Thursday, March 18, 2010

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church

Saturday, February 17, 2007 • 10:23 pm

The thing to grasp, then, is that the Church is so much bigger than the Anglican Communion. Our unity comes by our common confession that "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb", not by whether we have appropriate episcopal oversight.
Revelation 7:9After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" 11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12saying, "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen." 13 Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?" 14I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.


The last section of the Apostles' Creed contains the article, "I believe in the holy catholic Church". I wonder if you have ever wondered what these final lines are doing at the end of the Creed? It makes perfect sense to be very clear about who God is, what He's like and what He's not like - those were, after all, the key questions facing the Early Church. But surely it's obvious what the church is.

Well, no its not. Because when we use the word "Church" we can mean any number of different things.

  1. A building. I can say "I'm just going over to the church".
  2. A group of people associated together in the way that so many of us are in our parishes. We can be spoken of together as a church.
  3. A job. Some may talk of my twin brother and I "going into the church".
  4. Some people would even say that it's the whole hierarchical structure that we have, so we speak of the Anglican Church. Some people extend this argument to suggest that without these structures, for example bishops and so forth, we are not a church.

What of course, as Christians, we are interested in knowing is what the Bible says on these things because its our rule in all matters of faith.

And the intriguing thing is, the Bible knows none of these uses of the word. Instead it tells us that the church is something else, something quite remarkable and yet, quite simple.

The word in the bible thats translated into English as church is the greek word "ekklesia". It simply means "gathering". A bunch of people coming together. As well as being used to speak about what we might recognize as the church it is also used to speak of a town meeting and even a near-riot (Acts 19:32, 39, 40) It simply means a gathering of people.

Now, people dont just gather for any reason, theres always a purpose for gathering and so our question has to be what is this gathering that the bible speaks about?

Well, the answer lies in the above text, Revelation 7.

Revelation is the last book in the bible and it relates a vision that John the Apostle has. Its called an "apocalypse" which simply means an "unveiling". Not necessarily a great universe-ending catastrophe, just an unveiling. So, its as though God is drawing back a curtain on world history so that we can see spiritual realities. Theyre not necessarily future events, theyre picture language to describe things that words can't on their own describe.

And here in Revelation 7 John is being given an insight into the reality of the church and we can see immediately that it is an ekklesia, a gathering:
Revelation 7:9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"


Now that is a crowd meeting with a purpose.

First, notice how the gathering is described: a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages.

This great heavenly church that John sees is truly international; all tribes, all peoples, all languages represented. It is, in fact, the completion of the great promise to Abraham at the start of the bible, Genesis 12, where God promises him that through him all the families of earth will be blessed. Well, here they all are, or perhaps more accurately, here we all are because if you are a Christian then this is you, or at least it will be.

Which should make us stop. Because like it or not we have to admit that for many of us we have some difficulty with this. It would be wrong for each and every one of us to pretend that we don't have prejudices when it comes to people that are different to us. Without dwelling on the matter I wonder if I might ask you to consider for a moment whether you have such a global view of the Christian church or, for that matter, whether you harbour a little bit of a "them and us" mentality ? One day, Christian, you will stand with those people around the throne and you will be arm in arm with them.

And that, simply, is what it means to be Catholic. The word Catholic comes from two more greek words; "kata" meaning "according to" and "h'olos" which means "whole". The term "Catholic", therefore, means "according to the whole" that is to say "the same as everyone else".

And so the Early Church coined this phrase Catholic to tell people that there was only one church, not several. What they wanted to say is that you can't just run off and do your own thing, making it up as you go along as some people were doing. If you're part of the church then you're part of the Catholic church, you're part of the whole.

Of course, when we hear the word Catholic we immediately think of something else we think of the Roman Catholic Church, based in Rome with its own idea of what the church is. Simply put, they think that they're the true Church, the catholic church, the whole church, and therefore if you're not with them then youre not actually in a proper church. Thats why they use that name "Roman Catholic Church".

But Anglicanism is a Reformed communion because men like Martin Luther, who directly influenced Anglican Reformers like Cranmer, read their bibles and realized that the Roman Church may be many things but it wasnt Catholic. It taught things, and still teaches things, that are simply contradictory to what the Bible says. And when Martin Luther and others like him read their bibles and understood what the true Catholic church looked like they realized they couldnt be in a gathering with Rome any more. As the Anglican Article puts it,
XIX. Of the Church.
...

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.


So there is a Catholic church, a whole church, a true church. And we see them clearly here in Revelation 7.

But who are they? Well, were told that theyre clothed in white robes. White, of course, is symbolic of purity, and so the picture here is of people who are perfect and pure, no sin whatsoever. But, in case we didnt get it, were given one of those lovely set-up questions just look with me again at v13.
13Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?" 14 I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Sometimes questions in the Bible are there simply for our benefit. This is one of them: Tell us about these people dressed in white!

And the answer comes in 2 stages.

First they are the ones coming out of the great tribulation.

Tribulation is a word the bible uses regularly to speak of suffering that Christians go through. It's popular at the moment in some Christian cicles to speak of the the Tribulation as though its going to be some sort of future event when things get really tough. That kind of talk is popular in countries like the United States, Britain and Australia where Christians tend to be nice and fat and fairly happy. But ask a Christian in Pakistan or Indonesia or the Sudan whether the Tribulation is something in the future and theyll laugh at you - at least they would if the tears of pain ever stopped. No, the Tribulation is ongoing. It was going on right when John first wrote these words almost 2000 years ago - even then Christians were suffering for Jesus - and so this picture was an enormous encouragement to them to persevere because here is the church, the gathering, that have come through it.

First, they are the ones coming out of the great tribulation.

And, second, John is told that they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Its a fantastic picture, isnt it? Blood making something white when surely it does the opposite? But remember what the whiteness here stands for; its purity, freedom from sin, total forgiveness. And here are people who trust in Jesus' death on a cross, trust in His blood and as a result are completely forgiven. Not somewhat forgiven, not one step along the path to purity - no, they are white. They are perfect.

And Jesus is called the Lamb. It's an image from the Old Testament sacrifices which model for us what Jesus did. He was the true sacrifice.

That's what the true Catholic church believes, more than that - that's what the true Catholic church is. They are people who trust in Christ's death on the cross and, as a result, are completely forgiven.

So let me ask you; is that your picture of being a Christian? Do you believe that by trusting in Jesus you are completely forgiven? Because its easy to slip into thinking that theres something that we must do to be forgiven.

We even sometimes imagine that there are better and worse Christians. So, for example, its common to imagine that there are people such as "the Saints" who are somehow holier than us, who have achieved more in their lives. I realise that this will be a confronting statement for some, but the bible knows no such distinction. Thats not to say, of course, that it doesnt know about saints - it does and it holds them in high regard, they are indeed the most holy of people, but the Bible uses the word "saint" to talk about you and me, to talk about all Christians. Because anyone who trusts in Jesus, according to the Bible, is a saint (Eph. 1:1, Acts 26:10, Rom. 8:27 etc.).

This, then, is the Catholic church, the gathering of saints, all of them, that trust in Jesus' death and nothing else. It's you and me if we trust in Jesus.

So, weve seen what "the Church" is - its a gathering of people.
We've seen who they are - they're suffering but holy people, saints like you and me who trust in Jesus' death.

