How did I miss this video? Perhaps because of a lack of interest in what I see as the genesis of yet another "denomination" or "province" which is built on the shifting sands of man-made "traditions" and the semi-pelagian gospel of works which is no gospel at all.
If there be any doubt that the Reformed Episcopal Church has sold its birthright for a pot of stew, this video should silence all the naysayers. Take a long look at the Anglo-Catholic vestments of the cope, the mitre, the white rochet and red chimere. Also, notice that Leonard Riches is wearing a red cap called a zuchetto. These are not vestments worn by the English Reformers but by compromisers with the Tractarians, Anglo-Catholics, Laudians and various other high churchmen. The Reformed Episcopal Church has forgotten the Declaration of Principles and the Scriptures. Bishop Charles Cheney and the other founders of the REC are rolling over in their graves!
Be that as it may, God retains a remnant within the REC which has not compromised the doctrines of grace. How long they will survive under the lordship of bishops who have sold out the doctrines of grace for a gospel of merits and works remains to be seen.
This video only proves to me that I in fact did the right thing by resigning my ordination as a deacon with the REC back in 2003 or so. Any denomination which thinks that the Gospel is somehow compatible with the false gospel of good works as a means of meriting God's forgiveness through the false sacrament of penance is not a true representative of the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Any denomination or province which advocates the five false sacraments condemned in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion is indeed preaching a false gospel (see Article Twenty-Five). As my rector likes to say, natural religion is appealing to those who seek worldly approval.
May God have mercy!
[Postscript: The red chimere is never worn by any of the English Reformers who were martyred. I guess that makes them "Puritans" by papist standards.]
For more posted videos click here.
Posts
48 comments:
I've watched this numerous times. It's been at VOL for some time. The vestments issues to the side, which is an issue, exactly who believes what in the Manglican mix remains confusing to me. They talk about "three streams," e.g. charismatic, Anglo-Catholic, and evangelical. Then, one hears surprises that the AC's have rigged the ACNA Canons towards AC-theology. As if that is surprising. Riches signature to that document entitled "True Unity in Christ" (on their website) is an avowal of a Romeward-APA interpretation of the XXXIX Articles. The internal REC message has been "Anglican Unity" without serious theological discussion. I am afraid there are issues where candour is not present. Compromise is evident.
Did you count the number of bishops who dipped their fingers in the water flowing from the rock at the entrance of the church and then signed themselves with the cross? Did you note how the Africans eschewed this ritual gesture but just about all Americans signed themselves, including those who identify themselves as "evangelicals"?
Rochets and chimere are Romish innovations? Would someone please tell Abp. Cranmer to kindly have all his portraits (in which he wears those very things) burned?
And since 1662 directs us to make the sign of the cross at baptism, how *exactly* is it inappropriate to remember one's baptism by the same sign (whether accompanied with water or not)?
Are you guys Anglicans or Puritans?
Mr. Larimer, you obviously have a very high opinion of yourself since you mistakenly call yourself a "father." I have only one Father in heaven.
Secondly, you overlook the fact that Mr. Robert Duncan is an Anglo-Catholic. What in the world is a Reformed Episcopalian bishop doing at a consecration service for a heretic who preaches a false gospel of papist theology and Tractarianism?
Also, Archbishop Cranmer wore a black chimere, not a red one. And what is that beanie cap Mr. Riches is wearing?
I don't believe I mentioned anything about the sign of the cross in this piece.
Thirdly, you ignored the context where I mentioned the Anglo-Catholic vestments. These vestments are not allowed under the second year of Edward VI's reign, which is prescribed in the ornaments rubric of the Order of Morning Prayer in the 1662 BCP. The 1552 BCP specifically prohibits the vestments openly worn by Anglo-Papists.
The vestments represent the false gospel of infused righteousness as the basis of justification, i.e. salvation is merited by doing good works...
Furthermore, the papists insist on a view of the two sacraments that is clearly prohibited in the 39 Articles. And the other 5 "sacraments" are not sacraments at all but erroneous doctrines.
Evangelical Anglicans cannot accept Anglo-Catholics precisely because the two are preaching two different gospels and two different Christs. Which is the false gospel? It is the gospel taught by the Anglo-Papists.
Charlie
Mr. Larimer,
I have more in common with the Puritans than with papists, obviously. However, if I am a Puritan, then so was Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer.
I find it amusing that you think you're slamming me when you're actually paying me a compliment:)
The Puritans would not accept a prayer book at all. I do.
