Alistair Begg: The Evangelical Crisis (audio)

Alistair+ drives home a very convicting message and his “non-pithy” observations cut to the core of many of my criticism of the Church in America. I fear we enjoy so much of God’s Earthly blessings that we have forgotten the main thing.

I do hope all priests, including my own, would give these observations consideration.

So - what’s your thing?

A great talk!  I subscribed to his podcast.

Begg’s observations are correct. Unfortunately, his remedy never moves beyond Bible exposition. Bible exposition is foundational, but does not by itself constitute an integrated spiritual life or provide an adequate solution to the kind of problems accurately and skillfully addressed by Begg. This, I would argue, is evidence of another crisis of evangelicalism, a crisis for which these sermons serve as examples.

Evangelical writer Simon Chan, in his book Spiritual Theology, speaks of a lack of coherence in evangelical spiritual theology, which he describes this way.

“One example of a lack of coherence is modern evangelicalism’s inability to develop a consistent doctrine of the Christian life. Evangelical spirituality presupposes a doctrine of the means of grace when it enjoins prayer and other spiritual disciplines, yet it has not consciously developed a sacramental theology to undergird the practices [I believe this is demonstrated in this sermon where Begg’s solutions never seem to move beyond exposition of the text, i.e. “think about this passage, etc.”] The reason for this neglect may be fear that the means of grace will become ends in themselves and might be turned into a form of works righteousness. Evangelicalism’s strict adherence to the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith has not been brought into a meaningful relationship with the means of grace. The latter remains undeveloped, even though it is implicitly acknowledged. Consequently, evangelicalism’s spirituality is often piecemeal and ad hoc, lacking in coherence instead of being systematic. People are told that they should pray but are seldom shown how to pray in a systematic fashion.” (bracketed comment & emphasis mine)

Dallas Willard addresses similar concerns in his books and articles.

I’m an Anglican largely because the Prayer Book and Sacraments compliment and complete the essential work of Bible exposition (cf. the Risen Christ on the road to Emmaus, Lk. 24:13-35)

Thank you, Matt, for the link to the sermon. And thank you for the forum for this blog provides.

Fr. Greg,

I can agree with that with one caveat. I would say that preaching in so far as it is true and in keeping with God’s word is a means by which God’s grace is conveyed. Alister Begg often says, “When the scripture is rightly preached, God’s Word is truly heard.” I agree with that and believe that; have seen the effects in my own life and the lives of others, and so I would add that Begg’s exhortation to right preaching is not wholly ineffectual.

Thank you, Fr Greg!

I’d agree with you, though I’m a little reserved in that not coming from a Evangelical background and I hear an Evangelical preacher do some-self policing, I try to not add on my criticism but cheer any re-alinement from waywardness Also, Alistair+ is not Anglican, so I kinda count of a poor view of the Sacraments (in taking the Eucharist once a month or quarterly, ironically the opposite has happen in congregations I’ve observed from the usual rational for doing so]).

I’m blessed to grow up where both the Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of Eucharist were considered very important and not one over another. One reason why I’ve been so mad at Anglicanism, I keep coming back, for I’ve tried others but a few songs and a sermon just never cut it and their Lord’s Supper was not the feast of the redeemed that I think it ought to be.

Evangelicalism’s strict adherence to the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith has not been brought into a meaningful relationship with the means of grace.

First of all, a correction: We are justified by faith alone.  That concluding word encompasses the whole of the Reformation.  The RCC did not deny Justification by Faith.  It denied (and denies) Justification by Faith Alone.

Second of all, grace is an attribute of God.  It is not a force or a substance to be distributed.  This description of the “Means of Grace” seems to contain the notion that the Sacraments are in some sense mystical rites that infuse the believer with a spiritual something we call ‘grace.’ But we don’t consume grace like a car consumes gasoline.  We realize it in all that God provides to us, even though we do not deserve His provision.  And foremost in God’s graceful provision is the salvation He affects by turning dead heats of stone into living hearts of flesh.  God accomplishes this regeneration neither by baptism nor by Communion, but by the hearing the word of God.  What greater means of Grace then does God provide beyond the proclamation of the Gospel?  Neither are we conformed to the image of Christ by baptism or by Communion, but by the word of God.  Again what greater means of grace does he provide? 

carl

That concluding word encompasses the whole of the Reformation.

With the possible exception of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification  which might hint that this universal declaration might not be true.

Alister Begg is the best teacher I have ever met.

the Joint Declaration has, I think, been misunderstood. It did not settle the Reformation debate…far far from it. The Catholics simply admitted what they have always believed, that we are justified by faith and the Lutherans agreed. And there has ALWAYS been agreement on that fact. The Reformers, however, correctly insisted that we are justified by faith ALONE and there is the rub. The Joint Declaration and a similar pair of statements by Catholics and some prominent evangelicals have made some nice semantically pleasing statements, but the core issue remains unresolved.

Sorry Carl, but the opinion you state is pretty myopic.  Scripture certianly undergirds and informs all we know about God and Christ and how we should live.  Reading or hearing Scripture is not alone and of itself sufficient.  Christ Himself decreed Baptism and the Eucharist.  By one we become adopted children of God and by the other Christ becomes a part of us in a holy mystery.  Hyper-protestant positions like yours are un-Anglican.

Evan,

Scripture not only undergirds what we know and how we live. It constitutes the only infallible source of revelation about such things and is therefore sufficient for salvation…meaning that it contains all things necessary.

Whether the scriptures teach that baptism is necessary for salvation is a debated point between evangelicals and Catholics WITHIN Anglicanism. I believe only faith is necessary to be justified and justification assures salvation.

That God uses the Eucharist and Baptism as means of grace is beyond dispute. That God can use Baptism as the means of regeneration and that he does use Communion as a means of sanctification is also beyond dispute. But neither is necessary for justification. Faith alone is necessary and as Paul says in Romans 10, faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word of God.

