Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879

Showing posts with label ACNA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACNA. Show all posts

Thursday, March 13, 2014

13 Mar 1559: Disputation at Westminster Re: English Services, Church Power, the Mass

13 March 1559. A disputation was held at Westminster in behalf of “English services.” It’s hard to realize the significance of this, but England was just coming off the Marian regency; there were also severe Anglo-Italian bishops and presbyters in the land. 
 
The participants on the Reformed side were: Misters Scory, Coxe, Whitehead, Sandys, Grindal, Home, Aylmer, and Guest (a quasi-Lutheran).

 The subject: “…disputation between nine divines of either contending party, to be conducted in writing, in the English language, before the members of the Council and both houses of Parliament, in the church of Westminster, was appointed to be held on the 13th of March, 1558-9.”



The points to be discussed were:


1. The lawfulness of prayers in the vulgar tongue;


2. The power of the Church to change rites and ceremonies;


3. The scriptural authority for the sacrifice of the Mass: all having an immediate bearing upon the contemplated measure.


It is assumed that the most able men favoring the “new opinions,” or to use the contemporary term of art in the 16th century, the “Evangelicals,” were selected to advocate their cause on this occasion.


John Jewell's name was in the list of the nine reformed divines along with those of Scory, Coxe, Whitehead, Sandys, Grindal, Home, Aylmer, and Guest.  This is no slight testimony to the estimation in which he was held.


We tie in an aside from John Jewel to Jack Iker of the ACNA.


On side note: a few weeks back, Mr. (they call him bishop) Jack Iker opined that Tractophiles/Tractaholics/TFOs were ensconced in the patristic and early period while others were/are rooted in the Reformation. To wit, those ensconced in the English Reformation don't appreciate the patristic period.  Here’s Jack’s false dilemma, errant either/or, reduction, and over-simplification:


“We rather like the 1549 Prayer Book,” Iker said, “as the standard. We would contend that Anglicanism flourished in England for many years prior to the Reformation era and that we are a reformed catholic church rather than a Protestant denomination born in the 16th century. Henry VIII did not found the Anglican Church and neither did the reformers. Dr. Edward Pusey, the early Tractarian and the spiritual father of the Oxford Movement, said we understand reference to the ancient Church, instead of the Reformers, as the ultimate expounder of the meaning of our Church.”


The hubristic and arrogant upshot is that “we,” the TFOs, have the “leg up” due to “our” more ancient roots. They've chattered themselves up again and again on this point. It’s gas. Remember clearly the open and repeated hostilities of the TFOs to the English Reformation. The TFOs will use about anything to advance themselves in Anglicanism.  Jim Packer called them "Roman Trojan Horses." In 1842, the entire episcopal bench opposed the TFOS. By 1900, opposition softened, but was not gone. The TFOs tried but failed (due to more skilled defenders) in 1928 to get a TFO BCP in England; the TFOs tried and partially succeeded in a less able nation, the US.


For Jack's statement, see:
Iker, Jack. “Sermon by The Right Reverend Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth.” Reformed Churchmen. Feb 27, 2014. http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2014/02/stand-firm-mr-bp-iker-on-tfo-rec-divide.html . Accessed Mar 13, 2014.


Now, for the tie-in from Iker to Jewel. Emphatically, the English Reformers understood themselves to have worked in the patristic era. Jewel is one such example, but there are others also. If anything, the English Reformers were ensconced in patristics; they knew they were the continuing Church of England; they realized the Church of England pre-dated Henry VIII.  Iker's chatter works with the unlettered, but not others. 


For “a” larger backstory on Mr. (Bp.) John Jewel, a patristics scholar, see: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2013/08/mr-rtrev-john-jewel-bishop-of-salisbury.html 
 
We have “other” backstories also on Jewel and other. Sit down Iker. Better, go join a Continuuers group of TFOs.


Back on point, on this day, 13 May 1559, a disputation was held at Westminster in behalf of “English services.” The participants on the Reformed side were: Misters Scory, Coxe (a rather rough sort), Whitehead, Sandys, Grindal (future Canterbury), Home, Aylmer, and Guest (a quasi-Lutheran).

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Guardian: Anglican Bishops Can't Do Damned Thing about Clergys' Same-Sex Marriage

The Guardian

by Giles Faser

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/mar/11/gay-clergy-marriage-anglican-communion

Gay clergy marriages: the final chapter of the Anglican Communion fiction

Despite the inevitable toy throwing – from bishops and overseas churches – there is little anyone can do about them            
 
Cards for same-sex marriage couples
Gay marriage becomes a legal reality in the UK on 29 March. Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA

Well, you could knock me down with a feather duster. The Pope is looking into the subject of gay marriage. According to Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Holy Father said to him that "rather than quickly condemn them, let's just ask the questions as to why that has appealed to certain people". OK, it's hardly a new Vatican policy. But language matters. And in the week of the first anniversary of Francis's appointment as pope, it is worth recognising how far the language has come.