The problem with you and the other hypocrites is you "claim" to accept the Anglican Formularies but you so twist them out of their historical and verbal context as to make them "appear" to be supporting your papist theology. I can assure that they do not.
I should quote the late bishop, Charles Cheney of the original Reformed Episcopal Church:
But, brethren, practically, Reform and Revolution go hand in hand; and the reason for it, is one that is obvious to every man who studies the question attentively. For men's affections are very often like the ivy that clings to decayed and ruinous and dangerous walls, that need to be removed. There is no abuse of ecclesiastical prerogative so far-stretched in its assumptions--there is no claim of inherent power so monstrous in its character--there is no perversion of the Scriptures so contrary to the whole tenor of the Word of God--there is no multiplying of ceremonial so burdensome and yet so puerile--there are no traditions so utterly Godless that they make the word of God of none effect; there is no canon, or rubric, so created and moulded and directed for the very purpose of persecution, that it does not find its advocates and friends not only among those who are merely professing Christians, but even among those who are the real and true and lowly disciples of the Saviour. And hence the reformer, in the apprehension of most men, becomes a revolutionist. To many minds he who takes up the work of reform in the Church or in the State is a Vandal, laying unhallowed hands upon things that men for ages have held sacred. These errors that gradually insinuate themselves into the Church, fly to the sanctuary of prejudice deep in human hearts. Here they lay hold upon the horns of the altar and cry out piteously, "These that have turned the world upside down have come hither also."
The Reformed Episcopal Church
A Sermon Preached in Christ Church, Chicago
Sunday Evening, December 7, 1873
by the Rev. Charles Edward Cheney, D.D.
My how we have forgotten our history.
Charlie
Don't call me "mister" or "doctor" because those are Latin words for "teacher" - and Jesus said we're not to be called teachers Matt. 23:8. You can call me "father" if you like. I never demanded the title, it was given me by most (though not all) of the flock I shepherd.
Second, Duncan is not an Anglo-Catholic. No AC would ordain a woman. The chimere is a left-over of the academic dress appropriate for convocations - red was worn by D.D.s (and Riches was granted the degree h.c. by RES).
You should also be less rhetorical and more precise. Anglocatholics make up a wide berth - Anglopapalists are especially narrowly defined as those seeking union with the local ordinary of Rome in his capacity as "Patriarch of the West." An Anglocatholic is anyone who believes that the CofE was (and is) more than the religion department of Parliament. Read your history. (The sign of the cross at baptism was rejected by puritans - thus the statements. I'm a former presbyterian, and grew up AofG, so I understand something of the selective nature of your interests.)
Before you call me a hypocrite, take some time to look at my teaching rather than simply reacting to whatever you think you might have heard professed by someone else.
Mr. Larimer, I address all papists as the papists they are. Anglo-Catholics are papists and are not Protestant whatsoever.
The fact that you call yourself "father" is enough to prove you are a false prophet. No Evangelical would refer to himself as "father" even if the title is insisted upon by Anglo-Catholics.
These are not matters of adiaphora but matters of Scripture.
The fact is you don't believe the Formularies or you would not be in fellowship with the dogs who twist the Scriptures and the Formularies out of context to their own destruction.
Papists are as lost as any liberal in the Episcopal Church USA. Why? They are preaching a false gospel of works righteousness.
Read Cheney's words again. Maybe you should read the whole sermon?
Charlie
Mr. is simply a formal title of address. James Barr has adequately refuted silly etymological redefinitions of words many times over.
You should try being honest for one in your life, Larimer. Does the 9th commandment mean nothing to you?
Bearing false witness applies to lying about what the Formularies say as well as lying about the English Reformation.
Charlie
This Church condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange doctrines as contrary to God's Word;
First, That the Church of Christ exists only in one order or form of ecclesiastical polity:
Second, That Christian Ministers are "priests" in another sense than that in which all believers are "a royal priesthood:"
Third, That the Lord's Table is an altar on which the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ is offered anew to the Father:
Fourth, That the Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is a presence in the elements of the Bread and Wine:
Fifth, That Regeneration is inseparably connected with Baptism.
From the Declaration of Principles.
Welp, it is odd that you reject your own "archbishop", Larimer.
Duncan is an Anglo-Catholic and an Anglo-Papist. If he ordains women it won't be long before the AC-NA will be ordaining homosexuals. How long will it take? 10 years?