Christ Himself decreed Baptism and the Eucharist.

This is all I need to know that these are necessary.

Christ said: “Repent and be baptized.”  I think the modernistic idea that Baptism is a nice option, but not necessary, is very dangerous.  Such an idea that Baptism
isn’t necessary, does not square with the Cathechism and the Offices of Instruction in the traditional Book of Common Prayer.

We also remember that repent just doesn’t mean to say we’re sorry. Repent means to say we are sorry, then turn 180 degrees and try not to commit that sin again.

Matt+,

It may not settle the debate in some minds, but that was not the construct of my sentence, was it, it was on the classic (often foolish one, which I don’t tend to fall into on blogs but VERY often in my personal life) argument to say I belong to group “A,” all group “A” believes “x,” those are group “B” who deny “x.” Thus the classic “us/them” argument, one which often leads to the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. The JDDJ does point to other understandings, thus much simpler to address.

If there is a argument that Faith is inseparable from works (which there is and the direction JDDJ hints at), then the universal declaration is in error. You (I’d be surprised if you did) may not subscribe to the JDDJ, it’s from the Lutheran side of things, I hope, knowing what little of you I do from SFIF, that you might disagree with Lutherans and Catholics in this area, (else maybe I’m making a very similar reductionist of Calvinism).

Baptism and Communion are certainly “necessary” but not for justification.

[11] evan miller

Hyper-protestant positions like yours…

You say that like it’s a bad thing.   Actually, I am a most conventional ordinary Protestant.  I am not even a hyper-calvinist.

carl

Sola Fide asserts that the sort of faith that justifies is a faith that necessarily leads to grace infused works (the other kind of “faith” is no faith at all) but that the works that necessarily flow from faith are not themselves any part of the basis of justification. Rome believes otherwise, that grace infused works and faith together serve to justify.

[12] Matt Kennedy

That God can use Baptism as the means of regeneration ... is also beyond dispute.

This sounds suspiciously like ex opere operato?  Surely not.

carl

Not at all Carl. To say that God “can” use Baptism to effect regeneration is not to say he does always. He can use a leaf or a twig. But he is not bound to work through any means.

Baptism and Communion are certainly “necessary” but not for justification.

Hmmm ... Anglicans don’t tend to read like Swiss-Reformed types ... I hope you’re not peddling a “watered down” 39 Articles.

XVI. Of Sin after Baptism. Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

XXV. Of the Sacraments. Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

XXVII. Of Baptism. Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

Unless of course since Christ commanded it, thus any true faith would of course obey and the Spirit give new life, thus connected like when Jesus said stretch out the hand and the person acted on that believe did as Jesus commanded (leaving the unanswered “what if the person my believed Jesus but never tried to stretch out the hand”).

While I agree with the Reformed position that we cannot save ourselves with good works, I believe that some Protestants, use that as an excuse to do no good works at all.  Christ Himself at the end of the Parable of the Good Samaritan said: “Go and do likewise.”  If we are truly a Christian, good works should come naturally to us.
“Lex orandi. Lex credendi. Lex Agendi.”

The Rev. John Wesley, the great Anglican Priest said there
were 3 rules for Christians: (1) Do no harm. (2) Do good works for others. (3) Stay in love with God by:
A. frequent reception of Holy Communion
B. public worship attendance
C. private prayer
D. fasting according to the BCP rules
E. searching the scriptures
F. participation in Bible Study
If we all lived according to Wesley’s 3 Rules, the Anglican Communion, today, would be in much better shape,
I believe.

Hosea, not peddling anything. I am stating my position and it is an honored one in Anglicanism. Bishop JC Ryle wrote a book on the issue that I commend to you. Here is a link to an excerpt:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/9237/

As for article 28, there is nothing in it that conflicts with my position as I certainly believe that baptism is:

“is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.”

Baptism in this description functions like circumcision…grafting a person into the visible body of God’s people, the promises are “visibly” signed and sealed, faith is “confirmed” and grace is increased “by virtue of prayer”. Baptism does not necessarily regenerate or justify

Actually, I am a most conventional ordinary Protestant.

Oh no, is this like Rush Limbaugh’s observation of the definition of “middle class verse rich,” - “middle class is whatever you are and rich people are those who make $1 more than you.”

#23 Yet Article 25 says more than badges or tokens.

I might commend the 1662 BCP Catechism as a excellent place describe Anglican theology of both these Sacraments (there is an error of a missing phrase, since it article 25 actually gives place to the other five but delineates with Sacraments as established by Christ, I think it reads consistent to the 39 Articles).

Matt+ and others - interesting discussion on the necessity (or not)of Baptism. One verse that I might ask for feedback on is Acts 22:16: “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” In the Greek, the word kai (and) implies having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force (Strong’s). Faucet/Brown comments, “This way of speaking arises from baptism being the visible seal of remission,” occurring after the Saul’s confession. The verse would seem to imply the necessity of baptism for Saul/Paul. If that is the case, why would it not be a necessity for one desiring a life of conversion (new life in Christ Jesus)?

Yes Hosea. I do not believe Baptism is a mere token any more than circumcision. It is a true seal whereby someone is visibly initiated into the visible body of Christ. And certainly God’s grace works through baptism, sometimes to regenerate. But not always.

I’d actually more likely recommend Dr. Stephen’s Knoll+‘s piece COMMUNING WITH CHRIST: A Workshop on Anglican Ecclesiology (Given at GAFCON 2008) over anything of last century for several reasons, first off his agenda seems to be to try to make sense of this bi-modal and expansive Anglican orthodox theology, second is because he writing as an Evangelical but in the context of post-GC03 where all streams of orthodoxy realized they need each other (I often ponder if the take over is not judgment for everybody’s rebellion for lack of charity and our willingness for disunity).