But things are going to change even faster for the Church of England over the next few weeks. With gay marriage becoming a legal reality on 29 March, it is certain that a number of clergy will be looking to get hitched, in direct defiance of the wishes of their bishops who have vaguely warned of disciplinary action if they do. But the truth is that the bishops can actually do very little about it. The following is slightly nerdish stuff, but for the likes of north London vicar Reverend Andrew Cain, now preparing for his nuptials, it is crucial. Writing on my Facebook page last night, the Bishop of Buckingham explained the clergy discipline measure:
"Its Section 7 lays down that matters of doctrine and worship are not justiciable under the measure, but must be tried under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963. Insomniacs may remember that around 10 years ago there was a proposal to have a Clergy Discipline Measure type measure for doctrine and worship cases but it failed. The legal trail leads from here to section 39 of the EJM63. The maximum penalty it lays down for a first offence is a rude letter telling you not to do it again – which hopefully people getting married won't."
Of course, the bishops could pretend that clergy getting married is not a matter of doctrine, but this would be a bit of a problem given that they have been going round telling everyone that it is.


Other ecclesiastical nerds could point to the 32nd of the 39 articles – historically, the defining doctrines of the Church of England and beloved by conservatives: "Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by God's laws either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness." Of course, they didn't have gay marriage in mind when they wrote this. But meaning is not determined by authorial intent.


All this means that the bishops won't be able to do a damn thing about their clergy having same-sex marriages. As the bishop of Buckingham explained: "If a member of the clergy wants to marry, I may like or not like the match, but I have no legal power to stop them marrying." And when this happens, the toys will be thrown from many a Nigerian church pram. The fiction that is the Anglican Communion will be over and we can go back to being the Church of England, rather than the local arm of the empire at prayer. And thank God for that.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

VOL's "Short" (Slight? Thin?) Analysis of Move by Dio. of SC Re: Global Oversight

With all David Virtue's connections, one rather expects analysis not a press release.  As such, it's slight, slender, thin and rather small.


http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18678#.Uxu9NsKYZjo


Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina Seeks Provisional Primatial Oversight
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
March 8, 2014

The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is looking for an ecclesiastical home.

Since leaving the Episcopal Church it has not come under any Episcopal or Anglican authority and has resisted coming under the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

An upcoming resolution to be presented at their Annual Diocesan Convention March 14-15 could change all that. In response to an offer by the newly created Global South Primatial Oversight Council for pastoral oversight, the diocese seeks to have a formal ecclesiastical connection to the larger Communion and a consequent pastoral relationship.

This new entity was created in Cairo, Egypt, by the Global South Primates Steering Committee on February 14-15, 2014.

Most importantly, however, this resolution is the response to something others in the communion have created, and it provides a means for us to better make biblical Anglicans for a global age in this in between-time. We choose to see it as a providential provision which gives us further sacramental closeness with the global Anglican family which we so richly treasure.

The Diocese of South Carolina recognizes this as a "period of fluidity in the Anglican Communion" and reserves the right to revisit this decision, as a convention, should it be necessary during this temporary discernment period, however long it may last.

Several aspects of this resolution need to be made clear. First, this resolution in no way takes away from the need for, and the careful discernment of, an ultimate diocesan affiliation for the diocese. Therefore it is to be seen as a matter of both/and rather than either/or.

The resolution does not speak in any way about GAFCON or ACNA, the ministries of which the diocese appreciates, and the relationships within which they continue to seek nurture, cooperation and strength in the days ahead.

Speaking to the resolution personally, Bishop Mark Lawrence had this to say, "Therefore, as we continue in this ongoing process of discernment, this Provisional Primatial Oversight, if by God's grace established, will give us what some might term an extra-provincial diocesan status with an ecclesial body of the larger Anglican family. It should also be noted in this regard; this Provisional Primatial Oversight, while bringing a mutual responsibility in the Gospel, commits us to neither a hasty affiliation nor alleviates our need to continue the work of ongoing discernment for a more permanent provincial relationship.

END

Friday, March 7, 2014

Time for Anglicans to Return to the Bible & Thirty-nine Articles

It is time for Anglican clergy to return to the Bible and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.


One of my readers, undergroundpewster, rightly applauds two retired bishops of South Carolina who recall what Christ came to accomplish.


The first is retired Bishop Duvall who said:


As I stand there with my head hung low facing the judgement seat of God, ready for my sentence, I feel an arm around my shoulders, the arm of Jesus, who says ‘This one’s with me’.


