What's Wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer? by Robin Jordan

"The 1928 Prayer Book was adopted at the time the Anglo-Catholic and Broad Church movements were the dominant schools of thought in the Protestant Episcopal Church and the book reflects their doctrinal emphases."

[The following article is used by permission from The Heritage Anglican Network, by Robin Jordan, a Reformed Anglican and a free lance writer who lives in Kentucky.]

What's Wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer?

By Robin G. Jordan

Introduction

In this article I seek to answer from a Reformed perspective the question, "What's wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer?" Classical Anglican Evangelicalism had disappeared from the Protestant Episcopal Church by 1900. The 1928 Prayer Book was adopted at the time the Anglo-Catholic and Broad Church movements were the dominant schools of thought in the Protestant Episcopal Church and the book reflects their doctrinal emphases. At the 1925 General Convention Anglo-Catholics and Broad Churchmen united to remove the Thirty-Nine Articles from the American Prayer Book. They adopted a resolution dropping the Articles from the Prayer Book. However, they were thwarted by the denomination's Constitution that required an amendment of the Constitution to abolish the Articles. The resolution, which required the ratification of a successive General Convention, was quietly dropped at the 1928 General Convention.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer was the first major revision of the American Prayer Book. It goes far toward undoing the work that was accomplished for the Anglican Church at the Reformation. Many things rejected by the sixteenth century Reformers because of their inconsistency with biblical and Reformation doctrine, are introduced into the Prayer Book.

Morning and Evening Prayer

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer dilutes the American Prayer Book's doctrine of sin. The ten penitential sentences that had survived the 1892 revision of the American Prayer Book are reduced to three each in Morning and Evening Prayer and placed under the season of Lent. This eliminates an important evangelistic element from Morning and Evening Prayer. Samuel Luenberger draws to our attention:

"The text of our sentences are so compiled that they let one discern for himself the way to overcome sin through repentance. The following texts from the twelve quotations occupy a particularly important position: Ezekiel 18:27; Psalm 51:3.9, and 17; Joe; 2:13, etc.

"The very first quotation from Ezekiel 18 shows the way to prevail over sin:

"When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive." [1]

In its use of Sentences for the Seasons the 1928 Book of Common Prayer imitates the 1928 English Revised Book of Common Prayer and the 1929 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, both which are much more Catholic in tone than 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

The Evangelicals in the Church of England and the British Parliament rejected the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book because it modified the doctrine of the Church of England, and replaced the biblical-Reformation theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with unreformed Catholic doctrine. The upper house of Convocation would defy Parliament and authorized its use in Dioceses where the Ordinary consented to its use. The Scottish Episcopal Church has historically been more High Church and Catholic than the Church of England, preserving such customs as the wearing of eucharistic vestments during the Communion Service and the elevation of the consecrated host during the Prayer of Consecration. The 1929 Scottish Prayer of Consecration included an Epiclesis invoking the Holy Spirit upon the bread and the wine so that the eucharistic elements should "become" the Body and Blood of Christ. Like the 1928 Prayer of Consecration, the 1929 Scottish Prayer of Consecration is derived from the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration.

The 1928 Prayer Book permits the substitution of a short Invitation for the Exhortation in Morning and Evening Prayer with its view of man "in a strictly evangelical-Reformation way as one who wishes to disguise his sinfulness and lives with a propensity for avoiding God." [2]

A short Absolution taken from the medieval Sarum breviary may be used in lieu of Cranmer's fuller Absolution. This short Absolution, as well as a simplified Confession, is offered as an alternative at both Morning and Evening Prayer in the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book. As we shall see, the short Absolution is one of number of features that the 1928 Prayer Book shares with these books.