I’d disagree with sentence, “Penance is not a sacrament for Anglicans, but the Prayer Book contains several exhortations to self-examination, preparation for Communion and confession of sin.” I think Article 25’s “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith,” means it’s something.

Those type of disagreement are the stuff for hours of great conversation over beer or good coffee, if I should ever be so lucky.

I’d more agree with his assessment to Anglican theology/ecclesiology than what’s on this thread so far.

<blockquote> And certainly God’s grace works through baptism, sometimes to regenerate. But not always<blockquote> I’m more Lutheran in that, so I’d read Article 16 as a loss of salvation, but I’s certainly understand your statement is in line with TULIP. Article 16 & 17 do seem to contradict each other, then Scripture appears to with Romans 8 & Hebrews 6, but here the Greek side may have one over on the Latin strain in chastising us in trying to explain every mystery of God [I guess in Natural Revelation there is such a thing as a Black Hole in which time and space merge, which boggles my brain, there should be many Truth which do as well].

Opps the horror of the forgotten “/”

#22 Ohio Anglican: “While I agree with the Reformed position that we cannot save ourselves with good works, I believe that some Protestants, use that as an excuse to do no good works at all.”

You’re right, and that is why we need James in the Bible as well as Paul:

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”  (James 2:14-17)

I cannot believe how far the doctrine of Grace has fallen from the sight of most on this thread. How long has it been since you have read or reread Article 10 of the 39 Articles.  God’s gift of preventing (prevenient) grace is required (John 6:44) before a person can even begin to want to come to Jesus.  God’s continuing gifts of grace through Baptism and the Eucharist are needed to sustain faith and the progression of Sanctification.  Our fallen nature is unable to sustain faith without God’s continuing grace, cf. Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 201.  The idea of grace is not an innovation.
Blessings,  M

#22 writes:

If we are truly a Christian, good works should come naturally to us.

Well,  how do you explain the thief on the cross?

It’s fairly obvious that the thief on the cross did not live long enough after his conversion to do any good works.

But for those of us who do live after our conversion, we need to remember Christ’s command at the end of the Parable of the Good Samaritan: “Go and do likewise.”

Any one willing to weigh in on #26 with honest dialog?

#35, The teaching of Anglicanism, and the 39 Articles, is Baptismal Regeneration. Why would anyone weigh in on a statement so plainly correct? As for this covenant thingy in TEC, well it is a social construct and is an unnecessary addendum to Baptism, which is not about being born into this world, but into the Kingdom of God.

Festivus, I don’t think anyone would say that Baptism is not necessary. The question is: what is it necessary for? Is it necessary to be justified? Or is it necessary as an act of obedience post justification? Does it convey regeneration? Does it signify initiation into the visible body…in Paul’s case, having come to faith already it is difficult to argue that Baptism was necessary for his justification. But it was certainly necessary.

Fr. Van, I disagree with the first part of your post but agree with the second.

What did I miss in the 39 Articles?

OOHHH! Fr. Matt< I should also acknowledge that I believe in Orginal Sin, and the need to be cleansed…

“I should also acknowledge that I believe in Orginal Sin, and the need to be cleansed…”
Me too. Have I questioned that in some way that I am not aware of?

No, no. I just thought my assertion of BR would make little sense if I didn’t believe in OS. But, y’know so many modern Anglicans believe themselves to be part of the good “creation”—- on the good ship lollipop—- as opposed to wallowing in sin and degradation, in need of salvation, reconcillation, and cleansing like the rest of us. But I was baptised under the 1928, therefore a little more dirty perhaps…

I cannot believe how far the doctrine of Grace has fallen from the sight of most on this thread.

I’d completely disagree, unless you’re promoting a skewed from of Grace. I’m not a Pelagianist or even semi-Pelagianist, we maybe be talking about actions, but Grace is all throughout those actions.

Instead of using the Sacraments, which there are large disagreements in Protestantism (though if you’re Anglican everything above is using the Anglican perspective so confused by your #32 if you’re trying to introduce a Dutch-Reform or Anabaptist approach). Let’s use another action of obedience which is Grace-filled and back on topic for this thread. Alistair+ is exhorting to simply preach the Word of God, now that is an action and to do so is to obey (the Great Commission has both the exhortation to preach and baptize). Yet that action is absolutely meaningless if the Spirit, by grace, does not give the Words power. The Bible is not a series of book that in themselves contain power, we’re not like pagans that have a book of magic spells, it’s the Spirit that’s the source of the Word going forth to accomplish what it’s set out to do. In the Sacraments, Anglicans profess that they are outwards signs of an spiritual reality, but one very good way to read #27 is if the Spirit does not show up, it’s just playing with water. We need grace, I mean look at Matt+, do you think he’s worth? Of course not! We any of us speak God’s word, are any of us worthy? I love the story of those casting out demons in the Jesus whom Paul talks about, there is an example of the Word going forth without the power of the Spirit, thus meaningless. We need grace, even in preaching of the Word.

I’d not dispute we need Grace to be made alive from our sins, but I’d argue we still need Grace every day of our lives. Protestants clarify this more by using “Justify” to mean “just as if I” where Catholic make is sound more like sanctification with “to make just.” In 1 Corinthians St. Paul actually uses sanctification for both part of the “is now & now yet” reality in the introduction. We are set apart and made holy and we’re in the process of being made holy, both are forms of Grace. Any action I do for the Kingdom is still a form of grace (see Article 14).

#37 - Matt+, thanks. If Paul had not been baptised, would you say his sins would not have been forgiven? If justification is moving one from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness, would Paul and are we righteous if our sins are not dealt with by baptism? I think the crux of what has been asked is that if justification after faith requires and action on part of the believer for justification to be fully applied? I’ve never thought about it much, but the thread jogged some things I’ve never worked out -the Acts verse is one, another would be that our response is not necessarily an indicator we have been fully justified (good works), another is that God desires no one to perish, therefore pre-justification must be available but when is it applied? Sorry - this one has my mind racing a bit.