Finally, lets see what they do.

The first clue as to what the church does is back in v9. If you remember the church has palm branches in their hands. It makes us think of Jesus entering Jerusalem and the people waving palm branches and cheering him as their king. Thats exactly what the church does here and more. They cry out
Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb.

They dont just cry out anything about God, the thing that they're most excited about is that Salvation belongs to God and to the Lamb Jesus. They're saying what we've already seen - that being saved from the punishment of sin, becoming a Christian, is something that God does and the Church is excited about that. It is the thing they sing about again and again and again, worshipping God because of what He has done.

So again, let me ask you a question. Would you do the same as them? Do you do the same as them? Are you excited above all about the fact that Jesus has done everything that is needed to save you? Because that is the mark of the Christian.

Or perhaps you've allowed other things to cloud your attention, to draw your heart away? Perhaps you've never even realized that this is greatest thing, the thing that the church will be singing about into all eternity?

Perhaps today, even today, you want to join them? There would be no better time. Trust Jesus, trust his death on the cross where he did everything that needs to be done so you could wash your clothes white.

And then join this church, join this holy catholic church and spend the rest of your life and eternity singing about the salvation that belongs to God and to the Lamb.

But the vast majority who read this will have already done that - they trust Jesus and what He has done for them. More specifically, most people reading this (I assume) are Anglicans who are deeply troubled about the events that are overtaking us this second weekend of February, 2007. What difference does a right understanding of the Church make to us?

Well, above all, it means that we may rest secured that whatever the outcome of the Primates' Meeting it will make no difference to the holy catholic Church. If you find yourself in a parish in the middle of a revisionist diocese and the people you look to in the Communion have announced themselves to be out of Communion with your diocese then you must be assured that, although you are out of Communion, you are still gathered with those same true believers around the throne. Being in an out of Communion is, ultimately, a human way of expressing a difference that already exists. But a deeper bond exists between the faithful. We are, even now, gathered up in the heavenlies. Together you and I - in different parts of the world and "out of Communion" - are together pictured in Revelation 7.

The thing to grasp, then, is that the Church is so much bigger than the Anglican Communion. Our unity comes by our common confession that "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb", not by whether we have appropriate episcopal oversight. The Bible knows nothing of the latter. That is not to say that it is a useful structure to have and, indeed, a useful structure to maintain at this time of division since by coming under one bishop or another we may signal or acceptance or otherwise of what TEC is doing - but it is not a Biblical requirement nor mark of the true church, at least not in the sense that much Bishopry is understood today.

Let me be even bolder. Perhaps the Communion must in one way or another break apart. It has become quite clear that there are so many in leadership in the Anglican Communion who do not believe that salvation belongs to God and the Lamb Jesus. The question of salvation itself is alien to them, let alone the idea that Christ might be thepenal substitute that wins our salvation so completely. How can we even stand to be associated with those that deny Him in this way? Surely to "come out from among them" (2 Cor. 6:17) is almost required of us?! For the sake of clarity in our gospel message we must seek that those associations are cut. If many of the Primates of the Communion will not sort this issue out then perhaps those power brokers don't understand the real issues either?

It would, of course, be a tragedy. But sometimes tragedies are necessary.

What is important is that it will have no effect upon the true Church of God. Those that we are finally leaving behind were not part of the Church of God anyway - they were a cancerous growth sucking resources and inhibiting the proclamation of the Biblical gospel - eternal salvation, not the MDG's. And although such a division may leave you feeling desperately and horribly alone you should understand that you are not. The reality is that we are gathered around the throne together. Whether we wear the badge of "Anglican" or not may leave scars on us that we take a long time to recover from - but they are nothing like the scars that bought all of us and hold us all together; those scars were there long before Anglicanism existed and will continue to be there guaranteeing our place in the Holy Catholic Church long after Anglicanism is gone.


38 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

friends, the ?????‘s are where I’ve used unicode greek. Can anyone let me know how to get the greek to display properly?

with thanks

[1] Posted by David Ould on 02-17-2007 at 10:27 PM • top

David, why not use the transliteration instead?

[2] Posted by Craig Uffman on 02-17-2007 at 10:34 PM • top

David, why not use the transliteration instead?

Brother, no good reason. Just wanted to experiment. If i can’t make it work I’ll transliterate it.

[3] Posted by David Ould on 02-17-2007 at 10:38 PM • top

The reason I suggest that is that I don’t believe this web site supports those fonts.  But I may be wrong.  Greg would know.

[4] Posted by Craig Uffman on 02-17-2007 at 10:40 PM • top

ok, thanks Craig. I’ll go back and change it. If anyone can help with the unicode display do send me an email. thanks.

[5] Posted by David Ould on 02-17-2007 at 10:42 PM • top

Without repeating myself on the same website, needless to say that I, and many Anglicans, strongly disagree with the Ould brother’s ecclesiology, as I stated here.

It’s lacking in a proper sacramental understanding that the Church has always had. Nominalism produces denominationalism, which produces statements like, “The thing to grasp, then, is that the Church is so much bigger than the Anglican Communion. Our unity comes by our common confession that “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb”, not by whether we have appropriate episcopal oversight.”

As I stated before, this is a necessary condition for the Church, but not a necessary and sufficient condition.

Read what I mean here.

[6] Posted by The Common Anglican on 02-18-2007 at 09:16 AM • top

The Common Anglican:

You know, when in doubt, check the book - that’s what I tell my students and it’s very applicable here:

What does the Bible state are the necessary criteria for one to be a member of the Church Universal and Triumphant?

Romans 3:25
“or God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,”
Romans 4:24
“for our benefit, too, assuring us that God will also count us as righteous if we believe in him, the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.”
Romans 10:9
“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

This only comprises a few verses on the topic.  Therefore, Christians are defined by their Belief in Christ - and, therefore, David’s premise is spot-on.

Re:  Why choose Anglicanism?

Well, I cannot speak for every Anglican on the planet - I can only speak for myself - but the reasons I chose to be Anglican are partly explained here:  link

However, beyond this, I attend the church that I do because they get exactly what David was saying.  At present, we have a 4 Square pastor and a Methodist one as our spiritual directors, we are overseen by the ACN, our congregation includes charismatics, former Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians and every other the branch of the Faith you can possibly imagine.  Today I will hear the Word of God spoken by the Bishop of Tanzania from the Pentacostal Church.  Next week we will be blessed by God’s Word spoken by the Bishop of AMIA.

What binds us together is NOT the version of the prayer book we use, whether our doors are red, whether the gospel is read on the right side of the church, or who preaches the sermon.  What binds us together is a love of Christ, a quest for the Truth of His Word.  We found this in the bounds of Anglicanism - true Anglicanism. 

These are the reasons I am Anglican and will fight the good fight for this branch of the Faith.

[7] Posted by Eclipse on 02-18-2007 at 10:26 AM • top

And, second, John is told that they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Its a fantastic picture, isnt it? Blood making something white when surely it does the opposite?

But we must also note that the voice used to describe the actions of the faithful is active (pluno), in that THEY are the ones who are doing the washing, rather than simply standing by as the blood pours forth and cleanses their robes.  This language really drives home the point that although the blood is only made available to us through the grace of God, we still have to be active and willing participants to ensure its efficacy.  Unlike what many ECUSA revisionists have stated (e.g., “I’m baptized into the body of Christ and therefore I cannot be excluded from full participation”) , the sacraments are not magical.  How we live our lives DOES matter and Paul echoes this when he talks about “running the race”.