The 1928 Prayer Book permits the omission of the first Lord's Prayer or the second Lord's Prayer at Morning Prayer. In the 1552 Prayer Book the first Lord's Prayer forms a part of a sequence that begins with the penitential sentences. Cranmer's Absolution does not make sense if the first Lord's Prayer is omitted. The 1928 Prayer Book permits the omission of the Exhortation, the Confession, the Absolution, and the first Lord's Prayer at Evening Prayer. This represents a significant departure from the Reformed form of Evening Prayer of the 1552 Prayer Book and a return to the unreformed Catholic form of the medieval Sarum breviary and the 1549 Prayer Book.

Invitatories for optional use in the form of medieval Antiphons are prefixed to the Venite. Cranmer had omitted Invitatories from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer because they were interpolated between the successive verses of the Venite and other passages of Scripture and broke the continual course of the reading of the Scripture. (See The Preface in the 1552 Prayer Book). With the Sentences for the Seasons that replace the penitential sentences, they give further emphasis to the Seasons. In the 1928 Prayer Book observance of the Church Year overshadows repentance at Morning and Evening Prayer. This is just one of a number of ways that the 1928 Prayer Book minimizes the gravity of sin.

The Holy Communion

The revised Order for the Holy Communion includes elements that quite definitely bring it into line with the medieval Roman Mass. Among the changes that 1928 Prayer Book introduced are the following:

1. The opening rubrics of the 1928 Order for Holy Communion direct the priest to stand before the Holy Table, his back turned to the congregation. This is how the priest stood at the medieval Roman Mass. This position, commonly referred to as the "eastward position," is associated with the unreformed Catholic and Roman doctrinal views that presbyters are a sacrificing priesthood and the Mass is a sacrifice.

2. The rubrics direct the priest to offer the bread and wine and then place them upon the Holy Table at the Offertory. An offering of the bread and wine during the Prayer of Consecration had already been incorporated into the American Prayer Book with the adoption of the Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration in 1789. The two offerings of the bread and wine, one at the Offertory and the other during the Canon or Prayer of Consecration are taken from the medieval Roman Mass and are associated with the doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation.

3. The Prayer for the State of Christ's Church contains a petition for the departed. This is also a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book.

4. After the Sursum Corda the rubrics direct the priest to "turn to the Holy Table" with his back turned to the congregation—the eastward position associated with the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

5. The 1928 Prayer of Consecrations closely follows the pattern of the medieval Roman Canon, except the latter has no Epiclesis.

6. The theology of the 1928 Prayer of Consecration represents a modification of the theology of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration. 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office was the work of two elderly Scottish Non-Juror bishops. They were the last of the surviving Usagers, a Scottish Non-Juror church party that taught that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. They believed that Christ had not offered himself as an atoning sacrifice for our redemption on the cross but at the Last Supper. He had only been slain on the cross.

"The Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. Our Lord instituted the Sacrifice of the Eucharist when He began to offer Himself for the sins of all men, i.e. immediately after eating His Last Passover. He did not offer the Sacrifice upon the Cross; it was slain there but was offered at the Institution of the Eucharist." [3]

Bishop Thomas Deacon in his Comprehensive View describes a proper celebration of the Eucharist from this standpoint. The priest, he writes

"does as Christ did…he next repeats our Saviour's powerful words "This is my Body," "This is my Blood" over the Bread and Cup. The effect of the words is that the Bread and Cup are made authoritative Representations or symbols of Christ's crucified Body and of His Blood shed; and in consequence they are in acapacity of being offered to God as the great Christian Sacrifice….God accepts the Sacrifice and returns it to us again to feast upon, in order that we may be thereby partakers of all the benefits of our Saviour's Death and Passion. The Bread and Cup become capable of conferring these benefits on the priest praying to God the Father to send the Holy' Spirit upon them. The Bread and Cup are thereby made the Spiritual, Life-giving Body and Blood of Christ, in Power and Virtue." [4]

The theology of the 1928 Prayer of Consecration is far removed from the Reformed theology of the 1552 and 1662 Prayers of Consecration or even the theology of the 1549 Canon. In the latter prayer the Epiclesis precedes the Words of Institution and there is no Oblation, or offering of the bread and wine.

6. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration contains an invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine that, as both Martin Bucer and Stephen Gardiner drew to Cranmer's attention, suggest that the bread and wine undergo some kind of change other than a change in use. For this reason and the following reason the invocation of the Holy Spirit was dropped by Cranmer from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. An invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine is a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book.

7. Bucer also objected to the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects. There was no warrant for the practice in the Bible. It also represented a departure from Biblical practice. In the Bible the Holy Spirit is invoked only upon people. The Holy Spirit also descends only upon people. Now where do we find in Scripture the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects.

The blessing of Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and 1 Corinthians 10:16 refers to the Jewish practice of blessing God over a cup of wine as a form of thanksgiving and not to the blessing of the wine itself. This is clear from Luke 22:17-20:

"And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you."

And 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

"For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come."

It is not an example of Jesus pronouncing God's blessing upon an inanimate object—a cup of wine.

In the 1552 Communion Service in the prayer, "Almighty God oure heavenly father, whiche of thy tender mecye…," the priest humbly asks God that those receiving the bread and wine may be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood. In the 1552 Baptismal Office in the prayer, "Almightie euerliving God, whose most dearely beloued sonne Jesus Christ…," the priest humbly asks God that all his servants who are to be baptized in the water, may receive the fullness of his grace and ever remain in the number of his faithful and elect children. There is no invocation of the Holy Spirit or God's blessing upon the bread and wine or the water in the font.

8. Nowhere in Scripture do we read that Jesus commanded the disciples to celebrate and make a memorial before God with the bread and wine or to offer them to God. Jesus instructed the disciples to eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of him. He said nothing about celebrating and making a memorial before God as if God needed to be reminded of what he had done. Paul speaks of proclaiming Christ's death with the bread and the cup until he comes again. But he is not speaking of proclaiming to God but to our fellow men.

9. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration contains the words: "…with these thy gifts, which we now offer unto thee…." It also contains the words: "And though we be unworthy to offer unto Thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech Thee to accept this our bounden duty and service." The Reformers rejected the doctrine that the priest offers a sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. Cranmer therefore removed from the 1552 Prayer Book all expressions that taught a presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, and all expressions that implied the offering of them as a sacrifice. For this reason Cranmer removed the word "Altar," and all words in the Prayer of Consecration relating to any offering of a sacrifice by the priest. The Reformers also discarded eucharistic vestments such as the chasuble.

10. The rubrical permission to sing a hymn immediately before the distribution of the Communion permits the singing of the Agnes Dei. Coming where it does, it suggests a presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine as a result of the words of Consecration, and for this reason it was removed by Cranmer from the 1552 Prayer Book. This suggestion is further strengthened by the placement of the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access immediately before the distribution of the Communion. For the same reason they were moved by Cranmer to different positions in the 1552 Prayer Book, the Lord's Prayer to a position immediately after the distribution of the Communion and the Prayer of Humble Access to a position immediately after the Sanctus.

Baptism

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer also changes the baptismal theology of the American Prayer Book.

1. The opening sentence of the Exhortation of the Baptismal Office "forasmuch as all men are born and conceived in sin" has been omitted.

2. The 1928 Prayer Book drops the Flood Prayer that had been in the Book of Common Prayer since the 1549 Prayer Book and in the American Prayer Book since 1789. The Flood Prayer teaches that God has "sanctified the element of water to the mystical washing away of sin" through Our Lord's baptism in the River Jordan. For this reason the form for the private baptism of infants in the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books does not contain a blessing of the water used in baptism.

One cannot make even the slightest alteration in a text without affecting the doctrine of the text. Dropping the Flood Prayer that stresses God's sanctification of the element of water for the purpose of baptism is as serious an alteration of doctrine in the 1928 Prayer Book as the addition of prayers for the departed.

