Dave Hodges said...
"[I]n fact, the Anglo-Catholic tradition, the Roman Catholic tradition, and the Eastern Orthodox tradition are all preaching another gospel and another Christ from the gospel and the Christ that Paul preached."And that's precisely what Arians, Sabellians, Marcionites, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, Petrobruscans, Docetists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the Moonies would say. Everybody claims that those who disagree with them are preaching a "different Gospel".
Any Gospel that denies the 5 solas is a false Gospel because it is precisely in Scripture that we learn who Christ is. The Anglo-Catholics are out of apostolic succession because their holy orders are invalid. Repent and return to Rome!
The Catholics think the evangelical Protestants are teaching a different Gospel because they deny St. James II:xxiv. <<<<
The Council of Trent condemned Luther precisely because his teachings did not conform to Holy Writ. So we ask ourselves, what did St. Paul preach? <<<<< href="http://www.xanga.com/MysteriumFidei/494806080/item.html" rel="nofollow">A short post on the "essentials" of salvation.
12:35 PM, June 19, 2006
<<<<<< It seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are just another schism. Most Anglo-Catholics are not even in communion with Canterbury and are therefore no better than the "schisms" you mentioned:) Furthermore, even if you are in communion with Canterbury, there are schisms within the Anglican Communion itself. Do you consecrate homosexual priests? Ordain women and practicing homosexuals to the priesthood and consecrate them to the office of bishop? Does apostolic succession include false doctrine like infused righteousness, denying the physical/bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, and universal salvation?
And as I mentioned above, even Canterbury has invalid holy orders since the first Protestant Archbishop was improperly consecrated. There was only one ordained bishop there and the other two were not valid bishops. So it appears that Anglicans are just another schism from Rome and no better than Luther who inspired them.
John Henry Newman converted to Rome, which is the logical conclusion of his position. I think to be consistent Anglo-Catholics should convert to Roman Catholicism. After all, they have invalid holy orders and they are not even consistent with the Protestant doctrines of the Articles of Religion. The Articles of Religion forbid invoking the saints, transubstantiation, and a host of other doctrines that are "repugnant to Scripture." You can't have it both ways. Either remain faithful to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion as they are plainly written, or return to Rome. It is dishonest to re-interpret the Articles to fit with preconceived doctrines that are hostile to the original intent of the Articles. There is no way to avoid this.
While I have some sympathies with you regarding the fragmented nature of the visible church as it exists in the Protestant world, I note that this is not limited to Protestants. There are divisions between Rome and the East and a host of other traditions that predate the Protestant Reformation. Schism is sometimes good in case of heresy, which the ecumenical councils were careful to denounce in their quest to define what apostolic and Scriptural religion was.
I myself am in sympathy with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. This group has noted that Evangelicals for the most part are ignorant of the "catholic" nature of the original Reformers and they are ignorant of their own confessions of the faith. However, in my journey with Christ, I came to appreciate the "catholic" nature of the original Reformers and that is precisely why I became an Evangelical/Protestant/Reformed Anglican. My definition of Reformed Anglican is Calvinistic/Protestant and Reformed. These overtones of compromise with Rome that Anglo-Catholics advocate are anathema to the Gospel and to the Anglican and Reformed and catholic faith. Perhaps you should go and read the sermons of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and Hooker again? Read the first six homilies again. These express what "Reformed" Anglicanism IS. 19th century Tractarianism is NOT what the Protestant and Anglican Church became in the 16th century. If you disagree with the Protestant Anglicans, then go become a Roman Catholic. But don't expect Protestants to stand by idly while you make shipwreck of the faith.
Posts
6 comments:
My remarks are inside the arrows).