“if the Spirit does not show up, it’s just playing with water,” Oh heavens, now we are the arbiters of whether the HS has shown up or not?!?! Speaking for God. The Sacraments are valid if done validly, regardless of whether you describe them as priestcraft or magic, as you seem to. For instance, infant baptism, when the consciousness of the infant does not, perhaps, grasp the sense of what is taking place. Yet, if we fail in our attention to the promises we make on their behalf that does not lessen the truth of the validity of what took place, but in the enormity of the judgement we are heaping on ourselves, and perhaps sadly the one baptised. In the 39 Articles we learn that the unworthiness of the ministers does not hinder the nature of the sacrament.

[#45] FrVan

The sacrament is the sign and not the thing signified.  The thing signified is greater - much greater - than the sign.  Water counts nothing for our justification.  It is wholly an act of God from beginning to end.  We add nothing.  We contribute nothing.  We do nothing.  No man will ever stand in Hell and say “If only I was baptised…”

carl

#44 Festivus

When is a couple married? The State says when the signatures are on a piece of paper with an official and two witnesses, often we’d probably say when the vows are done before the witnesses, the only place Scripture references is in the act of consummation of the marriage. Now all parts are necessary in someways, but I don’t know what couple play the what if game.

I think some of these types of questions head to straight to the warning of the Scribes, in which they too knew the Word so well, that they debated at what point what happens instead of the Nature of God, straining the gnat to swallow the camel. 

The only time the marriage question becomes important is is if there is a tragedy in the midst of everything.

The what if game really only becomes important in justification, again in the point of tragedy. In days of old, if took three years to become a Christian and ten to be ordained (new it’s ten minutes and three years), what would happen to a Catechumen if they did before baptism, well they were buried in the church yard, the logic being that they were under protection of the Church, all that can be argued many ways, but probably the best is the pastoral one Nature and Character of God, for if an infant dies or one baptized who is not bearing fruit or bad fruit at the time of death, what happens? If you answer, I think you might be placing yourself in the position of God, yet you can comfort the bereaved with by pointing to Charater of God.

Carl: “The sacrament is the sign and not the thing signified,” but it is the outward and visible sign that signifies the inward and spiritual grace.

“No man will ever stand in Hell and say “If only I was baptised…” Oh, really?

Carl, are you (or still) Anglican or Episcopalian?

#47 Hosea - I feel it is important to reason and understand Scripture as much as possible, as well as interpret application and apply it correctly. I’m not picking a legalistic argument. As I stated, this is something I haven’t contemplated in a while, an as some have expressed, there is a diversity of opinion. Was the thief baptized? Reading of Scripture would say no, although I have heard more then one sermon suggest God sent rain to wash him. Is ‘rain’ keeping with Anglican custom, Baptist? No, and neither validate what Christ promised him. On the flip side, there was a purpose in Paul’s baptism. What was it? Does it apply to us today? What implications does it have for the church? What is the lenses of our understanding? Those are ALL healthy questions on ANY topic one should be asking.

#51 The WHOLE problem I have with the thief of the Cross argument is that it’s VERY much like KJS “God in an awfully small box” one. I fully agree with KJS, that we can be so legalistic as to put God in a box, Scripture gives us plenty of examples of the LORD operating outside his own box.

The book of Ruth is a wonderful example of the LORD operating by grace outside of of His commands, if He so chose to do so. While Moab is given protection (Duet 2:9) Moab did seduced Israel and the Lord did forbid them from His temple (Duet 23:3), so what are we to make of David’s great grandmother? A book in which some Israelites were rebellious and married Moabite women? Yet, the narrative moves from the Moabitess to Ruth the Moabitess, to only the narrator calling her Ruth and only in quotes is she a Moabitess to everyone calling her by name.

Now, does Ruth invalidate Deuteronomy?

I believe the thief on the cross is an example of grace like Ruth. Showing us the character of God. The theif had only four actions I counted he could do, push himself up on the nail in his foot, going “number one and number two,” and speaking. He used one of his actions (a responding to grace) to glorify God. In that way he is more like the widow in Luke 24.

So to me asking what if st. Paul didn’t when he had (and did so to at least three, maybe more, he didn’t remember) is a tad silly and making the thief on the cross be normative is like making Ruth overturn the Law given through Moses. I think Scripture is complete with the LORD being sovereign over His Law, but it does not mean I am. Scripture shows He’s above the Laws of Nature, but I’m govern by them.

In the 39 Articles we learn that the unworthiness of the ministers does not hinder the nature of the sacrament.

FrVan:  That is one the 39 Articles I take issue with, one of the very few I might add.  It is comfortable to know that my reception of the sacraments does not depend on whether or not my priest is a devout/holy/godly as he can be. And yet…..I have as issue with the notion that having a Gene Robinson or John Spong preside over the Eucharist doesn’t hinder the nature of the sacrament.  How can any sacrament that Spong performs be valid since, in essence, he is an atheist?  What is the scriptural basis for that article?

“In the 39 Articles we learn that the unworthiness of the ministers does not hinder the nature of the sacrament.”

This is what is known as the heresy of Donatism, which predates the 39 Articles by about 1100 years. If it were necessary to have a saint preside at every Eucharist….

Fr. Kennedy - a late question on Justification, particularly your comment #18. 

Rome believes otherwise, that grace infused works and faith together serve to justify.

Isn’t this supported by Holy Scripture in James 2:24?