The second is the Right Revd C FitzSimons Allison who wrote against postmodern false teachers in 2011:


Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan are two remarkably popular theologians who teach a version of Christianity that reduces the Christian faith to contemporary secular assumptions. For Crossan, Jesus was an illiterate Jewish cynic. No Incarnation no Resurrection. The Easter story is “fictional mythology” (p. 161, Jesus a Revolutionary Biography). Borg claims that Jesus was only divine in the sense that Martin Luther King and Gandhi were divine.  Borg dismisses the creeds (p.10, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time) Jesus was a “spirit person,” “a mediator of the sacred,” “a shaman,” one of those persons like Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, et al. (p. 32)

For the rest, see:

Diocese of SC: Mr. (Bp) Mark Lawrence's Message Re: Resolution R-3

http://www.diosc.com/sys/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=557:bishop-lawrences-message-regarding-resolution-r-3&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=75


Bishop Lawrence's Message Regarding Resolution R-3
             
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Today, March 7, 2014, Canon Jim Lewis emailed to all our diocesan clergy and the lay delegates to our upcoming March 14-15, 2014, Diocesan Convention a resolution that God-willing, and with the Convention’s consent, will come to the floor. This resolution, R-3: "Response to Offer of Provisional Primatial Oversight,” originated in the Anglican Communion Development Committee (ACD) but has also been supported by a majority of the clergy of the West Charleston deanery with whom I met at their recent clericus on Shrove Tuesday. The ACD Committee is an arm of Diocesan Council. It was established in 2009 in order to strategically establish mutually-enriching missional relationships with provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion. It has played a key role in pursuing our diocesan vision of “Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age.” As your bishop I fully support this resolution and for all of the reasons mentioned in the Rationale attached to it.  But particularly for the reasons presented in the final rationale: “Most importantly, however, this resolution is the response to something others in the communion have created, and it provides a means for us to better make biblical Anglicans for a global age in this in between-time. We choose to see it as a providential provision which gives us further sacramental closeness with the global Anglican family which we so richly treasure.”

I want you to know, also, that I have been in conversation with Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) regarding this resolution.  It is my hope that should the Diocese of South Carolina affirm this offer from the Global South Primates’ Steering Committee for Provisional Primatial Oversight that it will not be interpreted, either by those within the Diocese or across the wider Anglican Communion, as a step away from ACNA or any other more permanent provincial affiliation. What it does offer us, and those who may be in similar circumstances, is an ecclesial way of recognizing the relationships we have in the Holy Spirit, through the bonds of affection, and in the mission and gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, as we continue in this ongoing process of discernment, this Provisional Primatial Oversight, if by God’s grace established, will give us what some might term an extra-provincial diocesan status with an ecclesial body of the larger Anglican family. It should also be noted in this regard; this Provisional Primatial Oversight, while bringing a mutual responsibility in the Gospel, commits us to neither a hasty affiliation nor alleviates our need to continue the work of ongoing discernment for a more permanent provincial relationship.

Yours in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence

The Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence

The Right Reverend Mark Joseph Lawrence
XIV Bishop of South Carolina

Diocese of South Carolina Requests Oversight from Overseas: Global South Primates

Press Release.


http://www.anglicanink.com/article/south-carolina-request-oversight-global-south-primates




07 Mar 2014  


Author: 
Diocese of South Carolina


Resolution R-3 
"Response to Offer of Provisional Primatial Oversight" Offered by: The Anglican Communion Development Committee

Recognizing the generosity of spirit and the faithful concern for the Anglican
Communion represented by the Global South Primates Steering Committee in offering a means for bodies such as the Diocese of South Carolina to have a formal ecclesiastical connection to the larger Communion and the consequent pastoral relationship,

Be it resolved that the Diocese of South Carolina accept the offer of the newly created Global South Primatial Oversight Council for pastoral oversight of our ministry as a diocese during the temporary period of our discernment of our final provincial affiliation and,

Be it further resolved that in this period of fluidity in the Anglican Communion we
reserve the right to revisit this decision, as a convention, should it be necessary during this temporary discernment period, however long it may last.

Rationale:

Resolution R-2 of this Convention speaks to the beginning of a formal process of
deciding upon the final provincial affiliation of the diocese. When Resolution R-2 was written and distributed, the Global South Primatial Oversight Council had not yet been created. This new entity was created in Cairo, Egypt, by the Global South Primates Steering Committee on February 14-15, 2014.

Because this new entity was created within a month before our Convention, and because it speaks directly to our need by mentioning the possibility of diocesan affiliation, we believe the timing Providential to add this resolution as a third resolution from the floor for the current Convention.

Several aspects of this resolution need to be made clear. First, this resolution in no way takes away from the need for, and the careful discernment of, an ultimate diocesan affiliation for the diocese. Therefore it is to be seen as a matter of both/and rather than either/or.  Bishop Mark Lawrence has made clear that the diocesan affiliation decision should be made neither hurriedly nor by him individually but by us corporately as a diocese.

