly uses them as means of grace.
Do you see the difference? 117 here says that these arise from the practise of the apostles and the early church - done, finished, fin. But this is not what the Articles say. The Articles say that they arise from the corrupt following of the Apostles. The inclusion of the word 'corrupt' is very significant.
To say that "God clearly uses them as a means of grace" is to seriously overstep the allowance of the Articles' teaching. Nowhere do the Articles or the BCP Catechism say these things convey grace as do the Sacraments of the Gospel. Now in the services we may pray for God's grace, as we do in marriage, but it is not a vehicle of grace in the same way as the Sacraments of the Gospel for they "have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." Article 25. What is a Sacrament? It is an outward visible sign and ceremony ordained and appointed by God which we are ordered to continue by which He has chosen in His mercy to work His grace through. These other things are simply not this.
"on some issues people cannot see where Roman Catholicism ends and Anglicanism begins."
This is made abundantly clear in the first commentary on the Articles which was written by Thomas Rogers in 1587 (or at least the part dealing with the final 20 Articles was, the first 19 were published some time before). Written so close to the time of the writing of Articles it gives a very important guide on how they were intended to be understood. In his commentary on Article 25 Rogers bluntly and unapologetically calls the other five "no sacrament". Rogers lists under 'the errors of adversaries to this truth' Papists who claim that there are seven sacraments.
Concerning confirmation Rogers says "the sentence and judgement of the true church is, that rightly used, as it was in the primitive church, it is no sacrament; but a part of Christian discipline, profitable for the whole Church of God." Whilst the ACNA Catechism considers the inward grace imparted by confirmation to be "In confirmation, God strengthens the work of the Holy Spirit in me for his daily increase in my Christian life and ministry" Rogers tells us that it is an error of the Papists to believe that "confirmation is a sacrament whereby the grace the was given in baptism is confirmed and made strong by the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost."
Concerning Penance or Absolution, Rogers says "The blasphemies are outrageous, and the errors many and monstrous, comprised in this popish doctrine of penance. For neither can the manner of this their sacrament, nor the form, nor the minister, nor the effect, be drawn from the word of God. They say penance is a sacrament, yet they can show no element it hath to make it a sacrament." The BCP clearly allows the ministry of private confession. In the ministry to the sick, in extreme cases where assurance of forgiveness cannot be given even by plain and comfortable words of the Scriptures, it even allows the minister in this pastorally extreme situation to use the words 'I absolve you." Furthermore, in the first exhortation to receive the Lord's Supper in the BCP service it is written:
"if there be any of you, who by this means [the knowing of God's assurances through is death and the Scriptures] cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God's Word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with the ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and disobedience."
The issue is not so much with the idea that God calls ministers to administer absolution, we are told in the 'absolution' of the BCP Morning and Evening Prayer that ministers are both called and instructed to do such by Christ, but the issue is the fact that it is not a sacrament for it was not ordained of Christ to be such.
Likewise, nowhere does the BCP call Ordination a sacrament, nor does it ever call Marriage such. As Rogers rails against the idea that Ordination is a sacrament "What element hath it? What form? What promise? What institution from Christ?" or as he says about marriage "Marriage... was never commanded by God to be taken for a sacrament. Again, it hath neither outward element, nor prescribed form, nor promise of salvation, as a sacrament should, and baptism and the Lord's supper have."
I will leave it to you to discover Rogers' choice words concerning the idea that anointing with oil or 'unction' is a sacrament. You can find his book free online at http://prydain.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the_catholic_doctrine_of_the_church_of_e.pdf
and go to page 263 in the book itself.
Suffice it to say that these things, whilst commonly called Sacraments, are simply not, and thus should not be called such. Whilst much of what the Catechism says concerning the hopes of our prayers during these things is spot on, that does not make them Sacraments. In accepting such Popish teaching the Catechism sells out to the Ritualists and capitulates to the Tractarian agenda, siding with Romish Tradition over the Historic Formularies of Anglicanism.
"Whilst much of what the Catechism says concerning the hopes of our prayers during these things is spot on, that does not make them Sacraments"
Other niggling issues
So far we have seen many good points to the ACNA Catechism, and two areas in which it is distinctly un-Anglican. I will finish by making a few observations on other issues in the Catechism, some relating to Anglicanism and some simply to Biblical theology.
Firstly, Whilst what 110-115 say concerning the Lord's Supper is carefully worded and correct Anglican teaching, given the broader nature of this catechism compared to that of the BCP I am surprised it does not staunchly defend the position laid out clearly in the Articles - namely the Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper as opposed to that of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. In leaving open the 'real presence' the Catechism does a disservice to the heritage of faith handed down to us in the Historic Formularies.
Secondly, it over-spiritualises the end times in the Lord's prayer. Whilst indeed the Kingdom is something here and now among us and which grows with the fulfilling of the Great Commission, the Biblical picture is not just that at the end of time Jesus hands it back the Father (179) but that Christ comes as a warrior to smash and crush the opposition and to instigate His earthly reign over a literal Kingdom. As one may gather from what I just said, I hold to a historic pre-millennial position. I do not think the questions of post-mill, a-mill, and pre-mill are something we should divide over, but whilst the Catechism leaves open the possibility of taking a post or a-mill position it is far too prescriptive in seemingly writing against a pre-mill one. In doing so it steps beyond the teaching of Scripture.
Thirdly, the view of why Christians should say morning and evening prayer is also very shallow in number 248. We do not just follow these prayers because it is a sacrifice that pleases God or so we are aware that our "time is sanctified to God." The exhortation to repentance at the start of the BCP services of Morning and Evening prayer make clear why we say the offices and do so ideally as a gathered fellowship "to render thanks for the great benefits we have received at His hands, to set forth His most worthy praise, and to hear His most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul..." We say the offices to praise and thank God, to ask of Him things through prayer, and to learn from and be edified by the reading of the Scriptures. Indeed, the whole bent of this part of the Catechism with its 'rule of life' and what not is pregnant with Tractarian theology and practice. I fail to see how 251-254 is traditional Anglican teaching and is drawn from the Historical Formularies. Whilst the teaching is not unhelpful by any means, I am not convinced its presence in the the Catechism for an organisation such as ACNA is helpful.
Fourthly, number 324 says that for Christians the tithe is 10% and this is a minimum. Really? Where are Christians told to tithe in this legalistic way? We are certainly called to give generously and as the Article 38 says "ever man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to this ability." but this is a far cry from imposing a legalistic 10%. Is this of pre or post tax deductions? What if you cannot afford 10%? Making such a blanket statement, unsupported by Scripture concerning the New Covenant, is unwise.
Finally, whilst much of what the Catechism says on Scripture is great - it is God inspired, it is vital that we read and learn and memorise it - I was left disappointed that the Catechism failed to say that Scripture is infallible and cannot teach untruth. The infallibility of Scripture is a central doctrine of the Reformation, so much so that it was hardly worth even mentioning it at the time because it was simple assumed by all sides and parties. But to lack clear mention of it in our modern age, especially in light of the fact that ACNA has arisen because The Episcopal Church has abandoned Scripture and no longer sees it as infallible at all, is to my mind a serious mistake.
"In leaving open the 'real presence' the Catechism does a disservice to the heritage of faith handed down to us in the Historic Formularies."
I want to close this topic by again affirming that there are many great things about the ACNA Catechism, and it has many strengths which will be vital to keeping ACNA healthy. But, regretfully, because of its Arminian leanings and its Tractarian understanding of the Sacraments, it cannot truly be called 'Anglican.'
For the rest, see the URL.
No comments:
Post a Comment