[8] Posted by MikeSWFL on 02-18-2007 at 11:58 AM • top

Since Luther has been mentions - and since I am a Lutheran, I will attempt to state the Lutheran view on this.  Lutheran theology talks about the visible and the invisible church.

The invisible church is the “real Church” - all believers in Jesus Christ, all the saved, all the elect, the “communion of saints”, the Holy Catholic (Christian) Church.  It is called invisible because only God knows what is in the heart, only he knows who really believes.  Luther claims that in the Apostles Creed, the statements “Holy Catholic Church” and “the communion of saints” are actually synonyms.  This “hidden” Church has public, visible marks: Christ’s Gospel and Sacraments, purely preached and administered. (Lutherans have two sacraments - Baptism and the Lord’s Supper).

The visible church is all people who claim to be believers in Jesus Christ.  Not everyone who is in the visible church is in the invisible church, since there are hypocrites and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” in the visible church.

[9] Posted by Harry Edmon on 02-18-2007 at 01:40 PM • top

You know, when in doubt, check the book

We’ve seen the practical results of <em>sola scriptura</em>. Do the sacraments and Succession play no role in your understanding of the Bible and the Church?

Lutheran theology talks about the visible and the invisible church.

And Catholic theology, of the Church which Anglicanism claims to be a part of, does not.

[10] Posted by The Common Anglican on 02-18-2007 at 03:03 PM • top

The Common Anglican:

Yes, and not adhering to Scripture and putting tradition before it has done such much for the Christian Faith over the years… just ask B. Shori…

Scripture is the foundation upon which Church tradition is built.  You loose one and the other cannot stand on its own.  If ECUSA doesn’t prove that point w/o a doubt nothing can… I mean, seriously…

The point is the Church Universal IS built of Believers from all denominations.  What Unites this body is the Person of Christ.

[11] Posted by Eclipse on 02-18-2007 at 03:19 PM • top

<blockquote>Yes, and not adhering to scripture and putting tradition before it has done such much for the Christian Faith over the years… just ask B. Shori…</blockquote>
Mrs. Schori is not following Holy Tradition, she is abandoning it. Like the Oulds, it seems that maybe you are misunderstanding what Tradition actually is. The Scriptures are a part of this Tradition, for what did the Church use before the Bible? How is the Bible to be rightly interpreted? What about those issues (such as the Trinity) that the Bible does not address?

<blockquote>scripture is the foundation upon which Church tradition is built.  You loose one and the other cannot stand on its own.  If ECUSA doesn’t prove that point w/o a doubt nothing can… I mean, seriously…</blockquote>
Again, I don’t disagree that the Church needs the Scriptures, however the Scriptures are the written Word, whereas oral teachings held by the entire Church are also equally the Word of God, just in oral form. This is why the 7 Ecumenical Councils are necessary, for example. We must interpret the Scriptures by and through them, not the other way around. Schori is the logical end of a certain kind of sola scriptura hermeneutic, not a Catholic hermeneutic. Again, I suggest you read more about what Catholic mean by the term, “Tradition.”

The point is the Church Universal IS built of Believers from all denominations.  What Unites this body is the Person of Christ.

Then why are you Anglican if only for pretty liturgy? Why not be anything else? And who are the “Believers”? Schori will tell you she believes in Jesus to be saved. The Mormons will tell you the same thing. What about biblical unitarians? Are these all the Church universal?

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is uniquely Protestant; these beliefs were not held by anyone before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church does and has always rejected anything remotely close, as did and does the Eastern Churches. Do you ever wonder why none of the Church Fathers shared your convictions? Do you ever wonder why no Eastern Orthodox scholars ever came to similar or these exact beliefs when interpreting the Bible? Why was there no Reformation in the East, if it was so obviously true?

Why do the large majority of Christians around the world reject “faith alone” and view salvation in terms of the sacramental economy? Are we all just stuck in man-made superstition and man-made “traditions” that oppose the “true” word of God? If so, then what evidence from history can you provide to demonstrate that the Church once believed this kind of ecclesiology and interpreted the Bible this way? What theory can you provide to explain why the Eastern Churches are so sacramental and reject Protestantism, and why are there no traces of Protestantism in the East or why was there no Reformation there?

Biblical minimalism is what you are teaching, and it is false. Furthermore, it is not Anglicanism, unless you restrict the term to the latter beliefs of Cranmer and Lattimer, as David Ould does.

[12] Posted by The Common Anglican on 02-18-2007 at 03:48 PM • top

Please forgive the first couple of paragraphs, as I forgot to close my blockquote tags. I hope it is clear.

[13] Posted by The Common Anglican on 02-18-2007 at 03:51 PM • top

“The Common Anglican”- I am in complete agreement much of what you write- thanks for posting.

There was no written Christian Scripture for St. Peter or St. Paul nor was there for the apostolic Church. The Church, inspired by God, canonized Scripture. Scripture and the Sacred tradition are both required for the fullness of the Faith. And even saying both is a bit wrong since they cannot be separated. GK Chesterton writes very well about this and I’ll look for a good example- he has a brief story about a parade with priests holding statues and scrolls- I’ll look for it but if anyone else knows where it is- please post it!

I believe sola scriptura can be misleadingly dangerous.  Here’s my problem with sola scriptua- Sola Scriptura logically and necessarily leads to “sola persona” in which I, as an individual, get to decide what Scripture means. Or, if it is not me alone, then it will be me and my tiny group alone.

Another problem with sola scriptura—Scripture cannot interpret itself. As an old law professor once said, “You cannot put the statute book on the stand and ask it what it means. It must be interpreted.” The same holds true of God’s written word. Holy Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit leads to unity. Sacred Scripture requires the Sacred Tradition for there to be unity. If one thinks “sola scriptura” should be good enough then I say take a look at the millions of different Protestant understandings of what Scripture tells us, look at all the disagreements, and we can see that “Sola Scriptura” leads us to individualism and to pride. And Scripture itself tells us that pride is the besetting sin of mankind. Thus, I don’t believe it is possible to separate Scripture and the Holy Tradition because as the Common Anglican eloquently and correctly says, Scripture is the foundation of the Sacred Tradition.

I enjoy reading David Ould’s comments and articles on this website and I commend him for his thinking and writing. I believe he and I share the same faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, messiah, and savior. However, I often find Ould’s writing troubling as it reminds me that division in Anglicanism is not just between “liberals” and “conservatives.” I fear that once people realize that the litmus test for orthodoxy is NOT simply believing that practicing homosexuals ought not be ordained, then Anglicanism will face schism on other hugely important theological issues. Right now the common cause to fight secularism has made strange bedfellows of classical evangelicals, charismatic evangelicals, charismatic catholics, and catholics but I don’t see this lasting. Believing in, and working for, reunification of Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is a non-negotiable for me. And I see the three-fold ministry as a God-inspired essential. Some of my beloved classical evangelical friends and co-ministers (especially from Sydney and like-minded dioceses) don’t share my view on reunification and three-fold ministry. Indeed, many are in favor of lay presidency at the Holy Eucharist. There issues won’t go away and they may cause problems in the future.
So- thank you David for writing and please continue! And thank you The Common Anglican for writing and please continue!
Pax,
Ken+

[14] Posted by KGL+ on 02-18-2007 at 05:58 PM • top

The Common Anglican:

<b>scriptures are a part of this Tradition, for what did the Church use before the Bible? How is the Bible to be rightly interpreted? What about those issues (such as the Trinity) that the Bible does not address?</b>

How much of this do you REALLY want to go into?  There have been books and books written on this topic.  However, cut to the chase, somehow the thief on the cross was save w/o sacraments.  Don’t see a great deal of sacraments (beyond Eucharist and Baptism) in Acts.  Somehow, these people came to know Christ - somehow God counts them as part of the Church Universal - since there is no Anglicanism (or any other ism) in the NT - saying that a certain doctrine is the only Christianity doesn’t fly - it’s, once again, not consistent with Scripture.