I do not believe so Nikolaus. James is describing the sort of faith that justifies. In context, he contrasts justifying faith with a “said” faith by making a comparison to generosity. It is one thing to say to a poor person: be well. But if the words are not followed by deeds it demonstrates that the words were nothing at all. In the same way, someone who goes forward at say, billy graham, and says “I believe” but then lives a life unchanged, then his faith was not true but a said faith and a said faith is not the sort of faith that justifies. It is the sort of faith that Satan has who “believes”, cognitively, all the correct orthodox doctrines, but does not have “faith” which involves not only “belief” but repentance, surrender and trust.

Then James refers to Genesis 22 as a manifestation of the faith by which God saves. Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of faith in Genesis 15. Genesis 22, James says, makes manifest the fact that his faith was not a matter of mere “belief” but represented a true self-surrender of the sort that is only possible when one has a real faith.

So James’ point and Paul’s can be summarized together:

Paul: We are saved through faith alone
James: But are not saved by a faith that is alone.

True faith necessarily results in works.

But those works are the manifestation of justification…not part of its cause.

Beautifully said, Fr. Matt.

#53, Yes, #54 is correct, it is a reaction against Donatism… But it is also an expression of the efficacy of the Sacraments (primarily Baptism and the Supper of the Lord)over against the failings of humankind. But realize too, which is why this affects your pain and confusion over Spong and his like in relation to this article, you are supposed to bring them up on charges and depose them, NOT accept continuing grievous, unrepentant, sinfulness. “Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.”

The sacraments may be efficacious, but Scripture also commands that we not have any fellowship with those who pretend to be Christians but are instead unrepentant sinners.  “With such a person do not eat.”  I Corinthians 5:11.  It’s even worse if such people are actively promoting heresy and blasphemy.  Which is why I could not take communion from Spong, the Bishop of New Hampshire, and a substantial number of other TEO clergy.  And the major reason I am no longer an Episcopalian; one cannot endorse the actions of those in rebellion against God by remaining in fellowship with them.  Scripture commands that such people be purged from the Body of Christ (I Cor. 5:13); TEO instead promotes them.

Carl, are you (or still) Anglican or Episcopalian?

Hosea6:6

I am a Calvinist, and no Calvinist will ever allow for the legitimacy of sacramentalism.  But frankly I am stunned that a standard Reformed rejection of such could elicit this question from you.  Given the variations of doctrine I observe each day on this weblog, my statement would appear mild indeed.  But to answer your question.  You asked a simple question.  The answer is complex.

I have mentioned before that I was raised in a liberal Lutheran Church.  I married into the LCMS, and could have stayed a happy Lutheran if only I hadn’t started studying Scripture.  To deal seriously with Scripture is to encounter the doctrines of grace, and once encountered they cannot be denied.  Before I had ever heard of John Calvin, before I ever heard of TULIP, before I realized the ‘Reformed’ was not a synonym for ‘liberal’, I became a Calvinist.  For which crime I was summarily dismissed from LCMS.  They even sent me a formal letter revoking my membership.  Not quite excommunication, but functionally the same. And so I wandered.  With few good options, I ended up in a local Bible church.

In 2004 I started following the renewing church movements in Protestant churches.  And eventually that led me here to SF - to a world which five years ago I did not even know existed.    And I have found myself greatly attracted to this world of Conservative Anglicanism.  Having spent so much time in the maelstrom of contemporary congregational evangelicalism, I can see the value of a church that exists beyond the boundaries of its own front door; that exists beyond the borders of a nation-state.  Such a church has some protection from its own parochialisms and biases - a concept completely lost on the local Mega-Non-denominational Bible Church down the street.  I can see the value of authority, if only it could be divorced from the errors of Romanism.

I checked out the local TEC church once.  The service was led by a woman priest (itself a fatal error) who averred to disliking the “kingdom language” in Scripture.  Perhaps a king would be too disrespectful of TEC polity?  Her service included readings from:

1. ‘Hebrew Scripture’
2. The Sutta Nipata
3. The Koran
4. An adaptation of the Upanishads
5. ‘Christian Scripture’

And this.  See how long it takes you to figure out what it is.

O God, our Mother, our Father, who is everywhere, Holy are all your names. May your new age come. May your dreams be lived now and in every time and place.  Meet our needs each day and forgive our failures to love as we forgive this same failure in others.  Save us in hard times, and lead us in the ways of love.  For yours is the wholeness, and the energy, and the loving, forever.  Amen.

“Epic fail” is too mild a description.  So I searched the internet, and found an orthodox Anglican church - 150 miles away.  But it was Anglo-catholic, and not Reformed.

Hosea6:6, I am your growth.  I am the guy who would walk into a reformed Anglican church with his wife and children, if only there was such a church where I live.  But there isn’t.  I am the guy who longs to escape the dry-as-dust minimalism of contemporary evangelical worship.  But I don’t know where to go.  I am the guy who seeks to escape the horrendous mixture of unaccountable tradition and ignorance that passes for doctrine in Evangelicalism.  But there is no door.

And so I come here.  And I wait.

carl

#59, JTP: “The sacraments may be efficacious, but Scripture also commands that we not have any fellowship with those who pretend to be Christians but are instead unrepentant sinners.  ‘With such a person do not eat.’” And, yet that is just who Jesus ate with, Golly, He must not have read His New Testament. 

I am a Calvinist, and no Calvinist will ever allow for the legitimacy of sacramentalism.

That seems like a very broad and all encompassing statement. I’m not sure I’ll take you word that ALL Calvinist as “x” because that does seem to be reductionist and I might met a Calvinist who can ‘allow for the legitimacy of sacramentalism.’

One thing I can say is that Anglicanism is NOT pure Calvinism, one reason Knox had some extreme issue with it as to turn down offer to be bishop and head off to Scotland.