Charlie
I don't see you mention Scripture as the final rule of faith above the creeds on your blog. And to top it off you have the Lambeth Quadrilateral listed. That's about as Anglo-Catholic as you can get.
Please. You're just another papist. In other words, you're a wolf in papist clothing.
Charlie
Funny thing, Charlie, is that I've learned to disagree with people without having to demonize them. (That's the pope's prerogative - to be infallible.)
Before you label - er, decry? - me an Anglopapalist preaching works righteousness, you should listen to my sermons on Galatians.
God bless you, Charlie.
Mr. Larimer, even if you preach justification by faith only (sola fide in the Latin version of Article 11), it seems that you think that justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness is "adiaphora" since you are in full fellowship with papists who teach a false gospel.
I, on the other hand, agree with Luther that the doctrine of sola fide is the very essence of the Gospel and is non-negotiable.
Charlie
I affirm the catholic creeds as the mind of the undivided church. Neither Wittenburg, nor Geneva, nor Westminster, nor Trent have spoken with the full authority of the catholic church. Thus, I will be in communion with any who unfeignedly hold to the faith therein, even if we disagree on serious matters.
Larimer,
There is only ONE undivided church. Do you know which one it is? I'm guessing you don't.
But you've made my point for me. You don't believe in sola Scriptura or any of the other solas. Not really anyway.
You say that the doctrines of the Reformation are adiaphora. But that is not the opinion of Rome nor is the opinion of the Protestant Reformers.
You want to say that justification by faith alone is adiaphora. I say that it is the very heart of the Gospel.
The Roman Catholic Church officially condemned the Gospel in the canons of the Council of Trent. Anglo-Papists of all sorts agree with Rome.
Protestants agree with with Wittenberg, Geneva, Canterbury, Zurich, Dort, and a host of other Reformed cities of the 16th century. The Anglican Articles are Reformed and they condemn everything that the Anglo-Catholics and the High Church Carolinians stand for these days.
I have no problem with the four major creeds because they are biblical and they are part of the Reformed Confessions, including the Three Forms of Unity and the Anglican Formularies.
What I do have a problem with, however, is your claim that the visible church is undivided. What planet are you from?
The East and West divided in the 12th century. And the monophysite and nestorian controversies divided the Eastern churches even before that.
The real issue here is the basis of unity. For you reducing doctrine to nothing is your basis for unity. My basis for unity is Scripture and a proper confessional and systematic understanding of the Scriptures as the final word on all matters of doctrine and practice.
The Roman Church and the Eastern churches are in error to the point of denying the Gospel. How you can say that the universal creeds are the statement of an "undivided" church is just simply amazing.
Article XIX
Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. 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.
The visible church is not "catholic" but a local congregation. The only holy catholic and apostolic church is invisible. It is the communion of saints on earth and in heaven. Those who are elect from eternity are members of this church.
Charlie
There you are wrong, Charlie. They aren't adiaphora - that is, they aren't unimportant. They are very important - they are edifying doctrines.
But to think that one must articulate the gospel using the 16th c. standards (either from the Protestant or the Roman perspective) is an error that pushes out everybody that came beforehand. It's the same mistake the anabaptists make - "unbaptizing" everyone who was born, baptized as infants, and died before the 1500s.
You say there is one church - and you're right: the One, Holy, Catholick and Apostolick Church (see Quinque vult). But she is not limited to your congregation. She is not limited to any denomination. And she isn't limited to those who were lucky enough to have been born since the time when the Doctrines of Grace were so marvelously clarified in the 16th. century.
The Church is bigger than that. She has existed in times of greater and lesser purity. She is made up of the baptized (or those who received / desired the covenant sign). And she is loved dearly by her Lord - not because she has everything hammered down - but because she trusts Him to save her. That's the Church I'm part of - that's the Church where I serve out my priesthood. She's not an imagined construct of armchair theologians, but a real, living, breathing, and VISIBLE reality.
Chris, again you reveal yourself as a papist. The fact is that GOD elects sovereignly BEFORE creation. The elect are part of the communion of saints from all eternity. Those who have yet to be converted will be brought in at the appointed time by God Himself.
The communion of saints is an invisible church gathered around Christ in heaven. Every true believer is a part of that communion and there are many in the visible churches who falsely profess faith in Christ.
Even you have to concede this since you've disfellowshipped Katherine Schori who is in full apostolic succession by your own theology.
The ordination of homosexuals and consecration of homosexuals likewise blows your theology right out of the water. A good analogy would be the atomic and nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific. Your Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 is simply liberalism pretending to be biblical Christianity. We can see what that silliness leads to. Just take a long look around you.