Secondly, there is a specific time frame for the decision, but not a named date because it is unknown how long a process the discernment of affiliation will be. So while the time frame is temporary it is also open. We do not want to box the Holy Spirit in. 
Thirdly, the second resolved is necessary because the situation on the ground in the
communion continues to change, and, given that this latest change has just happened
before our own convention, other as yet unknown changes may emerge BEFORE our ultimate diocesan affiliation decision has been reached.

Fourthly, this affiliation does not speak in any way about either GAFCON or ACNA, the ministries of which we appreciate, and the relationships within which we continue to seek nurture, cooperation and strength in the days ahead.

Most importantly, however, this resolution is the response to something others in the
communion have created, and it provides a means for us to better make biblical
Anglicans for a global age in this in between-time. We choose to see it as a providential provision which gives us further sacramental closeness with the global Anglican family which we so richly treasure.

Members of the Anglican Communion Development Committee 

The Rev. Bob Lawrence (Chairman), St. Christopher, Seabrook Island
The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon (ACD Coordinator), Christ-St. Paul's, Yonges Island
The Rev. Chris Warner, Holy Cross, Sullivan's Island
Ms. Cindy Pennington, St. John's, John's Island
Mr. Don Hurst, Church of the Cross, Bluffton
The Rev. Janet Echols, St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte
The Rev. Kathie Phillips, St. Luke's, Hilton Head
Dr. Chuck Milliken, Redeemer, Orangeburg
Ms. Lisa Holland, St. Michael's, Charleston
The Rev. Marcus Kaiser, Holy Comforter, Sumter
The Rev. Michael Clarkson, Our Savior, John's Island
Mr. Sam Dargan, St. John's, Florence
Ms. Sue Harrison, St. Paul's, Conway
Other Clergy Sponsors 

The Very Rev. Craige Borrett, Christ - St. Paul's, Yonges Island
The Rev. Wey Camp, Trinity, Edisto
The Rev. Tyler Prescott, St. Paul's, Summerville
The Rev. Matt McCormick, Resurrection, N. Charleston
The Rev. David Dubay, Holy Trinity, Charleston
The Rev. Jimmy Gallant, St. Andrew's Mission, Charleston
The Rev. Greg Snyder, St. John's, John's Island
The Rev. Shay Gaillard, Good Shepherd, Charleston
The Rev. Rob Kunes, Christ - St. Paul's, Yonges Island
The Rev. Canon Jim Lewis, Diocesan Staff, Charleston
The Rev. Mike Lumpkin, St. Paul's, Summerville
The Rev. John Scott, St. Paul's, Summerville 

Friday, February 28, 2014

29 Feb 1528: Patrick Hamilton, Scotland's 1st Protestant Martyr

29 February 1528. Scotland’s 1st Protestant Martyr at the Hands of Scots-Roman policies. Lest we forget. And because God has not forgotten (it's as a yesterday to His Majesty and Rev. 6.9ff).

Mr. (Dr.) Rusten reports the following story, pp. 121-122. Rusten, E. Michael and Rusten, Sharon. The One Year Christian History. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2003.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Christian-History-Books/dp/0842355073/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393302630&sr=8-1&keywords=rusten+church+history. We have added other details to the story.

Patrick Hamilton was burned at the stake on 29 Feb 1528.

Mr. Hamilton was born of a noble family in Scotland and was a distant relative of a Stuart king, James V. He graduated from the University of Paris in 1520. He began digesting the Lutheran documents. He returned to Scotland in 1523. He was unhappy with the Scots-Italian church. He went to Leonard’s College, St. Andrews University, to study theology.

But, Scotland’s Parliament banned Luther’s book in 1525 (like the Anglo-Italian bishops in Canterbury and London). In 1526, Hamilton declared in favor of Luther. By 1527, he received 3 summons by Mr. (Abp.) Beaton to appear on heresy charges.
(Meanwhile, Mr. Thomas Cranmer is attempting to figure things out at Cambridge while others, like Hamilton up north, were declaring in favor of Luther. Bp. John Fisher was doing the heavy-lifting for Henry VIII in their antagonisms to Luther.)

Hamilton runs abroad and lands in Wittenberg. He met Luther, Melancthon, and the English hero, William Tyndale, himself a fugitive from the Anglo-Italians in England. Hamilton wrote his "Common Places," affirming justification by faith alone. Hamilton returned to Scotland and began preaching.

In Jan 1528, Mr. (Abp) Beaton and other Scots-Italian bishops meet at St. Andrews University, summoning Hamilton again and preferring 13 charges of heresy against him.