Understand that in saying that, I believe tradition has no place or is irrevelant.  If you read the link I provided, I talked about learning and appreciating the value of both through Anglicanism.  I do believe that Tradition, Scripture and Reason each has vital role to play in our Faith.  However, one cannot Contradict the other - and Scripture is the primary reference.  If reason or tradition goes against it, then they must be laid aside, not the Word of God.  Therein lies the chief difference between the orthodox and revisionist positions.


You know as well as I do that Shori doesn’t believe she needs to be ‘saved’ at all since she doesn’t even believe in sin.  Mormons beliefs are so off the map that their version of Christ is not even the same as ours.  Don’t even go there… it is not revelant to the original topic. 

What is the topic?  Who are our true brothers and sisters in Christ?  It is those who believe Christ died for our sin, was raised, will come again.  It is those who believe in His Blood is the Remission for Sin. 

Today I heard the gospel preached, in my Anglican service, from a brother from Tanzania.  He reminded us we cannot keep Christ in the closet of our hearts but must share Him with everyone around us.  He reminded us that our mission was to spread the Gospel with our lives, ourselves, and our gifts.  He wasn’t Anglican - he was Pentacostal.  However, He had the Spirit upon his life.  Brush against people like these and you know they ‘marked as Christ’s own forever’ regardless of their liturgy or their denomination. 

I only hope that others see that mark upon my life as well.

[15] Posted by Eclipse on 02-18-2007 at 06:18 PM • top

I hereby rule that Eclipse and David Ould are correct. The rest are mired in the chains of Roman innovations.  Abp of Dixie Provence

[16] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 02-18-2007 at 11:00 PM • top

Does anyone else feel like he’s been led down a rabbit trail all these past months only to end up like this?  I guess it’s an unveiling, not a catastrophe?

[17] Posted by RoyIII on 02-18-2007 at 11:11 PM • top

RoyIII—-All we have to do is to listen to what God is telling us and not keep stubbornly following out will.  Thats the challenge.

I have not doubt that our disappointments portend great plans, just in a direction we didnt intend.  Not being yoked to Canterbury will be a blessing, I bet.

[18] Posted by Going Home on 02-18-2007 at 11:22 PM • top

Roy III - simple answer - yes.  But hang in there…after all, tomorrow’s (or today depending on your time zone) another day.  Let’s see how this meeting shakes out.

[19] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 02-18-2007 at 11:29 PM • top

KGL,

The canon was not created at Nicea. It was recieved. in fact that was the precise language used: “We recieve…” and it is important language. The church acknowledged that the books were revealed and inspired by God and therefor authoritative independent of the Church council.

In fact long before Nicea the NT canon was already essentially in place. The Muratorian fragment (about 170AD) provides an almost wholly complete list of the NT books already recognized as apostolic and therefore authoritative.

The Church did not declare the scriptures holy and infallible. The Church, submitted to them because it recognised that these things were true.

Even prior to the completion of the NT the Church was always built upon the Word of God. Reading Clement or Ignatious or any of the early fathers is like reading a compendium of OT scriptural references bound together by a sentence or two. The early proclamation of the gospel was mainly about preaching Christ through the OT. you can see this clearly in the various sermons recorded in Acts

[20] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 06:30 AM • top

Hello all,

In looking into what we actually affirm in the Apostles Creed (which, as we know, is one of the foundational doctrinal confessions affirmed in the 39 Articles) I believe it is helpful to consult the ancient commentary on the Creed by Rufinus (380 AD):
39. We come next in the order of belief to the Holy Church. We have mentioned above why the Creed does not say here, as in the preceding article, “In the Holy Church.” They, therefore, who were taught above to believe in one God, under the mystery of the Trinity, must believe this also, that there is one holy Church in which there is one faith and one baptism, in which is believed one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, and one Holy Ghost. This is that holy Church which is without spot or wrinkle. For many others have gathered together Churches, as Marcion, and Valentinus, and Ebion, and Manichæus, and Arius, and all the other heretics. But those Churches are not without spot or wrinkle of unfaithfulness. And therefore the Prophet said of them, “I hate the Church of the malignants, and I will not sit with the ungodly.” But of this Church which keeps the faith of Christ entire, hear what the Holy Spirit says in the Canticles, “My dove is one; the perfect one of her mother is one.” He then who receives this faith in the Church let him not turn aside in the Council of vanity, and let him not enter in with those who practise iniquity.

...But hold fast by the holy Church, which confesses God the Father Almighty, and His only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, and the Holy Ghost, of one concordant and harmonious substance, believes that the Son of God was born of the Virgin, suffered for man’s salvation, rose again from the dead in the same flesh in which he was born; and, lastly, hopes that He will come the Judge of all, through Whom also both the Forgiveness of Sins and the Resurrection of the Flesh are preached.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm

Of course the classic statement by St. Paul on the Holy Catholic Church is “One Lord, One faith, One Baptism.”

God Bless,

William

p.s. Clearly one of the sources of confusion for the discussions in this thread is on the issue of distinction between the visible Holy Catholic Church united on earth in the the Faith of Christ Jesus and His Holy Sacraments, and the “invisible” number of faithful (which can be divided into two groups: 1. Those who are “presently faithful”—i.e. this number includes not only those on the “Good” Ground who persevere in the end but also the “Stony” and “Weedy” Ground who are only faithful for a time and ultimately fall away (justly according to God’s Sovereign Will) and are blotted out of the Lamb’s Book of Life and receive again the ten thousand pound debt of sin on their head after partaking in God’s saving grace for a time,
2. The “invisible” number in the Church which includes only those who are the “Elect” Good Ground or “Elect” Vessels of Mercy, who by God’s grace alone persevere to the end and thus continue after this temporal life (unlike the “Stony” and “Weedy” Ground) in the communion of the saints forever)

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[21] Posted by William on 02-19-2007 at 06:51 PM • top

Matt,
The point I am making is that the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture and that part of that duty was recognizing the canon of Scripture. I mentioned Nicea within the context of Peter and Paul who were not handed Scripture in a shrink-wrapped package but rather who, inspired by God, put into writing God’s word which pointed to God’s Word- Jesus. They did this because of their authority as apostles in the Church.  The fact the the canon of Scripture was received by Nicea indicates that the Church in the Council of Nicea had the ability to receive it—Nicea used its authority in a variety of other ways, too- not the least of which was giving us the unified orthodox doctrine of Christianity- the creed.  Further, I don’t know what you mean by saying the Church recognized the authority of Scripture and submitted to it. Pope Benedict claims to be sumbitted to Scripture. Bob Duncan says he has submitted to Scripture.  Sadly, Ms. Schori says she submits to Scripture. The Councils of the Church were submitted to Scripture, but they also did not shy from carrying on their God-inspired duty as heirs of the apostles to interpret scripture and develop Church doctrine and theology which were not contrary to Scripture (their anathemas to the various heresies are good examples; as was the development of the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God at Ephesus; the arian controversy, etc.). If Scripture Alone was the guide then it would not have to be received by the Church in the first place and the Church would not have had interpret it and therein give us the creed, the trinity, and other Christian doctrines.