You yourself reject Bob Duncan as your archbishop because he's not "Anglo-Catholic" by your own words. I guess you're an Anabaptist at that point? At least be consistent. IF the church trumps Scripture then when the church goes astray you must follow your church and your bishop, not the Scriptures.
However, IF the Scriptures are the final word, then follow Scripture when everyone else is apostate. God always has a remnant of believers who are committed to the Holy Scriptures as THE final Word of God on everything.
Sorry, but justification by faith alone is not just an important doctrine, it is the GOSPEL. It has always been preached throughout the history of the church. Not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord..." is preaching the Gospel. Those who preach works are really "lawless" and they are lawless because they "think" they are doing what God commands but they are really preaching a false gospel of merits and works as a means of justifying themselves. That is as "lawless" as any antinomian. They are simply fooling themselves.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' (Matthew 7:21-23 ESV)
So what kind of "doing" is Jesus talking about? It is hearing His words and doing what He says, not trying to make your own way by doing your own good works. It is trusting in Him to save you and being founded on the Rock, Jesus Christ Himself. He alone can save you. Call upon Him for mercy!
For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:8-11 ESV)
Chris,
The standard for "articulating" the Gospel has been the same standard since Christ ascended into heaven. It is adhering to the doctrines taught by Christ and His apostles. Those doctrines can only be known through the infallible, inerrant record of those apostolic doctrines. What record do I speak of? It is Holy Scripture.
There has always been a remnant of true Gospel preachers throughout the history of salvation. While many have gone astray into heresy, God always preserves His elect.
And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. (Genesis 45:5 ESV)
The remnant of the trees of his forest will be so few that a child can write them down. 20 In that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more lean on him who struck them, but will lean on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. 22 For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness. (Isaiah 10:19-22 ESV)
In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. (Isaiah 11:11 ESV)
And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." 29 And as Isaiah predicted, "If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah." 30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." (Romans 9:27-33 ESV)
And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. (Genesis 45:7 ESV)
Charlie,
I see you were AofG at one time. Are you reasoning in tongues? Because honestly, I see you striving manfully against arguments I've never made and taking Kierkegaardian leaps to reach your conclusions.
I affirm the five solas and teach TULIP. I affirm the 39 Articles as received in 1801 (though I don't think it against them to reserve some of the sacrament for home communions). I preach the doctrines of grace. I don't know what romanizing bogeyman you're after, but if you're aiming at me you missed.
I'm not willing to excommunicate someone simply because they don't hold to those doctrines, however. While they are to be taught - admonished if in authority or teaching contrariwise - they are still members of the church catholic by their baptism and profession of the catholic faith of the creeds. I don't believe that Christ sent countless people to perdition between 1200 and 1517. The Canons of Orange lay out a sufficient statement of the Gospel - and it eludes me to this day why they weren't front & center in the controversies of the 16th century.
I say that Abp. Duncan isn't an AngloCatholic because he would never identify himself that way, and most any AngloCatholic would not identify him as one either. We disagree on the ordination of women, and while I don't believe it to be a second-order issue I believe that I can work together with him in the federation that is now the ACNA because it expressly protects my position.
I don't believe that apostolic succession is transmitted to women, as they were not canonically ordained and they are not in catholic order (i.e., not recognized by most of the church around the world or even by most of the Anglican Communion). Article XXVI means that I don't categorically deny that homosexuals can minister effectively (so long as they do teach the catholic faith).
Let me ask you a question: what saves? God's election or our understanding thereof? How right must we be before men to be right with God?
Larimer, you again expose yourself as a false prophet. Let me ask you what the biblical standard is for the Gospel? Galatians 1:6-10 clearly draws the line. What is more the Roman Catholic Church officially excommunicated the Eastern Orthodox Church AND the Protestants.
There is only ONE Gospel, Chris, and those who preach a false gospel and another Christ are not Christians. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4.
Now that applies to the prosperity preachers, to Word of Faith, oneness pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, AND to papists and the Eastern Orthodox who preach ANOTHER Jesus and ANOTHER gospel. The Bible says we are to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).
Since the RCC, EOC AND the Protestants have all excommunicated each other your silly "unity" is simply an illusion.
The current situation in the Anglican communion is just another indication of this.
I would say that your view is simply an endorsement of the antichristian elements and not of the true Gospel at all.
I hope you repent of your works before it is too late.