You still didn’t answer my question. I am curious if you are hanging out on Anglican blogs to ‘convert’ us to your understanding or if you are one who inside proclaiming that you can’t subscribe to what the 39 Articles have said. The Article do ‘allow for the legitimacy of sacramentalism.’

Hi Hosea,

Carl has been about for a long time on this blog and has certainly stuck up for Reformed principles but to my knowledge has never sought to convert. You asked whether he was Anglican and he answered.

Hi Matt+

I guess it would never occur to me to make statement positive about Sacraments in a Baptist forum unless I was trying to convert someone to my way of understanding, I accept their view as it is, not that I agree with it, but accept that’s their view.

—-

Carl,

It does seem a very long and difficult path, I am surprised by LCMS reaction to Calvinism, maybe all old battle are hard to let go. I do wish you peace as you are on your journey and that you find a good parish home in a tradition that gives you good soil to blossom.

Carl. If you don’t mind me butting in, I believe the 39 Articles are meant to span the breadth of Anglicanism, though perhaps not extreme Anglo-Catholicism. For instance, in The Lord’s Supper I think that one could accept Receptionism to the Real Presence, but probably not extreme Transubstantiation, nor the reserved sacrament, nor veneration, or those kinds of things. Which does not necessarily make “those kinds of things” bad, just not the stuff of the 39 Articles. This breadth is one reason why I think The Reformed Episcopal Church could accept them (initially with minor changes), by calling them something else (but now accept the 39 Articles). [I think they had a BCP between 1662 and now the 1928, someone else will know more.] Anyway, even John Henry Newman worked them to fit his views. Key point here is not the orthodoxy of the Articles but of the individual and corporate faith and practice which they, the articles, should define… They are a guide, to me of great import, almost confessional. Will you go to Hell for the Veneration of the Sacrament, for lifting it up, reserving it? I don’t think so. One might, on the other hand be in danger for teaching that Jesus did not bodily resurrect. I am not trying to convert you, only express where I am—- which in TEC is VERY much alone…  God Bless you!

You still didn’t answer my question. I am curious if you are hanging out on Anglican blogs to ‘convert’ us to your understanding

Hosea6:6

Do you not understand?  You converted me.  For ten years I have sought after a Reformed liturgical church with authority.  What would I convert you to?  I don’t have any competing church to sell.  I am well aware the Anglicanism is not Calvinism.  When did I ever say that it was?  I am simply looking for a place where the historic doctrines of the Reformation will be honored and not despised.  In the meantime, I will defend them and advocate for them - as do other principals on this weblog.  Should I name them?  Do I need to?

You might consider something else, Hosea6:6.  I took a risk in answering your question.  I could have ignored it.  But I did not come here to hide things.  That is why I <u>chose</u> to answer it honestly.  If I had ulterior purposes, I would have ignored your question.  For it would not serve my hidden purposes to say what I did.

carl

Carl: This isn’t directly about your post here, but I often read what you put up on SF, and find that you say the things I wish I’d said, but always better than I would say them! It’s almost uncanny. Discovering now that your connection with Anglicanism is so recent and (if this is the right word) theoretical, your insights into the current troubles are even more remarkable.

So, whatever else you do, don’t give up on SF. Because I need you to articulate the things I wish I could see for myself!

Thank you Fr. Kennedy but could you please reconcile:

But those works are the manifestation of justification…not part of its cause.

with:

You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone

James 2:14-26 seems abundantly clear that the two must go together.

#61 FrVan, I hope you are trying to be humorous, as indicated by your smiley.  You know as well as I do that the Bible draws a clear distinction between non-believers and false Christians who popped up in the church from the beginning and sought to draw people away from Christ.  As I’m sure you well know, I Cor. 15 speaks directly to this point:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.  What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.” (I Corinthians 5:9-12)

Jesus seeks to reach and save all lost sinners; such were all of us at one point, and we in turn should be seeking to reach our lost brothers and sisters for Him.  But He will not accept those who refuse to repent and turn away from their sins, and Scripture warns us to stay far away from those who pretend to be Christians but whose manner of living shows they are not Christians.  They are not of His flock.  Does this mean I am saying Christians do not sin?  By no means.  We all sin daily.  God is faithful to forgive us our sins if we confess them and keep on trying to turn away from them.  But the heart of the Christian should be in trying to follow the Lord, not to follow sin.  Over time the fruits of the Holy Spirit should be increasingly evident in us.

It is those who claim to be Christians but who say there is no sin, or that they do not sin, or say that it is perfectly fine for them (and by extension all of us) to continue to live a life of unrepentant sin, that must be put out of the Body of Christ.  They are the impure “yeast” that will destroy the entire church if it is allowed to remain.

We see this going on right now in TEO, where all manner of immorality is being tolerated, no, “celebrated” and “sanctified,” more and more.  That’s what the “Gospel” of “inclusion” is about, allowing more and more of the cancer into the Body.  Today it is homosexual acts; tomorrow it will be worship of false gods and idolatry, which is also spreading throughout TEO.

Phony Christians like Spong and Robinson, who have rejected the Gospel and who are teaching another Gospel (the “New Thing of the Spirit,” without revealing what Spirit it is) are hoping to “deceive even the elect” into again being snatched by Satan if at all possible.

Sure Nikolaus. I just did. Maybe you did not read it. The context of James 2, as I pointed out above, makes it quite clear that James is not using the word “faith” in the same way that Paul does or the Reformers did. He is speaking of “belief” or cognitive assent as his analogy with “spoken” charity that does not actually manifest charitable acts makes clear. James says that that sort of “faith” alone, a faith that is by itself with no manifesting works certainly justifies no one and it is only the sort of faith that necessarily brings forth works that justifies. which is why he says in v. 18:

“Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

The works show that the faith he professes is beyond a mere assent.