The deposit of the faith was entrused to the apostles. I do not claim that the Church writes Scripture, but rather that the Holy Spirit works through the Church to know what is Scripture and to interpret it.  (Althouh I suppose my claim is that God wrote Scripture through the Church by choosing apostles to be his scribes-but I haven’t thought too much about this and this idea clearly needs further thought and development).  I further claim that Scripture and the Sacred Tradition cannot be separated.

I recognize that this opinion of the Church certainly divides those of more catholic leanings from the those of more evangelical leanings in ecclesiology. 

But I’ll back up because Matt picked up on half of a sentence of a long post about the dangers of sola scripture— I would like to know where Scripture itself claims “sola scriptura” or, in other words, where Scripture says that all Christian doctrine must be in the Bible? If I am to believe that Sola Scriptura is correct then I certainly need a clear statement in Scripture where the plain meaning, without need of any interpretation, states this. Otherwise, I’m being asked to believe in sola scriptura for all things EXCEPT for theological truth statement of sola scriptura.
Pax,
Ken+

[22] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 10:20 PM • top

<blockquote> I would like to know where scripture itself claims “sola scriptura” or, in other words, where Scripture says that all Christian doctrine must be in the Bible? </blockquote>

Thanks for your detailed answer; I’ll speak to the direct question you asked. Paul, when Timothy faces the question of what truth to teach, speaks clearly:

<blockquote> 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. </blockquote>

Those words “all”, “competent”, “every” are exhaustive in nature. To put the same statement negatively “there is no good work for which Scripture will make you competent and equipped”. Or, in other words, <i> sola scriptura </i>.

[23] Posted by David Ould on 02-19-2007 at 10:31 PM • top

David,
It’s late so I’ll be short but I want to make a brief statement- I disagree with some of what I’ve seen you write but there is much about which we do agree- particularly that salvation comes from Jesus Christ, not from Anglicanism, and certainly not from Millenium Goals. Further, I’m encouraged by your faithfulness and your willingness to write.  I’ve tired of arguing with the liberal camp. So, please take my discussion as dialogue between people devoted to Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life and please don’t take any of my thougths or comments as attacks but rather as the questions and concerns of a fellow follower of Christ seeking to do His will. So…

2 Timothy 3:16 is a favorite of mine.

I think we can agree that this scripture give clear authority for the sufficiency of Scripture.
We may even agree (and I’m not sure, but I imagine we’re on the same page on this) that this scripture shows the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.
I don’t see how the plain meaning shows that all Christian teaching must come directly from Scripture.
I can see how it can be interpreted to mean that anything contrary to Scripture would be ‘bad’ since we are told what Scripture is ‘good’ for. But even this requires a bit of interpretation- which I argue is charged to the Church- the body of Christ. I really can’t see how we can read this positive statement about the nature of “all Scripture” to mean that nothing can be taught that is not explicitly stated in Scripture. And even if we did read it to mean “sola scriptura” I would propose that this requires a level of interpretation charged to the Church such that it would be logically self-defeating for the Church to use its authority in interpretation to then say it has no authority in interpretation. Just some thoughts.
But, as I said, it is late so I’ll think a bit more, read your entire post again, and I’ll come back tomorrow. Good night and God bless!
-Ken+

[24] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 11:25 PM • top

Hello eclipse,

I agree with you that those churches which lack the blessing of the Historic Episcopate/Apostolic Succession maintained in the Anglican Church but still hold to the central Apostolic Faith of the Church on Christology, the Trinity, etc should not be simply excluded from the Holy Catholic Church (in which there is “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism”)—as if the Lutheran, Methodist Church, etc were only mere Bible studies which have an invalid/false Holy Communion devoid of the Promised grace of Christ’s own Body and Blood (which vital grace the Anglican Catechism affirms to be “generally necessary for Salvation”).*

*[I would say that this is the case in our day considering that—as the “One” Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church on this earth is no longer outwardly “One” in the same degree as it was in the time of the Nicene Creed, yet it is still truly “One”—so also the One, Holy, Catholic, and “Apostolic” Church in many cases no longer has the “Apostolic Succession” of the Historic Episcopate accompanying the preservation of the far more important “Apostolic faith” as it had at the time of the Nicene Creed, yet in such cases it is still “Apostolic” (inasmuch as it holds the central “Apostolic” deposit on the Trinity, Christology, etc)].

I am certainly not denying the importance of maintaining the Historic Episcopate/Apostolic Succession (as witnessed to by the ancient fathers of the Church)—but I do not believe that we should at this time simply “un-church” all those who lack it (particularly given the even more complicated and divided nature of the entire Holy Catholic Church at the present time as I mentioned above).

You said:
“...somehow the thief on the cross was save w/o sacraments.  Don’t see a great deal of sacraments (beyond Eucharist and Baptism) in Acts.”

We affirm in the Nicene Creed that Baptism is for the remission of sins and the BCP in full accordance with this states that all infants Baptized are “undoubtedly saved” [...With the clear hope that they will later enjoy the “gift of faith” through their parents, sponsors, and Church faithfully raising/nurturing them in the faith of Christ—so that they, through personal faith in Christ, may continue and grow in the Covenanting/Cleansing Blood of Christ which they entered in Baptism. Again, the Promised grace of Christ bestowed (because of the faith of Christ on which every infant is Baptized) freely on every infant in Baptism is certainly “complete” in a manner appropriate for its age but it must later be “completed” in a more mature way through the subsequent “gift of faith” if the child is to continue at all in the blessings of their Baptism as they grow older.]

That said, Baptism is only an “ordinary” means of grace and God will certainly not deny Christ’s Blood of the Covenant to those who believe but are unable to receive the Sacrament of the Great Commission before they die (nor do we assume that God withholds mercy for the unborn and infants who die before they are able to be brought to Christ and received into His arms of Salvation in Baptism).

Note: As you are aware we do not “earn” Salvation by Baptism, prayer, Holy Communion, etc—rather they are the God-given means by which Christ freely gives and faith freely receives the Salvation which Christ alone has accomplished.

God Bless,

William

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[25] Posted by William on 02-20-2007 at 12:37 AM • top

Hello, I thought I’d weigh in some on the issue of Scripture and Tradition.

Anglican Homily on the Sacred Scripture:
And there is no truth nor doctrine necessary for our justification and everlasting salvation, but that is (or may be) drawn out of that fountain and well of truth.