Charlie
What I confess now is nothing like what I was in the A/G. I left the A/G because I found out that they do not really believe the Bible is the final word anymore than you do.
Sola Scriptura!
++Sola Fide++
Charlie, it's pretty frustrating talking to someone who makes all sorts of outlandish and unjustifiable assumptions - and who consistently refuses to respond to anything I say. I'll give it one more go, then turn my attention to my duties. (BTW, I notice you mention you're a bivocational minister: May I ask what jurisdiction you're under?)
The biblical standard for the gospel can't be drilled down to one or two verses. The gospel is a mission. As St. Paul puts it: "18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
I am seeking to be part of that church which has One canon of Holy Scripture in the Two Testaments, as taught in the Three Creeds of Western Christendom, as clarified by the Four Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, as practiced during the first Five centuries of the ancient Church. The excommunications you speak of happened after Trent (or - in the case of East & West, 1054). That's why we must push back towards the unity we once shared, recognize our unity there, then press forward with the consent of the whole church (to whom the Spirit is given for leading to all truth) so that we might discern the Lord's will and declare the fullness of the truth. (Not making an idol out of one part of true doctrine - elevating it to such an extent that it falsifies other true doctrine.)
You may want to be part of an increasingly fragmented group unable to affirm visible unity with those who didn't live between 1559 and 1689, but I want to live and die in the catholic faith as it was preserved in England by my forebears. That includes seeking visible unity with other baptized Trinitarian Christians, making the invisible visible.
Larimer, the fact is you just ignored my assertion that the Evangelical Gospel is the same Gospel preached by Jesus and Paul and those who followed them. Augustine, though imperfect, followed them.
Your attack on the Gospel as not appearing until 1689 is just absurd:)
I must have pushed a button or something.
The fact remains that you desire to be a part of the one synagogue of Satan while I want to be a part of the invisible church of the elect. A visible church that is a true church is a local congregation that rightly preaches the Gospel and rightly administers the sacraments. You and your heretical friends are neither preaching the Gospel nor administering the sacraments rightly. Therefore, you are part of a demonic denomination which is no less heretical than any cult.
Any local church on earth that gets the Gospel right and the sacraments right is part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is the true church that will be gathered to Christ Himself in heaven.
Your false church in the here and now is nothing more than facade of self-deceived Pharisees. Your theology is the same theology that always leads to the ordination of women and homosexuals because your authority is based on your own delusional authority from below.
The only true authority is Holy Scripture.
Charlie
Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church? A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible. (WLC 1:61 WCS)
What shall be done to the wicked at the day of judgment? A. At the day of judgment, the wicked shall be set on Christ's left hand, and, upon clear evidence, and full conviction of their own consciences, shall have the fearful but just sentence of condemnation pronounced against them; and thereupon shall be cast out from the favourable presence of God, and the glorious fellowship with Christ, his saints, and all his holy angels, into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torments, both of body and soul, with the devil and his angels for ever. (WLC 1:89 WCS)
Chris, the ONLY basis for unity is Scripture, the five solas of the Reformation, the five points of Calvinism, and a solid confessional and systematic theology drawn from the Scriptures. Unless and until you and your fellow heretics repent of your works righteousness you will continue to perpetuate divisions in the body of Christ. You are the divisive and heretical one who seeks to divide Evangelicals from your false church. But we don't want to be part of your synagogue of satan.
Sorry.
Charlie
Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's last words:
And now I come to the great thing that troubleth my conscience more than any other thing that ever I said or did in my life: and that is, the setting abroad of writings contrary to the truth. Which here now I renounce and refuse, as things written with my hand contrary to the truth which I thought in my heart, and writ for fear of death, and to save my life, if it might be: and that is, all such bills, which I have written or signed with mine own hand, since my degradation; wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended in writing contrary to my heart, therefore my hand shall first be punished. For if I may come to the fire, it shall be first burned. And as for the Pope, I refuse him, as Christ's enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine."
I love how all the "true" Anglicans defend themselves using the Westminster Standards instead of the Prayerbook or Catechism or Articles or Catholic Creeds or other Anglican standards.
I was a Presbyterian. I preach the same gospel now that I preached under those standards. My churchmanship has changed, I'll admit. But not my soteriology. If you define churches as independent congregations ([snark]wow - congregationalism! what an authentically Anglican ideal![/snark]) where the gospel is preached and the sacraments administered according to our Lord's command, then I ask you to listen to my sermons online and choose based on them (rather than anything you infer from those with whom I am associated) as to whether or not we are a true church.