3. The biblical language of the Prayer for the Baptismal Candidate has been watered down.

4. The 1928 Prayer Book recasts the prayer "Almighty, everliving God, whose most dearly beloved Son, etc…" along the lines of the Prayer of Consecration in the service of Holy Communion. This recasting emphasizes the priestly blessing of the water in the font. This is also a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book.

The rubrics of 1928 Prayer Book do permit private baptism even by a baptized layperson in cases of dire emergency without a blessing of the water since its omission would have gone against Catholic tradition but its inclusion does not counterbalance the recasting of "Almighty, everliving God, whose most dearly beloved Son, etc…".

5. The signing of the newly baptized with the cross upon the forehead, a practice that Evangelicals view as without warrant in the Bible, to which they have long objected, and which was optional in the 1892 Office of Baptism, is made mandatory.

6. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer gives liturgical expression to the unreformed Catholic doctrine that a bishop in a line of succession going back to the apostles, through the imposition of hands, has the power to confer upon an ordinand in turn the power to convert the substance of the eucharistic elements into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ (Transubstantiation) and to impart to the element of water the power to regenerate the human soul (Baptismal Regeneration).

The Thirty-Nine Articles rejects the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are sharply divided over the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. The Privy Council, the highest judicial authority for the Church of England at the time, ruled against Bishop Henry Philpotts and the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration in the Gorham decision in 1850. The Privy Council ruled that Baptismal Regeneration was not a doctrine of the Church of England and Bishop Philpotts should not have denied a living to George Gorham in the Diocese of Exeter because Gorham did not believe that the grace of regeneration invariably accompanied the act of baptism.

Baptismal Regeneration was one of the latent Catholic doctrines in the 1789 Book of Common Prayer that, with the growth and increased influence of Tractarianism in the then Protestant Episcopal Church, prompted Bishop George David Cummins and conservative Evangelical clergy and laypersons to leave the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1873 and to form the Reformed Episcopal Church.

The Catechism

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer replaces the Prayer Book Catechism with two Offices of Instruction. The Second Office articulates a view of Confirmation, which has no real basis in the Bible and is not found in the Reformed Prayer Book of 1552, the classical Anglican Prayer Book of 1662, or the first two American Prayer Books of 1789 and 1892. It is a sacramental view of Confirmation that differs from the catechetical view of Confirmation that was held by the English Reformers and is given liturgical expression in these four Prayer Books. It is also a view of Confirmation over which Anglicans are sharply divided.

Confirmation

The 1928 Prayer Book omits the preface to the Office of Confirmation that was a feature of the 1662, 1789, and 1892 Offices of Confirmation and which emphasizes the catechetical nature of Confirmation. The presentation of the candidates for Confirmation to the bishop is modeled upon that of the presentation of candidates for ordination. The 1928 Prayer Book includes Acts 8 as an optional reading. This particular reading and what it means is the subject of much heated debate.

Burial of the Dead

The biblical language of the Burial Office has been diluted. The Burial Office includes a number of prayers for the departed.

Ordination

In the Ordinal there is a significant change in the form of the question put to the deacon concerning the Bible. Instead of being asked, "Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments?" the candidate is asked "Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contains all Doctrine required as necessary for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?" The candidate is no longer required to affirm a blanket belief in the teachings of the Bible.

Consecration of a Church or Chapel

In the Form for the Consecration of a Church or Chapel any reference to God's anger or wrath has been expunged

Conclusion

From a Reformed perspective the 1928 Book of Common Prayer suffers from a number of serious theological defects. This rules out the use of the 1928 Prayer Book in public worship in an Anglican church that is Reformed in its doctrine. If prayers and liturgical material are used from the 1928 Prayer Book, great care should be taken to see that their doctrine conforms with the biblical-Reformation doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal.