And (as the great cleric and godly preacher Saint John Chrysostom said) whatever is required to salvation of man, is fully contained in the Scripture of God. He that is ignorant, may there learn and have knowledge. He that is hard hearted, and an obstinate sinner, shall there find everlasting torments (prepared of God’s justice) to make him afraid, and to mollify or soften him. He that is oppressed with misery in this world shall there find relief in the promises of everlasting life, to his great consolation and comfort. He that is wounded by the devil onto death shall find there medicine whereby he may be restored again unto health. If it shall require to teach any truth, or reprove false doctrine, to rebuke any vice, to commend any virtue, to give good counsel, to comfort or to exhort, or to do any other thing requisite for our salvation, all those things (said Saint Chrysostom ) we may learn plentifully by the Scripture. There is (said Fulgentius) abundantly enough, both for men to eat, and children to suckle.
http://www.geocities.com/curtis_caldwell/bk1hom01_mod.htm

St. Ireneaus:
<i>We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.</i>
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

When, however, they [heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.

It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm

Sounds familiar doesn’t it folks (i.e. Revisionist heretics).
Anyway, St. Ireneaus notes the Sufficiency of Scripture on one hand as a “ground and pillar of our faith” and on the other hand the historic apostolic tradition/doctrine/faith maintained by the Bishops since the time of the Apostles which of course agrees with and testifies, etc to the truth of Sacred Scripture (likewise acting, certainly, as a providential help or aid against many false interpretations of the Scripture).

Of course the Anglican position (though often fallen short of, from the 1500s onward), in agreement with the “old Catholic fathers” has always been to rely on the doctrines of Sacred Scripture held with and humbly interpreted accordance with the Tradition of the Church Catholic as Bishop Jewel famously stated:
“We have returned to the Apostles and old Catholic fathers. We have planted no new religion, but only have preserved the old that was undoubtedly founded and used by the Apostles of Christ and other holy Fathers of the Primitive Church….”
—Bishop John Jewel,
Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1562

And as the 1571 Canon 6 from the Convocation which affirmed the 39 Articles stated regarding Preachers:
...see to it that they teach nothing in the way of a sermon, which they would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this selfsame doctrine.

Finally, while 2 Tim 3:16 is certainly not a proof of “Sola Scriptura” in the anti-traditional, innovative, individualistic, etc sense generally used now—it certainly backs up the statement of St. Chrysostom used in 6th Article of the 39 Articles—namely the Sufficiency of the Scriptures for Salvation.

God Bless,

William

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[26] Posted by William on 02-20-2007 at 02:14 AM • top

William:

I’ll have to think about this and get back to you later - nicely written post, however.

I just have to get to work.

Eclipse

[27] Posted by Eclipse on 02-20-2007 at 07:38 AM • top

Dear William:

Let me see if I’m comprehending what you are trying to say:  Basically you are saying while you do believe in the ‘Universal Church’ including those who might not share our liturgy, you do see an important role for apostolic succession.  You see baptism as an ordinary means of conferring grace - but not a necessary one.  However, you see baptism as a way of conferring salvation on children before they are old enough to believe themselves.  Is that correct?

Hmm…
Well, let me perhaps clarify what I believe and see how near that is to this assessment.

Re:  Who are members of the Church Universal?

Well, I agree with your assessment.  That is, I believe that those who confess Christ with their mouth, ask to be forgiven from sin, and try to walk in new life are Christians.  We are followers of Christ - if we follow Him we must love Him if we love Him we try to do what He asks.  So, ‘real’ if you will Christians will try to follow Jesus’ words as well as say He is ‘Lord’ (I mean, so many Scriptures come to mind with this:  “If you love me keep my commandments”, “Shall we sin then, that grace abound?  God forbid!”, “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for Good works”, and “Many will come to me in the last days crying “Lord, Lord” and I will say, “Depart from me for I never knew you.”)

However, I do think that when we separate ourselves from that apostolic succession, that church tradition, that awareness of the Church Universal - as many Protestants have done - we truncate our Faith.  This is what I said in that original link I had up there - we can know God - but with the fullness He intends (and perhaps this is shades of my personal bias or experience). So, I do believe Anglicanism holds a nice ‘via media’ in the truest sense.  It is based on the Holy Scripture but values the traditions and teachings of the historic church.  I personally feel that is more in line with the reality of Christianity that God intends.

However, the beauty of Anglicanism is also that it holds a value for others in our Faith - recognizes how God uses them - respects their Faith - though we may not believe every iota.  I have great Catholic friends, know a Godly wonderful orthodox priest, number many friends from other Christian denominations.  Part of what I teach, when I teach world history, is an appreciation of these branches of Christianity - I think that is more what Christ would have us to do.

Re: Baptism

OK, now I have to part ways - respectfully with my brothers and sisters in the Anglican faith because I do not believe in infant baptism.  While I appreciate the sentiment, believe that if the parents of the infant are sincere and do as they say they are doing, that child has a Godly covering, I don’t see it as a saving grace.  As I used to say to my old priest, “The Bible says repent and be baptized, not be baptized and repent”.  Therefore, we waited for our children to accept Christ as their savior and then they were baptized.  We dedicated them to the Lord - I still sing a blessing over them each night - but I couldn’t in good conscience do the baptism thing. 

However, I have many good friends in my parish who do this, as well as a couple of priests I respect mightily, so it’s not a issue I think needs to be divisive. 

<b>scripture</b>

See, I agree.  Scripture should be the primary foundation, but it is not the sole one.  I grew up in churches where it was the only foundation and that foundation can be subverted.  I got sick to death of the phrase “God told me”  and the use of one verse to justify one’s own behavior.  The Bible must be taken as a whole - and both tradition must be built on this.  When they go askew - which they have so many times in the past, then the Bible becomes the plumb line to return things to the right course.  The Prayer Book is built on Scripture - so are the 39 Articles - Scripture lays the foundation

[28] Posted by Eclipse on 02-20-2007 at 06:55 PM • top

Hello Eclipse and sorry for the delay in responding.

Great comments, I thought I might comment on the Baptism issue though. From the stand-point of affirming the Historic Christian faith on this matter I think that the doctrine of what occurs in Baptism is even more prominent than the issue of adult versus infant Baptism. In confessing the Nicene Creed (and with it the Universal and Ancient faith of the Church) we confess that Baptism is for the remission of sins (and this is backed up by many passages of Sacred Scripture: Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38-41, 22:16; Rom 6:1-6; Col 2:11-12; Gal 3:26, 27; Eph 5:25-26; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:20-21, etc and affirmed by all of the earliest writers of the Church who speak on the matter Epistle of Ignatius 110 AD, Epistle of Barnabas 80-130 AD, Shepherd of Hermas 150 AD, Justin Martyr 150-165 AD, etc).

Although the innovative doctrine of “once saved always saved” is not necessarily connected to the issue of the grace of Baptism it is true that those who hold this doctrine are unable to affirm the Historic and Creedal faith of the Church on the issue of Baptism (not to mention the fact that the doctrine of “once saved always saved” is in direct contradiction of the Universal, Historic Christian faith—In the next post I can cover some of the Scriptural issues on this point).

Going to the issue of grace received in Baptism—an earlier post:
“The Ancient faith of the Church (including all the early Greek speaking Church) has always affirmed that the reference to water in John 3:5 refers to the literal water, that is the water of Baptism—and the BCP in accordance with the Ancient faith affirms this as well. (There are obviously good textual reasons for affirming the Universal and Ancient faith of the Church but I’ll skip this somewhat longer point for the moment).