I also notice that you've said nothing about whom you're affiliated with (on earth, at least) or what authority you are under (on earth). Are you just a "Reformed Baptist" who found the prayer book?
Larimer,
I don't need to hear your sermons. You have convicted yourself over and over here in the comments. You "claim" to preach the doctrines of grace, yet you affirm the Anglo-Catholic doctrines of apostolic succession, papist unity through a papist view of catholicity that denies the very Gospel itself. How can you claim to preach the Gospel while at the same time affirming a false gospel and those who preach that false gospel.
Your logic is twisted!
What does Cranmer have to say about it? Let's see:
But the Romish Antichrist, to deface this great benefit of Christ, hath
taught that his sacrifice upon the cross is not sufficient hereunto, without
another sacrifice devised by him, and made by the priest, or else without
indulgences, beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and other such pelfry, to supply
Christ’s imperfection: and that Christian people cannot apply to themselves
the benefits of Christ’s passion, but that the same is in the distribution of
the Bishop of Rome, or else that by Christ we have no full remission, but
be delivered only from sin, and yet remaineth temporal pain in Purgatory
due for the same, to be remitted after this life by the Romish Antichrist and
his ministers, who take it upon them to do for us that thing which Christ
either would not or could not do. O heinous blasphemy and most
detestable injury against Christ! O wicked abomination in the temple of
God! O pride intolerable of Antichrist, and most manifest token of the son
of perdition, extolling himself above God, and with Lucifer exalting his
seat and power above the throne of God! For he that taketh upon him to
supply that thing, which he pretendeth to be unperfect in Christ, must
needs make himself above Christ, and so very Antichrist. For what is this
else, but to be against Christ, and to bring him into contempt, as one that either for lack of charity would not, or for lack of power he could not, with
all his bloodletting and death, clearly deliver his faithful, and give them full
remission of their sins, but that the full perfection thereof must be had at
the hands of Antichrist of Rome and his ministers!
What man of knowledge and zeal to God’s honour can with dry eyes see
this injury to Christ, and look upon the state of religion brought in by the
papists, perceiving the true sense of God’s word subverted by false glosses
of man’s devising, the true Christian religion turned into certain
hypocritical and superstitious sects, ( the various orders of monks and
priests), the people praying with their mouths and hearing with their ears
they wist not what, and so ignorant in God’s word, that they could not
discern hypocrisy and superstition from true and sincere religion?
Quoted from CRANMER'S DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER IN ITS GOSPEL CONTEXT, by Roger du Barry.
Regarding my affiliation with a local church body, what is that to you? There are many true churches which rightly and truly preach the Gospel and duly administer the sacraments. Every true congregation on earth is part of the spiritual unity of the invisible communion of saints and the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. Belonging to a national church that is basically a synagogue of satan headed by false prophets who secretly want to push homosexual ministers and bishops is something you think is worthy of my attention?
The AC-NA is no better since it is as liberal theologically as the body from which it recently divided. David Virtue is already supporting the transexuals: David Virtue Goes Transexual
The silly part is you want to claim to be on my side but really your allegiance is with the dissimulators and deceivers with whom you are in "undivided unity" by your own words. You have thereby divided yourself from the truth and sided with the judaizers and magicians. (Galatians 2:11-16)
If you must know, until recently I was part of an Anglican congregation in Casselberry, Florida. The pastor there is David Paul Knox, son of the late David Broughton Knox.
At present I'm planning to join either the local Presbyterian Church in America or the local Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) because the only Episcopal congregation here is liberal. I have recently moved from Casselberry to Wauchula.
But in case it has escaped you, God is sovereign over geographical locations, our gender of birth, and even the time and place of our birth. These are trivial matters in God's over all plan for the elect.
I know you meant it as a slam but it is really a compliment. Just as God was with Elijah when he fled for his life, so God is with every single one of his elect and not a hair can fall from their head without His permission and His divine decree.
But then, if you were truly a believer in the sovereignty of God you would know this. Know this as well, reprobation is in God's hands as well. He sends strong delusion to false prophets and seals them in their own unbelief. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)
May God grant you the grace to repent before it is too late, Larimer. You can no more be in communion with antichrists in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Anglo-Papist Communion than you could justly and duly attend a satanic mass at the local convention of satanists.