He was tried and was burned the same day on 29 February 1528. It would only spark further discussion of Reformation theology in Scotland.

A few questions:

• If a Roman Catholic, what say you of this and the decrees of the Council of Trent that anathematized then—and as reaffirmed recently—against the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Have you developed a 10-page bibliography on justification by faith alone consisting of the best works on it? Or, has your priest done this?

• Why has Mr. (Bp) Robert Duncan, ACNA, never appeared to articulate, assert and defend this doctrine? In Article XI of the Thirty-nine Articles? Would a discussion here relate to other Reformed doctrines?

• What do Misters (Bps) Jack Iker, Keith Ackerman and others say of Articles IX-XI? What really are “their” views here?

• Do these matters get discussed in modern centers of advertisement? TBN? Daystar Television? Word Television? Rick Warren? Or others? If so, does Paul’s Epistle to the Romans feature in their ministries?

• Have worldwide Lutherans betrayed the Reformation understanding of justification by faith alone? See:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/09/cyberbrethren-betraying-reformation-sad.html

• Has Mr. (Bp.) N.T. Wright erred here?

• What is one to say of the Federal Visionists and Mr. Norm Shepherd at Westminster Theological Seminary?

• If you are a secularist, what do you say of justification by faith alone? What homework have you done on this?

• Does modern TV, internet and other forms of media serve to obscure this doctrine?

• What’s the health and status of this doctrine? One might think denomination by denomination here. Aside from the catechetical memory work as lads, do you hear this clearly enunciated?

Romans 11:6

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

6 [a]And if it be of grace, it is [b]no more of works: or else were grace no more grace: but if it be of works, it is no more grace: or else were work no more work.

Footnotes:

a. Romans 11:6 Although that all be not elect and chosen, yet let them that are elected, remember that they are freely chosen, and let them that stubbornly refuse the grace and free mercy of God, impute it unto themselves.
b. Romans 11:6 This saying beateth down flat to the ground all the doctrine of all kinds and manner of works, whereby our justifiers of themselves do teach, that works are either wholly or partly the cause of our justification.

Dr. Rusten cites the following sources:

Douglas, J. D. “Hamilton, Patrick.” NIDCC. 449.
Hillyer, N. “Hamilton, Patrick.” WWCH. 301.
Torrence, I. R. “Hamilton, Patrick.” DSCHT. 390-1.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Mr. (Abp) Wabukala: ACNA, 39 Articles, Tractoes, & Armoes

12.04.2013

Archbishop Wabukala Defends the 39 Articles

Archbishop Wabukala
Archbishop Eliud Wabukala recently delivered an address where he outlined the role of the Anglican Articles of Religion in relation to the GAFCON movement. Wabukala delivered this address on American soil, which is significant given the overrepresentation of Anglo Catholicism in the leadership ranks of ACNA. 
Archbishop Wabukala described the origin of the Articles as follows: 
Thirty-nine Articles which were themselves intended by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer as the articulation of that which had been buried beneath layers of mediaeval scholasticism. 
This take on the Articles is refreshing to hear given how accustomed we are in America to seeing the Articles swept under the proverbial rug, even amongst the 'conservatives' of ACNA. Wabukala himself points out that the Articles have been given short-shrift globally: 
Until recently, the default position throughout the Communion seems to have been to treat the Articles as of merely historical interest. In the Church of England itself, although the Articles still have legal status in defining doctrine, the clergy are not required to subscribe to them and in my own Anglican Church of Kenya our constitution merely gives individual dioceses the option of require subscription to the Articles. 
Thanks to GAFCON, there is now renewed awareness of the Articles. It may seem strange to you that I as an African Primate am advocating a document that emerged out of the ecclesiastical and political crisis of sixteenth century England, but simply to dismiss the Articles because of their distance from us in time and space would be a superficial judgment. They are not of course on the same level as Scripture — indeed perhaps their greatest value is the assertion that the Church and its Councils are always themselves under the authority of Scripture — but like the Scriptural text, we must approach the Articles on their own merits and seek to understand the mind of the author, not impose our prior assumptions and prejudices. 
Wabukala's position stands in sharp contrast to that of voices such as that of Father Kevin Donlon who said, "the Articles of Religion are to be given their due place with regard to some conflicts of the 16th century, but not the 21st century." This is essentially the Anglo-Catholic position for obvious reasons.  
Archbishop goes on to stand by a firmly Augustinian position on regeneration as laid out by the Articles: 
In his loving mercy and grace, God calls the dead to life through Jesus Christ. The Gospel is not a call for moral reform and improvement. We are utterly unable to help ourselves and the power of God is displayed in the gift of new life as he reconciles lost humanity to himself in Christ. The influence of Augustine is very clear in the recognition given to the bondage of the human will. 
Can you imagine the majority of ACNA bishops or clergy talking like this? Arminian views of grace run rampant in the segments of ACNA that I am familiar with.
 