Dave said in another comment on his page:
Vangelicmonk,
Nobody denies that we are justified by faith. It is the surruptitious use of the word alone to which the Church objects, primarily because the Sacred Scriptures know nothing of such a concept, as the proof texts above show. One cannot say that St. John III:xvi proves that faith alone justifies when Our Lord said several verses earlier that one must be born of water and the Holy Ghost to enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Nobody denies salvation by grace through faith. But that is not what the Protestants have limited themselves to saying. They add the word alone which St. James explicitly denies in his catholic epistle (cf. St. James II).
>>>>>This is just ambiguous doublespeak. I have already answered this question in my post on good works. The only way the Anglo-Catholics can justify their position is to create a strawman antinomian charge against the Protestant position. This is totally false and ignores the distinction between justification and sanctification that Richard Hookd and all the Reformers made. The issue is whether righteousness is infused or imputed? Hooker said that justification is perfect and imputed while sanctification is inherent and imperfect. Therefore, I can only conclude that Dave is totally ignorant of the Anglican and Protestant faith that he "claims" he is part of.<<<<<<
I am aware of the Jehovah's Witnesses as rejecting the Nicene Creed, but they would likely accept the Apostes' Creed.
>>>>So what? You're ignoring that at the time of the Apostles Creed the church was not dealing with Arianism yet. Does that mean that the 2nd or 3rd century Church would have approved of Arianism? I think not! Jehovah's Witnesses are heretics because they espouse doctrines that contradict Holy Scripture and apostolic doctrine. This cannot be said of the vast majority of Protestants. Protestants are for the most part faithful to the catholic tradition as it was understood by the Reformers. We could exclude the Anabaptists here.<<<<<<
Many evangelicals would not accept the Nicene Creed either, though for different reasons. And Mormons do accept the Apostles' Creed and affirm the deity of Christ - only they teach that he is a different God from the Father. I am very well read on the Mormonites and the followers of Charles Taze Russell, actually.
>>>>>>If you are aware of these things, why would you persist in using non sequitur as a fallacious argument against Reformed Christianity? Your integrity and credibility are severely lacking here. It does not follow that because there are heretics and cults that might accept certain interpretations of the creeds that Protestants are therefore heretics or that Protestants and cults are related to one another. If that's your logic, the Anglo-Catholics would be on the same level as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as well since Anglo-Catholics are schismatics without holy orders or a valid apostolic succession, etc.<<<<<
Your argument of Anglo-Catholic Schizophrenia is untrue. Dave Hodges is NOT and Anglo Catholic. Dave is a Roman Catholic. I do not expect to see one, but a posted retraction is in order I think.
It's irrelevant whether Dave is Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic. The same argument applies. Roman Catholicism has officially condemned the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is precisely because Rome has wrongly asserted papal supremacy that the East departed from the communion. It is precisely because medieval mistranslations of Scripture and false human traditions crept into the church that the Protestant Reformers called for a return to the original languages of the Holy Scriptures and more accurate translations of the Bible. It is because Rome had it wrong many times over that there were two major schisms in church history in the first place: The Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. Go figure.
I agree that the same argument applies to RC's as you say. But Dave's affiliation IS rellevant because you claim he belongs to a group that he does not belong to and you base your schizophrenia charge on his views.
You wrote, "Therefore, I can only conclude that Dave is totally ignorant of the Anglican and Protestant faith that he 'claims' he is part of."
Point of fact, he is not a part of an Anglican body and it is not fair to misguide readers that he is such when he is not.
It was an honest mistake since you posted his remarks on your Anglo-Catholic blog. Besides, Rome is as fragmented as any Protestant church. Internal dissension is rampant.
Charlie, I agree that Rome is fragmented. RC's conveniently put themselves forward as a unified body when they want to argue that protestants are fragmented, and yet the vast majority of catholics do not submit to the orders of Rome. Just take the artificial birth-control issue. The birth-control pharmaceutical companies would be out of business if RC's started following papal instruction on this. I'll believe Rome is a unified body when I see a majority of American Roman catholic churches doing more than frying fish and hosting picnics.
Post a Comment