Charlie
++Solus Christus++ ++Sola Scriptura++ ++Sola Fide++ ++Sola Gratia++ ++Soli Deo Gloria++
Larimer said:
I don't believe that apostolic succession is transmitted to women, as they were not canonically ordained and they are not in catholic order (i.e., not recognized by most of the church around the world or even by most of the Anglican Communion). Article XXVI means that I don't categorically deny that homosexuals can minister effectively (so long as they do teach the catholic faith).
Well, more of your pick and choose theology. Women are in apostolic succession according to your "archbishop." Obey your bishop, dang it!
And I thought you were conservative? Now you're saying that it is possible for a homosexual to preach the catholic faith while at the same time openly preaching immorality and bragging about it openly? Give me a BREAK!
This really shows how stupid you are, Chris. Yes, I used the pejorative, "Stupid." As Forrest Gump puts it, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Article XXVI had to do with the Donatist controversy. Those receiving the sacraments under ministers who rejected their faith publicly under persecution did not have to doubt the legitimacy of their conversion.
The same applies to a minister caught in a moral scandal. If the person is rightly preaching the Gospel and properly administering the 2 sacraments, then and only then does Article 26 apply. It does not apply to those openly apostate ministers you seem to be endorsing!
Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord! (2 Corinthians 6:17).
Larimer said, Are you just a "Reformed Baptist" who found the prayer book?
Are you a theonomist or a federal visionist who finally realized he wasn't really a Presbyterian after all?
I might add that I was ordained as a deacon with the Reformed Episcopal Church for almost 2 years. I resigned in protest around 2003 after it became clear that they were set to merge with the Anglican Province in America. That never happened because it became unnecessary. They found a more beautiful whore to lie with: The AC-NA.
You're the most righteous Anglican I know. I am so glad to have discovered that we are saved by our knowledge of Reformed distinctives rather than Christ and his work for us.
Now I'm gonna go see if I can gay it up and ordain a woman since you so marvelously outed me. (But I hope the pope doesn't find out, since I obviously am courting him.)
OKay..that was mean. But seriously, you're one of the best shadow boxers I know. I truly hope you one day find someone that believes all the things you say they believe so your arguments will at least have a legitimate context.
Larimer,
Yes, well, you should try reading Cranmer, Ridley or Latimer for a change:)
I'm WAYYY less outrageous than the so-called "conservative" and "orthodox" Anglo-Catholics you claim are "Christians." Cranmer called them antichrists and preachers of false religion. So I'm consistent with Cranmer. Burn me at the stake:) BIG GRIN.
By the way, MY RIGHTEOUSNESS is a LEGAL righteousness imputed and declared to me by legal decree. I'm not really righteous in and of myself. Sanctification is always imperfect and infused. Righteousness is imputed and objective. You would know that if you were really a Protestant:) (Romans 4:4-5)
You cannot even decide if you're Reformed or if you are a Tractarian, or some other divisive offshoot of the papist version of a false gospel.
Go figure.
I'm really not surprised, though:
Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:11-13 KJV)
Charlie
Larimer, your assertion that folks are saved by my Reformed distinctives is amusing. There is only one Gospel. You like all liberals want to have several compatible versions of the one Gospel so that everyone goes to heaven--even if they preach false gospels like good works merit something.
Charlie
But why is salvation attributed to faith above the others? Why does Paul use this link out of the chain? I reply, because that is best known to us. For each one questions and examines conscience according to Peter's word. If it rightly replies, i. e., if with full assurance he thinks correctly of God, he has now the surest seal of eternal salvation. For who has faith is called, who is called is predestined, who is predestined is elected, who is elected is foreordained. But God's election remains firm. Therefore they who have faith are justified. For this is justification, piety, religion and service of the Most High God.
Zwingli on Faith and Eternal Election
The short answer is right belief shows one is eternally elect. Election is not apart from faith as Zwingli clearly shows. False belief shows one of two things: 1) The person is reprobate. 2) The person is elect but unconverted or temporarily in error until he be called to conversion or repentance.
Be assured that he who believes has been elected by the Father and predestined and called. He believes therefore because he has been elected and predestined to eternal salvation, and he who believeth not has been repudiated by the free election of God. And here is disclosed to us the power of the keys, so far as they were given to the apostles. When one says that he believes, the apostle promises him: If thou believest from thy heart, be it sure to thee that thou art called, predestined and elected to eternal salvation. Therefore this man of ours is absolved and justified, about which we have spoken above. But when the apostle sees that there is no faith in those that hear, he is sure that they are rejected. Zwingli on Eternal Election
CARM: Canons of the Council of Trent
Thanks for proving what bad Anglicans ++Riches and I are by quoting . . . Zwingli?