For the rest, see:

Friday, October 4, 2013

Mr.(Rev. Dr. Prof.) Gerald Bray: "A Future for Anglicans?"/Wacky American Conservatives!

Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Bray in an article at the Church Society entitled "A Future for Anglicans?" 

Mr. Bray notes: "This time round we must hope that the organisers will have learned that some of their conservative American backers are just as wacky as the liberals in the Episcopal Church and not allow them to set the agenda. The last thing the Anglican Communion needs is a forum in which the internal battles of American Episcopalianism are played out on a world stage in front of an audience that has no idea what is going on and is not
really sympathetic to either side." 


Current conservative American backers [of GAFCON 11] are as wacky as TEC liberals? 

Oy vey. Ya' can't make this stuff up.

For the rest, see:

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_127_3_Editorial.pdf


We add two videos. 

First, Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) James Packer's laments Anglicanism's doctrinal incohesion and incompetence to that of Drunken Sailors.  He specifically cites this particular Irish jig as per the below.  The Thirty-nine Articles, Vancouver, BC: Regent College, 2007.

Second, we offer a recent "offering" that made the tours on the web.  We're finding some real messes in the Anglicanobaptacostalistictractaholic "thing" called the ACNA.  Mr. Bray says, "...Current conservative American backers [of GAFCON 11] are as wacky as TEC liberals? 
 


Thursday, October 3, 2013

ACNA Bishop's Consecration: LMCS Pastor Comments on the Anglicanobaptacostalistic Dancing


A few helpful comments at the URL.  ACNA comprises Anglicanobaptacostalistictractaholics with confusion, disorder, internal contentions, and a "need for numbers."  Numbers = truth = validation.  Central doctrine = deny gay marriage.  Many other core issues, like the English Reformation and the "Thirty-nine Articles," are negotiable and "adiaphora." I want to see Misters Riches and Sutton, Reformed Episcopal Church, break into "break dances."

But back to the regularly scheduled programming:

A brief and suitable word from a Confessional Churchman, an LMCS Pastor, Mr. (Rev.) Peters.

http://pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2013/10/anglicans-dancing-badly.html

The Consecration of Stewart Rich III -- First Bishop of the Diocese of the Upper Midwest - ACNA (Anglican Church in North America).  Sent to me by a discerning reader of this blog... undoubtedly to be found many places by now... hopefully in the LCMS is NOT one of them....

 

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Mr. Andy Underhile: "Confessions of a Former Pentecostal"


http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2010/03/confessions-of-former-pentecostal.html
by Mr. Andy Underhile:
 
Confessions of a Former Pentecostal
When I was a child, my family attended a church that practiced the so-called Pentecostal gifts. We did not use the term “church;” we were a “fellowship.” There was no pastor; there were elders. All of the elders held a belief in what they called “plurality” in leadership, by which they inferred that pastors were not a NT office. One of them even had a teaching that the Nicolaitans in Revelation were people who held to the idea of singular leadership in the church.

It was not unusual for the Sunday worship to be interrupted by a “word” in tongues or a “prophecy.” People who asked for prayer were often “slain.” The service format was extremely informal. The song leader had no planned music; everyone was free to just call out a song title, which would be sung.

I remember many strange things about that church, despite the fact that I was so young. In hindsight, it was obviously God’s superintendence over my life in a way that would bring me to the Doctrines of Grace.

I recall that there was a stack of papers in the lobby every Sunday. Once when I looked at what was on them, I discovered that they were printouts of “prophecies” that were given the previous week. Even then it struck me as wrong. I remember asking my Dad, “Can they do that?” He remembers it too.

For the rest, see:
 

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Mr. Andy Underhile (Field Report): "Lies" Pentecostals/Charismatics Tell about Tongues


http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2010/09/missionary-tongues-story.html

The Missionary "Tongues" Story

Ever since I was a child, I have often encountered a particular story. It is something of an urban legend in certain church circles.
It goes like this: There was a missionary who met up with a person, usually a tribeman of some sort in a remote jungle area, with whom he wished to share the Gospel. Unfortunately, though, they could not understand each other's languages. Somehow the missionary felt compelled to open his mouth and just speak. To his surprise, he found himself speaking the other person's language fluently, though not aware of what he was saying. The tribesman was miraculously converted.

 I have heard a dozen or more incarnations of this story, but those are the central story factors that are always present. As I said earlier, in some church circles, especially Pentecostal ones, this is something of an urban legend. It is always recounted third or fourth hand. I have never spoken with someone who actually claims to have personally had this experience.