Hosea,
There is not and never has been a rule against Catholics or Orthodox or Reformed coming here and expressing their opinions with regard to the sacraments or any other theological issue. What has been called down is the open and stealth evangelist, 1. The guy who comes on and says Anglicanism is doomed…join me here________. or 2. the guy who pretends to be an Anglican and then starts pushing for joining a given stream of Christianity until it becomes clear that he already belongs to it.

Carl has done neither. He has always been upfront about his Calvinism (as have I) and while he has defended Reformed principles (as have I) he has never sought to evangelize for a Reformed denomination.

#71 Matt+

I did NOT say he broke any of SF’s rules, I merely asked, “are you (or still) Anglican or Episcopalian?” The reason is because the last commentor who sounded like they were coming out of left-field to me did turn out to be a former Episcopalian who had been burnt by an over elevation of the BCP and was promoting what to me seemed an extreme form of Sola Scriptora.

I asked my original question because they way I’d respond internally would be VERY different than externally. Internally I’d make the presumption that the 39 Articles are our common hermeneutic, if another methodology was advanced, I push for the Anglican one. Externally all becomes much more difficult, dispensationalist have one, Calvinist and Wesleyans each have their own and one passage has several understandings depending on the methodology. I could NOT count on a common understanding that the GAFCON bishops are binding us.

#66 Carl,

I apologies for any harm my question caused you, my intent was not to say “get out,” but I can see rereading #60 how I could sound as if I am saying that. I was confused so I ask, you can read about my reasons above in my post to Matt if you’re curious, but the way I’m reading #66, I’ve hurt you and should simply apologize. Thank you for taking the time to share your story, I apologize again for being confused and asking again.

Sure Nikolaus. I just did. Maybe you did not read it.

Gosh, thanks.  No, I did read and re-read your response.  I’ve also gone back to James 2 several times.  I’m going to have to think about this further before reforming my question.

JTP #69: Well, yes and no, Jesus associated with Publicans and sinners, with tax collectors and prostitutes, those His society considered to be sick because they were sinful or their parents were sinful…How many people do you know not in need of repentance, even if it isn’t from just the sense that they are righteous in their own sight, and darn humble about it, and proud of their humility.

#60 Carl
It is not often that one hears people from other traditions express the value they see in our church so passionately.  Thank you for your witness and may God bless you and grant you your heart’s desire.

[73] Hosea6:6

We’re cool.    I accept your apology.  It’s just a question that no one has ever asked before, and so the subject never came up.  Surprising really, and probably related to the fact that I normally post below the radar.

It’s a painful thing to lose your religious identity.  The church I grew up in is dead.  But my father died in April, and so I had to go back.  The ghosts of my youth that still haunt that church are incredible; memories so thick you have to push them away from your face.  They call out to you, and you long to go back, but you cannot. 

carl

Carl, there are numerous Anglican parishes in which I am willing to bet you would feel very comfortable. It sounds like you would also love some of the old works of Frank Gaebelein, an early member of the Reformed Episcopal Church, who died back in 1983. If alive today, I believe Gaebelein would be in a GS church.

Festivus, without going into detail, I believe that the Catholics have (inadvertently) got it right with their recognition of a “baptism by desire”. Through that accommodation, the Roman Catholic Church gets pretty close to the Baptists, although both sides might not admit it.

We’re cool.

Joy!!

I did continue to drive too hard, then last two times this subject crept up I feel like those stories for USN in early WWII where a couple of cruises and destroyers took on whole battle groups of the IJN. We’re an appeal to 39 Article was met with “Everything was going swimmingly until I make a statement, from the exegesis, that contradicts an extra-scriptural assertion that others hold and it all breaks loose. So kind of jumpy.

It’s a painful thing to lose your religious identity

I hear you! I keep finding myself back in Anglicanism but often feel the stranger (probably another reason I overreacted, often Bible studies are a bunch of other traditions fighting it out, or how I know hermeneutic matter, while I’m often the only baptized & confirmed Anglican in the room). Also know the pain of visiting my parent to drive past the parish of my youth, it’s in the hands of the liberal now.

I do hope you find good soil to truly blossom. Peace be with you.

FrVan 75—I think maybe we’re coming at this from different directions.  I’m not talking about condemnation of publicans and sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes, I am talking about the modern non-Christian Pharisees who run TEO, who spend their time endlessly talking about inclusiveness, the MDGs and love, while actually doing all they can to stamp out orthodox Christians and making sure that anyone who stands up for what God wants is minimalized and removed.  Those who say that they have the final say on interpreting the Bible in their own way (“we wrote the Bible, we can rewrite it”), and totally miss the whole point of the Gospel (“heresy is better than schism”).  There’s not much question in my mind what Jesus would say and do with such people; correction, what he will say and do with such people.  Scripture says they will be called to account on how they shepherded the flock.

#52 - you said, “So to me asking what if st. Paul didn’t when he had is a tad silly…” You are missing my point. To a reader of Scripture, we need to ask what is required of me? Do I need to confess Christ as Lord and Savior? Scripture says I do, therefore I should do it and hold that all who desire to be Christian should do it as well. Same as baptism. If scripture commands it is an essential act of our sins being forgiven, then we should do it. That, in itself, should reframe some of the argument that baptism is not a requirement. I’ll not say more about this as I do need to study it more as time allows, as well as many of the 39 articles. Obviously the implications I see are that there are divergent opinions here which suggests it is true across the orthodox Anglican sphere. I always appreciate the exchange here.

The Rev. John Wesley, the Anglican Priest, always held that saving grace might come to us through a conversion experience, or through Baptism. He even taught that for some a conversion experience might be experienced by some during the reception of Holy Communion, as happened to Susanna Wesley. Though she had been Baptized and trying to live a Christian life for her whole life, she felt a conversion experience, where she had an assurance of her salvation, while kneeling at the Communion Rail in the Anglican Parish. For adults, Wesley believed, the conversion experience could happen during Baptism.  But however one is converted to Christianity, the Bible makes it clear that we are to be Baptized. The thief on the cross did not have the opportunity to be Baptized by the normal procedure. But, he had a very unique conversion experience, receiving assurance of his pardon from his sins by the very Son of God Himself.