Pure doctrine can be one of many signs that someone is elect. But I've met plenty of people who are right in their doctrine but wrong in their life and attitudes. The sure sign of election is the deposit of the Holy Spirit working out sanctifying grace in a person's life. To see the evidence of the Spirit, look for His fruit (Gal. 5).
While any rightly catechized person can spout the correct answers, only a Spirit-led person can actually live their implications out.
Larimer,
Only a someone who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit will know the truth and speak the truth. Those who lie and preach false doctrine are still in need of regeneration no matter how they "appear" in their demeanor. Even the devil and his angels can appear as "angels of light."
And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. (2 Corinthians 11:12-15 ESV)
The fact that you despise the Reformers shows that your sympathies are with the false prophets and the papists. I stand with Scripture and with the Protestant Reformers. I might add that the founders of the Reformed Episcopal Church would have agree with me and not with you. :)
You are of your "father" the devil, Larimer.
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. (John 8:44-45 ESV)
Despise the Reformers? I don't canonize them, but I don't despise them. (Unless you're talking about Zwingli...not that I drink to his death like that Martin Luther fellow.)
Charlie - I don't get it. I believe the same things you do about how God saves people. I hold to the same confessional standards (and love the WCF, too). But the fact that I'm willing to be graciously accepting of Christians so long as they hold to the bare bones of the gospel as reflected in the creeds makes me your enemy?
If that's all you were about in the REC, I can say "good riddance." My side of this conversation is over. Calumn at will.
Larimer, you're not advocating the "bare bones" of the Gospel. That is spelled out in Articles 9-18 in the 39 Articles. What you are advocating is essentially theological liberalism. You want to mix oil with water, which is impossible. The Gospel does not allow for Tractarianism. The Tractarians are heretics who preach a false gospel of infused righteousness, idolatrous veneration of the saints, bread and wine, etc. et. al. ad nauseum.
You don't believe the same thing I do at all. If you did there is no possible way you could be in fellowship at the same table with devils and demons masquerading as "angels of light."
You sir, are a false prophet who seeks to endorse the work of satan.
Charlie
As for the REC, I am quite happy to identify it as an apostate denomination which preaches false doctrine and idolatry.
I would advise anyone I know not to join any REC congregation unless it is in protest against the REC bishops and the direction the REC is going. Those congregations are few and far between, although I do know of a few individuals in the REC who are opposed to the current state of apostasy of the REC.
Charlie
Zwingli was one of the inspirations for Cranmer's theology of the Lord's Supper via Bullinger. But you wouldn't know that since your interests and sympathies lie with the papists rather than with the Reformers.
I don't canonize any man. The only canon that matters is Scripture.
Charlie
Martin Luther: For it is the nature of hypocrites that they are good in appearance, speak kindly to you, pretend to be humble, patient and charitable, give alms, etc.; and yet, all the while they plan slaughter in their hearts.
Luther's Commentary on Genesis 4:8
The fact is, Larimer, your statements only prove that Biblical Christianity and your Tractarian compromise is totally and absolutely incompatible. Bishop Charles Cheney said the same thing:
To-night in this congregation there are many who will listen to the subject on which I have been announced to speak with a very different spirit from that in which Paul was greeted by the congregation of Jews at Rome. For fourteen years they have upheld every effort of their pastor to bring about a reform in the Protestant Episcopal Church. To such, this is the dawn for which they have watched with eagerness through a long night of persecution, and trial and bitter disappointment. On the other hand, there may be some here that only know in regard to this subject just what St. Paul's hearers knew in reference to the Gospel. They only know that the religious press has thundered forth its anathemas against us. They only know that the pulpit of the Episcopal Church has resounded with denunciations of our course. They only know that the proclamation of Protestant Bishops has been given to the world, declaring that null and void and utterly without effect, is everything that may be done by this band of "schismatics," who have allied themselves together, as they claim, "against the Church." Of such I have only one thing to ask, and that is as patient and candid a hearing as the circumstances will permit.
The Reformed Episcopal Church
The modern REC has forsaken it's founding ministers and have instead joined forces with the persecutors who preach a false gospel. What more can I say?
If I had known this was the course of the modern REC do you think I would have submitted to ordination as a deacon? NO!
I stand with the Scriptures against all who promote the errors of the Tractarians.
Charlie
Post a Comment