The unspoken assumption, and often very clearly spoken assumption, of this story is that egghead cessationists are wrong and the supernatural sign gift of tongues still functions in the church today. Usually, this idea is further 'established' by claiming that while much of the tongues speaking that goes on in many Pentecostal churches is fraudulent, this kind must be real because it occurs in situations that seem to replicate the condition of the 1st Century Church.

This is a problematic assumption. I am not satisfied that this situation replicates the situation of the Apostolic age. I don't think it even comes within a hundred miles of the situation that existed on the Day of Pentecost.

1. On Pentecost, there was, as yet, no New Testament.

2. Tongues did not miraculously preach the Gospel to people in need of an interpreter.
 
3. The 3,000 converts were converted by Peter's plain preaching of the Gospel in Aramaic, a language they all understood anyway. Peter did not preach in tongues. The witnesses, though fluent in other languages, were all Jews who understood Peter's Aramaic sermon. The elect were converted, the non-elect mocked them, in direct fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11-12.
 
4. Pentecost was the event wherein the New Testament Church emerged from the cocoon of the Old Testament Church. This can never be repeated.
 
5. Virtually the entire visible church was present - something that has not been repeated since.
 
6. Tongues, on the Day of Pentecost, was not a conversation between a believer and an unbeliever. It was not an evangelism tool.
 
For more, see:
 

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Job 1.1 and Invocation of Saints in Prayers



Job 1.1

1:1 ανθρωπος τις ην εν χωρα τη αυσιτιδι ω ονομα ιωβ και ην ο ανθρωπος εκεινος αληθινος αμεμπτος δικαιος θεοσεβης απεχομενος απο παντος πονηρου πραγματος

א אִישׁ הָיָה בְאֶרֶץ עוּץ, אִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹ; וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא, תָּם וְיָשָׁר וִירֵא אֱלֹהִים--וְסָר מֵרָע....


1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.

Invoke Mary as an intercessor? As a mediatrix? Or, call on other saints during prayers? And say nothing to others about it? Or fail to confess the sole mediation of Christ alone? Or, fail to confess justification by faith alone? Deny Paul in Romans on total depravity? Deny definite atonement?

At what point did Mr. Job ever invoke a departed saint?

As Misters Duncan (ACNA) Iker (ACNA), Ackerman (ACNA), Sutton (REC), Riches (REC), Morse (REC), Grote (REC), Hewitt (Diocese of the Holy Cross), Haverland (Anglican Catholic Church), Virtue (Virtueonline), Grunsdorf (APA), Mashburn (Franciscan ACNA), and all SSC-men from Nashotah House tolerate and advocate?

I like the Septuagint's brief and dynamic expansion on the Hebrew. It is a brief enlargement that gets at the sense of the Hebrew verb, "shun, hate, abhor:" απεχομενος απο παντος πονηρου πραγματος, a slight amplification on וְסָר מֵרָע

That is, Job “kept himself from all-things-evil” or “he kept himself from every evil matter.” Job "withdrew" from all-things-evil. The English is succinct like the Hebrew. The sense is evident in all three versions.

The English is Job “shunned evil.”

There ARE THINGS TO SHUN. Soothsaying, necromancy, and speaking to the departed above is one such thing “to shun.” Without repentance (and don't hold your breath), that "shunning" necessarily involves not just ideas, but people.

 
This does not mean we do not talk with them; it does not mean we refuse to read their literature; it does not mean intellectual retreat; it does not mean refusal of Samaritan charity, love and kindness; it does not entail harshness or contempt. Love is not compromised;  Jesus has given us His sovereign orders.
 
However, it does mean that leaders get no place at the theological table; it means their "credentials" get pulled without repentance and without works befitting repentance; without repentance, it means they do not minister in the pulpit, at the baptismal font or at the Table of our Lord.  It means discipline of doctrine. 

It means courage, honor, integrity, and confidence; without discipline we see cowardice, dishonor, failure of integrity, and wimpery.

The ACNA pays a very high price for allowing these things;  they can fool the simple, but not those who read.

Job "shunned" evil or "kept himself back from all sorts of evil."  May it be so, especially for those who sport titles or  hold positions of leadership. 

Thank you.  We shall see Mr. Job one day.  He's given excellent "guidance and leadership by example."  LBE = "leadership by example," an old Marine concept.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Roman, Greek, Tractarian & Arminian Edits of Rom.3.21-31


Here's what the Messieurs, men of adiaphora, in the ACNA, refuse to address. They self-identify as Anglican, but have--to be polite--a "low" theology.
 
In fact, their silence on these matters is complicity with Rome, Constantinople and Arminian soteriological centres.
 
Ergo, we bring you the following: "Roman, Greek, Semi-Pelagian and Arminian Edits to St. Paul."

These sober and deliberative editors thought St. Paul needed their editorial and theological insights.  This is reflected in the Council of Trent, subsequent theologians, and documents.
 