In John 3:5 the outward water is linked very closely by our Lord with the inward grace of the Spirit. Now in adult Baptism we know that the “regenerating” work of the Spirit begins, in a certain sense, prior to Baptism by creating a faith toward God in the heart—and yet a central role of this Rebirth of the Spirit is firmly connected by our Lord and by his Apostles to the Baptismal “washing/laver of regeneration.” So in this washing of regeneration (which is also called the “washing of water by the Word” in Eph 5:25,26) the “consummation” of the rebirth which “began,” in a certain sense, with the gift of faith by the Word and the Spirit occurs in Holy Baptism by the same Word and Spirit. Thus, the “rebirth” by the Spirit which begins with the hearing and believing of the Eternal Word is consummated with the washing of water by this Eternal Word in Baptism–so that we are truly Begotten by the Eternal Word or Seed (1 Pet 1:23, James 1:18, Matt.13:1-30) in the whole turning to Christ, begun by faith in His Gospel and consummated by the Gospel Washing into His Mystical Body in Baptism.

In the case of infants, the rebirth by the Spirit is “consummated” in them in Baptism in a manner which is in accordance with their age. But as they mature this rebirth by the Spirit and the Eternal Word must be fulfilled in a mature way so that they have the “gift of faith” in their hearts, otherwise the grace of their Baptism will no longer apply to them.”

God Bless,
William

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[29] Posted by William on 02-23-2007 at 08:00 PM • top

Reading David’s work gives me hope that the Anglican Way has a good future.

[30] Posted by Alice Linsley on 02-25-2007 at 07:07 PM • top

Thank you, Mr. Ould.  The thoughts you present here need to be widely shared.

I’m afraid the “them and us” mentality of which you speak is all too prevalent throughout Christendom—especially here on the standfirminfaith website.  Ponder for a moment, what is all this talk of “enemies” and “armies” and “fighting”?  It seems to be in nearly every article and comment outside of the ones you post.  Who are all these purported enemies, anyway?  They are fellow seekers of Christ.  How do you suppose Jesus feels to hear his followers referring to each other as “enemies”?

Some among us might say “Oh, but those people over there, those LBGT’s, or those proponents of female clergy, they’re just apostates—not Christians.”  I would ask such people who they are to judge what is in the heart of another person.  If a person truly seeks a relationship with God through the salvation of Jesus, then he or she is a Christian, whether or not you find them repugnant.  If their faith truly were a sham, then why do you suppose they would bother with it or try to leave their imprint on the Church?  Why don’t they just ignore the spiritual life altogether, if, as you assert, they don’t believe in God?

It doesn’t matter how miserably a person fails to emulate Christ in his or her own life.  Every single one of us is a broken sinner.  I see only tragic irony when one of us refers to another’s actions as “abominations” and then proceeds to question a person’s faith on account of these behaviors.  The only abomination I see is that Christ’s church has been splintered into hundreds of little sects, many of which believe the tiny little meaningless details of how they live their lives or express their love for Jesus gives them the sole claim to salvation, and that the rest are on a “march to Hell”.  How many times do we need to read the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector before Christ’s message finally sinks in?

Follow Christ, and be the change you want to see in the world.

Peace be With You,
—Erik

[31] Posted by A Merry Noise on 02-27-2007 at 11:11 AM • top

Hello again Eric,

I stated in my last post that I would follow up on the issue of the innovative doctrine of “once saved always saved” (the “P” of TULIP)

The 39 Articles in the 17th Article affirm a general “Augustinian” doctrine of Election/Predestination and thus recognizes what might be called a “moderate” or “Creedal/Historic” TULIP (in affirmed accordance with the Baptismal doctrine of the Creed and the Historic and Ancient and Universal faith of the Church and thus in accordanc with the sober reality of “falling away from salvation” [which is discussed in greater detail in the Homilies])

[Note:The normal continental Calvinist “TULIP” is also in contradiction with the 1662 BCP which contains the “Majesty’s declaration” (written largely to counter a forcing of the normal “TULIP” doctrine on the 39 Articles), in addition to contradicting the intended purpose of the 39 Articles which is to be in full accordance with the Ancient and Universal faith of the Church (and TULIP is definitely (and admittedly by many) not in accordance with the Historic and Universal faith of the Church)] :

Here is a quick summary of what might be called a “moderate” Ancient/Creedal TULIP:
1. The “T” in the sense that we are utterly reliant on God’s grace for our Salvation.
2. The “U” in that it is God that first chooses us (and not because of any foreseen “merits” or “goodness” in us-which would ultimately make us the “first cause” rather than God).
3. The “L” in that Christ went to the Cross knowing that there was a certain Elect number (also referred to as the Vessels of Mercy or Elect to Glory) who by His grace would persevere to the End and thus benefit eternally from His Atonement [but unlike the un-Scriptural and un-Creedal doctrine of unmoderated Calvinism, the truth is affirmed that all who enter into Christ (normally through Baptism) receive the forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Spirit, regardless of whether they persevere to the end or ultimately reject their Lord and Savior—Thus, the Historic and Scriptural doctrine of the Church (or, “the faith delivered once to the saints”) is upheld on the reality that many ultimately “apostasize”/fall away and are therefore cut off after partaking in the saving mercies of Christ for a time)].
4. The “I” is held, not in the sense that God “saves us” against our will or free choice, but rather that inasmuch as we do not resist but freely will and do God’s Will it is because of God mercifully working effectually in us “both to will and to do His good pleasure” (Phil 2:12,13).
5. The “P” (as mentioned in #3 “L”) is affirmed inasmuch as those who are the “Vessels of Mercy”/“Elect to Glory” persevere to the end [whereas the “Vessels of Wrath” are:
(A.) those who are justly allowed by God to resist His grace and never believe (thus they are allowed to follow their own sinful will) and
(B.) those who are justly allowed by God to ultimately resist His grace and follow their own sinful will to their destruction (and therefore their “ten thousand pound” debt of sin is put back on their own head and their name is blotted out of the Lamb’s Book of Life) after having enjoyed for a time the blessings of Salvation in Christ].

God Bless.
William

p.s. In summary, the “Augustinian” doctrine of Predestination is a “moderated” view of Predestination as compared to normal Continental Calvinism—particularly on the “L” and “P” of the present TULIP-(i.e. “moderated”, as in, (a) Christ died for all men but especially for the Elect to Glory and (b) Christ will cause those Elect to Glory (Good Ground) to undoubtedly persevere to the end, although many who are not of the Elect to Glory partake with them for a time in the benefits of Salvation in Christ’s Covenant Blood and in His Body (even as many Elect to Glory partake in the condemnation of the Vessels of Wrath for a time outside of the Body and Blood of Christ)).

p.p.s. It is often supposed that if one does not hold the innovative “once saved always saved” doctrine it is impossible to have any real assurance of Salvation, and yet this is not the case (in fact the opposite can be the case—I can get into this later if need be).
Although we are to acknowledge with fear and trembling the real warnings of falling away in God’s Word, we should and can at the same time have the firm and true assurance to say with the Psalmist (Ps. 23) that we are the Good Ground who “dwell in the House of the Lord forever”—in fact, St. Peter commands us to make our calling and election sure (and thus make our status as the Elect Good Ground of perseverance sure).