Carl:
  Welcome here.  I came from LCMS, but my wife came out of the Episcopal church, confirmed by a very orthodox and pious priest, who also married us.  We went back and forth, but she bit her tongue and took instruction, joined LCMS.  Finally, 15 years later, she reaffirmed in the Episcopal Church.  Our youngest daughter was confirmed later that year (1982).  I started going to a Sunday evening contemporary service in a church near us in San Angelo, TX,  That congregation recently withdrew from TEC.  I was confirmed in the original parish in San Angelo in 1990.  It has only recently, since 2001, that I have been aware of what has happened to the church I thought I had joined.  I am so glad to have discovered SF; I had not realized just how Calvin influenced Thomas Cranmer.  I knew he had been a big fan of Luther, but I can see the Calvinist influence to a greater degree in the early writings.  As an exercise for my own edification, I did a quick comparison of the Augsburg Confession and the 39 articles. Interesting to find where the parallels are and where they aren’t.  I have been greatly enriched by Matt+ and his contributions; it has been very enlightening and has made me think about some of my own suppositions.  I am in a progressive parish in a diocese that is led by a bishop who tries hard to keep everyone talking, styles himself a Windsor bishop, but is very much a company man.  SF has been a real blessing to me, along with T19, MCJ, BB, and Brad Drell.  At least I still have my sanity and a firm sense of who I am and what I believe.  There is another parish led by an orthodox rector the same distance to the east, but I feel a strong call to stay put, at least for now.  I don’t want to diminish the number of reasserters by leaving. 
Two of my favorite podcasts, by the way are Alistair Begg’s and R.C. Sproul -both very reformed!

Carl,
I second Going Home’s recommendation that you look into the Reformed Episcopal Church.  We’re Calvinist AND Anglican, just like mother used to make.

KMFrye

I appreciate all the kind comments on this thread.  A quick search of rechurch.org turned up no parishes in my state.

Charles Nightingale, I also have a shelf-full of books by R C Sproul.  If only he was presuppositional.

carl

I am writing in response to some of the recent posts on whether and when to break fellowship.

One observation I have is that fellowship in the sense of friendship is not the same as fellowship in the sense of koinonia or sacramental one-ness.  Sometimes the differences in interpretation the term koinonia is the dividing line.  i.e., is this communion or koinonia a reference to the sort of deep, mystical unity with the Lord and with fellow Christians as we celebrate the eucharist in faith, or is this the sort of informal friendship one experiences in a potluck social or inviting one’s neighbors over for dinner (which, though not sacramental, is a vital part of evangelism)?

Paul’s description of the agape meal in Corinthians is during a period in which the Church of Corinth celebrated the Eucharist in the context of a communal meal.  For that reason, some might analogize this to mere squabbling over food when eating with friends.

But from Paul’s language and description of the Lord’s institution of the Eucharist, it is clear that the agape feast in Corinth also involved a mystical supper—as the faithful Christians celebrated and partook in faith of the body and blood of Christ.  (I am speaking here in terms of the Real Presence in the classical Anglican sense, and not transubstantiation). 

Thus, it is that some in Corinth could sicken and fall asleep after failing to discern the Lord in celebrating communion—this was not a mere experience of community and friendship, as the people who approached communion unworthily had fallen ill and even died as a consequence.

Within this context, it makes sense why Paul would tell the immature congregation to expel an immoral brother, yet also acknowledged that people would have to leave the earth if they wree required to cut off relationships and interactions with others who live a worldly lifestyle (to paraphrase his advice).

Sacramental communion is serious business.  In this context, barring people who openly and flagrantly rebel against God in the presence (and with the knowledge of the congregation) can be not only a matter of church discipline but also an act of mercy.

Turning back to the issue of fellowship in the sense of friendship vs. fellowship in the sense of sacramental koinonia, Jesus was in relationship with sinful people and dined in their houses.  He interacted with people of notorious reputation before they had converted, just as he died for us all while we were still unrepentant lost in our sins.  But our Lord celebrated the last supper (and instituted Holy Communion) with his disciples.

The issue then, is not whether to continue to have interactions with a revisionist cleric or congregation, but whether and in what circumstances one could in good conscience maintain sacramental communion with such a person or persons.  This was enough of an issue in our historic Book of Common Prayer to merit rubrics specifically address the pastoral issue of refusing communion.

My point is that, provided one recognizes a distinction between friendship and sacramental koinonia, it is possible to continue to interact and remain friends even with the revisionists who have commandeered parishes, dioceses, and denominations, without sharing sacramental communion with them.  Just as God’s loving kindness leads us to repentance, so our loving attitude to those in the world (though not to the practices of the world) may be one of the means by which God draws to himself certain people who are penly in rebellion from him.

To use a final example, to befriend a brother who has openly announced that he has lost his faith in the Lord is an act of kindness and an invitation to repentance.  To share eucharistic fellowship with that same brother before he repents is to announce to the congregation and world that all of the partakers are of one accord in the essentials of the faith.  And by definition, that would make faith in the collateral “non-essential” that does not merit excommunication.  It is further an act that lacks charity, because it tells the person who has lost faith in the Lord that there is no essential need to change.

To clarify, I am not writing the above to make a “get out of ECUSA” post.  Rather, it is easier to discuss with clarity when and to what degree we break relationship with others when we distinguish between our Lord’s penetration into the world as he travelled to eat with notorious sinners and our Lord’s call to his disciples to partake of Holy Communion.

Peace in Christ,
Dn. John