We bring these much-needed corrections to the canonical text to you, that is, Romans 3.21-31... corrected, amended and taught world-wide. This will aid St. Paul "above" (if he had enough good works) and those of us "below."

(God’s Righteousness Through Faith and Works)


 21 But now the righteousness of God including the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ as well as all your meritorious good works, pieties and deeds, to all and on all who believe in Jesus and work hard as well. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified at a contributory cost (among other contributory causes) by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus including the treasury of the saints (whom you should invoke for help, especially Mary), 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith but also your good works as meritorious instruments, to demonstrate His and your righteousness (it’s cooperative), because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His and your righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus and who has meritorious works too. Never forget this; those Lutheran, Reformed and old school Anglican Protestants are screwballs.

 (Boasting Included)

27 Where is boasting then? It’s right here. It is included. By what law? Of works? Why of course! Yes, boasting is by the law of faith and the law of good works, including “tweets-for-reductions in purgo-time.” So, go ahead, boast and exalt yourself and other saints too.  "You deserve some of the credit, after all." Ask Joel Osteen, he's got it about right. 28 Therefore we conclude, again, we conclude definitively that a man is justified by faith and the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? No, but He is also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. One is justified by "faith in Christ and his or her works." So, get’a’ crackin.’

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Rev. Augustus Toplady: "Justification by Faith Alone"


Someone asked about “Reformed Anglicans” on a couple of views.  As a “Post-Anglican,” whatever that means, that does not entail “throwing the baby out with the wash.”  It does mean draining the dirty tub from time to time.  So glad to be retired, not need an income from anyone, and with no need to report or answer to anybody.  Also, our lovely TEC Rector doesn’t mind much about theology;  we live in quietness.  

So, indulge my confusions and tensions graciously.  I confess to having confusions.  I have an old BCP and hold to the Westminster Standards. But, back to the questioner from yesterday, a “Reformed Anglican.” Here's an example from better years.   

I came across—today—another wonderful hymn by the Rev. or Mr. Augustus Montague Toplady (1740-1778), a Church of England man, a stern antagonist to the “Arminian and High Anglican,” the Rev. or Mr. John Wesley.  While at Oxford, John was known as a “high  Anglican” (what we call doctrinally and abysmally “low”).  Some have ascribed that to old John. So high, in fact, that he was “methodical.” Things might have been different, if the Church of England had been more sober, more reflective, and more scholarly, but no, they ditched the Westminster Standards in their extremism and enthusiasm in 1662. But I digress.

Of all things, the “Anglican hymn” by Toplady is found in the “Presbyterian hymnal.”  Never mind the 1982 TEC hymnal: it’s gone. Poof!  Too much!  And never mind asking Bob of Pittsburgh about it!  Or, Jack Iker either.  

A minor annoyance with the Presbyterians is that they “filed” the hymn under “adoption,” a category not to be seen in the Anglican hymnal or heard amongst them.  The hymn should have been filed under “justification by faith alone.”  It’s a classic, in my estimation.

Here is old Augustus’s hymn; it’s sung to the tune of St. Matthew, C.M.D.; of course, it is a “liturgical hymn;” that is, the Presbyterians are often mis-caricatured as having “no liturgy.”  Or, impugning these statesman as producing only a “spectator religion” with an “auditorium” only.  Such people fail to see the “Amen” at the end of the hymn  and fail to see that the 1982 TEC lacks—entirely—“Amens” at the end of the hymns; in other words, these hymns are liturgical for those inclined to lack of insight. 

I’m not sure old Toplady can be improved. 
 
Here’s old Toplady. 

1.  Fountain of never-ceasing grace,

Thy saints’ exhausting theme,

Great Object of immortal praises,

Essentially supreme,

We bless Thee for the glorious fruits,

Thine incarnation gives,

The righteousness which grace imputes,

And by faith alone receives.
 

2.  In thee we have a righteousness,

By God Himself approved,

Our Rock, our Sure Foundation this,

Which never can be moved.

Our ransom by Thy people giv’n,

The law Thou perfectly obeyed,

That they might enter heav’n.
 

3.  As all, when Adam sinned alone,

In his transgression died,

So by the righteousness of One,

Are sinners justified,

We to Thy merit, gracious Lord,

With humblest joy submit,

Again to Paradise restored,

In Thee alone complete. Amen.


We would also recommend reading Rev. or Mr. Toplady’s “Historic Proof of Doctrinal Calvinism in the Church of England.”  However, institutionally, the Church of England must be abandoned—keeping the baby, a Reformed Prayer Book with a Reformed Confession, but ditching the dirt and draining the dirty water.  They’ll never recover barring divine intervention.  Here’s the URL if desired. Cheers!


FWIW.