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.
No comments:
Post a Comment