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[32] Posted by William on 03-01-2007 at 01:43 AM • top

The last post was to Eclipse not Eric—sorry for the confusion

[33] Posted by William on 03-01-2007 at 01:44 AM • top

Here are a few posts from discussions on some Scripture passages in relation to the issue of the innovative doctrine of once saved always saved (and thus the innovative TULIP) versus that which is in accordance with the ancient faith of our Lord’s Church.

Previous post:
In the original Greek the word “bought” in 2 Peter 2:1 is Agorazo or bought/redeemed. In the context of spiritual redemption it is always used in the New Testament in reference to those who have received the redeeming Blood of Christ.

The other 5 places it is used in spiritual contexts in the NT are here (as redeemed/bought by the Lord):
1 Cor 6:20, 1 Cor 7:23, Rev 5:9, Rev 14:3,Rev 14:4

Going to 1 John 2:19:
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

Those who fall away utterly prove themselves to have never been of the Elect “Good Ground”—rather they show themselves to be simply “Weedy Ground” or “Stony Ground” (and thus Vessels of Wrath) who partake only for a time with the Elect “Good Ground” in the saving grace and blessings of the Covenant in Christ’s Blood (which Salvation belongs ultimately to the Elect “Good Ground” who are truly and eternally God’s People, the Vessels of Mercy who will undoubtedly persevere to the end-by God’s grace alone).

[Note: With that said, it should be noted that this passage is particularly directed toward false teachers and their seperation from the Apostles and their true doctrine (which is proven by the false teachers seperating themselves from the Apostles/true teachers)—-though the passage can certainly be applied more broadly to the issue of the “Elect” Vessels of Mercy and the Vessels of Wrath as stated above.]

[Previous post]:
Going to John 6:39, 40
John 6: 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Amen to these unbreakable Words of the Savior. It is certainly true that Christ will never lose His Elect but will infallibly cause them to persevere in the end. Likewise, it is true that all who believe in the Son will have eternal life, and yet this does not in any way contradict the fact noted in other portions of the unbreakable Word of God, that those who cease to believe (or cease from a living faith), cease to be partakers in both the present and future promises made to all who have faith (whereas both the present and future promises made to those who have faith are fulfilled in the Elect).

The Word of God cannot contradict itself, and the promise of Christ made here must be taken in the context of the other statements in the Word of God. There are many examples of definitive promises made in Scripture which would, on the surface, seem to contradict each other, whereas they are only to be understood in light of the other promises, and in this context we see how they truly apply.

An example of this:
Christ says that anyone who gives a cold glass of water to drink in His Name will not lose His reward. And yet it is understood that those who deny Christ will not receive a reward whether they have given a cold drink of water in Christ’s Name or not. Thus, Christ’s Promise remains absolutely true, as it is meant to be understood in the context of the other passages/Promises, etc in Scripture.

Another example of this::
The same God Who says “I will never leave us nor forsake you,” also gives these solemn warnings through the Eternal words of his prophets:

“The Lord is with you, while ye be with Him; and if ye seek Him, He will be found of you; but if ye forsake Him, He will forsake you.”(2 Chr 15:2)

“Why transgress ye the Commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper? Because ye have forsaken the Lord, He hath also forsaken you.”(2 Chr 24:20)
[Continued on next post]

[34] Posted by William on 03-01-2007 at 02:03 AM • top

[Continued from above]

[From a previous post]:
Both the reality of certain perseverance for some as well as the reality of apostasy from Salvation are taught in God’s Word, and if we are to fully embrace the Word of God on this issue we must embrace the “contradictory” nature of the Word on this matter in accepting that both are absolutely true:

...Going to the blessing of the Good Ground or Vessels of Mercy, and the condemnation of the Vessels of Wrath we see that both the blessing and condemnation look to their end.—-For the Vessels of Mercy may go through nearly the whole of their life in rebellion against the Lord and under the condemnation and wrath of God, yet God’s grace is strong to grant them faith and repentance through the effectual working of His Holy Spirit, and He Knows those that are His and will infallibly gather them in the end.

In contrast those Vessels of Wrath who do partake in the benefits of Christ’s Death for a time, are justly punished in the end, for in their folly their “lamps” go out, the love of God becomes cold in them (Matt 24:12) and they ultimately “turn aside unto Satan (1Tim 5:15),” having “counted the Blood of the Covenant, wherewith they were sanctified an unholy [or, common] thing (Heb 10:29).”
And as unfaithful servants they “squander” the grace, faith, and blessings of God entrusted to them, and they are, according to the perfect justice of God, cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Again, faith and perseverance are both solely the Grace of God and are a mercy which no man could ever deserve or add to( for even our “cooperation” with the grace of God is solely the result of God’s efficacious grace).

God Bless,

William

p.s. The final point: God is so Sovereign that He not only can preserve His Elect Good Ground from utterly falling away—He can also Will to justly allow the Weedy and Stony Ground to follow their own fleshly lusts and ultimately quench the Seed and Spirit of Eternal Life which they have received (and thus God justly allows the good work begun in them to [not] be continued to the day of Christ Jesus—unlike in the Good Ground).

p.p.s. Sorry Eclipse and others for the length of my comments on this point

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[35] Posted by William on 03-01-2007 at 02:05 AM • top

William:

I am so sorry, I just saw your posts here and I’m going to have to sit down and really read them in order to understand them properly.

I did read the baptism one, you and I are going to have to ‘agree to disagree’ on that principle.  I understand the idea - I just don’t square it with Scripture. 

By the by, wasn’t it Augustinee who first promoted the idea of infant baptism?  Seem to remember that from the far distant history past.

However, my computer has been down for a couple of weeks now so I’ve only been on the site off and on - and unfortunately, I’ll be gone this weekend, but I will get back to you.

Erik:

So, then, under your premise, I should not have any requirements for my son because he is my son.  I should not give him any standards to live up too because that would be ‘unloving’.  I don’t think that’s good parenting… and if God sees Himself as OUR Father, I seriously doubt He sees it as good parenting for us either.  If I give my son no limits, he’ll turn out to be a selfish, maladjusted brat incapable of interacting well with the Universe.  God can say the same about you and I - or in Paul’s words, “Shall we sin then that Grace abound?  God Forbid!”  So, yes, we are saved by Faith - but not for ourselves, but for Good Work.

William - I actually have to get beforementioned son up to the hospital to have his arm re-adjusted (he broke it a couple of weeks ago and it is not healing properly).  I’ll think about what you have written and get back to it soon.  Do pray for my son - who, actually, shares your screen name.

[36] Posted by Eclipse on 03-02-2007 at 02:29 PM • top

Eclipse, I do guide my children’s behavior and faith.  The most effective way in which I do this is through setting a good example.  Sometimes this is insufficient, and in those cases I take a firmer hand.

But at no point to I refer to my children as “enemies”, nor do I ever invoke the efforts of “armies” to do “battle” with them.  Neither did Jesus take such an approach to any of the sinners he encountered.

I also consider my children to occupy a place of deference to me and my wife by virtue of the fact that they are our children.  I do not habitually appoint myself to a similar position of moral superiority to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, although I realize that on this web site I may be in the minority in this regard.

[37] Posted by A Merry Noise on 03-02-2007 at 03:11 PM • top

Thanks for your post Eclipse,
I will be praying for your son.

God Bless,

William

[38] Posted by William on 03-03-2007 at 08:06 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.