Anglicans have long recognized how we pray reflects and shapes what we believe. What good does it do to preach one thing when the liturgy that we are using and the worship practices that we have adopted teach another? Both our preaching and our liturgy and worship practices need to convey the same message.

Endnotes:

[1] Samuel Leuenberger, Archbishop Cranmer's Immortal Bequest The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England: An Evangelistic Liturgy, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990) 152.
[2] Leuenberger, 153.
[3]Henry Broxap, The Late Non-Jurors, "Appendix II Non Juror Doctrine and Ceremonies" (Cambridge 1928), 1, appendix on the Internet at: http://anglicanhistory.org/nonjurors/broxapapp2.pdf

[4] Broxap, 1-2.

The Third Sunday after Trinity.

The Collect.

O LORD, we beseech thee mercifully to hear us; and grant that we, to whom though hast given an hearty desire to pray, may by thy mighty aid be defended and comforted in all dangers and adversities; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

It's OK to be Heterosexual

http://www.turn2god.org/Home_Page.html

The Third Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
O LORD, we beseech thee mercifully to hear us; and grant that we, to whom though hast given an hearty desire to pray, may by thy mighty aid be defended and comforted in all dangers and adversities; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

George Whitefield's Sermon on Justification

[The following guest sermon is presented by the Calvinist Anglican, the Reverend George Whitefield. Mr. Whitefield is not ashamed to point out that our justification by faith alone is the teaching of divine revelation in Holy Scripture. How can modern Anglicans neglect so great salvation purchased for us in Jesus Christ? How can Evangelicals abandon the very Gospel itself in order to be in communion with those who promote self righteousness and salvation by works rather than the imputed righteousness of Christ?]

Of Justification by Christ.

A Sermon

by

Rev. George Whitefield

"But ye are justified." 1 Corinthians vi. 11

The whole verse is: "And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God."

It has been objected by some, who dissent from, nay, I may add, by others also, who actually are friends to the present ecclesiastical establishment, that the ministers of the Church of England preach themselves, and not Christ Jesus the Lord; that they entertain their people with lectures of mere morality, without declaring to them the glad tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ. How well grounded such an objection may be, is not my business to inquire. All I shall say at present to the point is, that whenever such a grand objection is urged against the whole body of the clergy in general, every honest minister of Jesus Christ should do his utmost to cut off all manner of occasion, from those who desire an occasion to take offence at us; that so by hearing us continually sounding forth the Word of truth, and declaring with all boldness and assurance of faith, "that there is no other name given under heaven, whereby they can be saved, but that of Jesus Christ," they may be ashamed of this their same confident boasting against us.

It was an eye to this objection, joined with the agreeableness and delightfulness of the subject—for who can but delight to talk of that which the blessed angels desire to look into?—that induces me to discourse a little on that great and fundamental article of our faith, namely, our being freely justified by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. "But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God."

The words beginning with the particle "but", have plainly a reference to something before. It may not therefore be improper, before I descend to particulars, to consider the words as they stand in relation to the context. The apostle, in the verses immediately foregoing, had been reckoning up many notorious sins,—drunkenness, adultery, fornication, and such like, the commission of which, without a true and hearty repentance, he tells the Corinthians, would entirely shut them out of the kingdom of God. But then, lest they should, on the one hand, grow spiritually proud by seeing themselves differ from their unconverted brethren, and therefore be tempted to set them at nought, and say with the self conceited hypocrite in the prophet, "Come not nigh me, for I am holier than thou;" or, on the other hand, by looking back on the multitude of their past offences, should be apt to think their sins were too many and grievous to be forgiven, he first, in order to keep them humble, reminds them of their sad state before conversion, telling them in plain terms, "such (or as it might be read, these things) were some of you." Not only one, but all that sad catalogue of vices I have been drawing up, some of you were once guilty of; but then, at the same time, to preserve them from despair, behold he brings them glad tidings of great joy: "But ye are washed; but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God."

The former part of this text, our being sanctified, I have in some measure treated of already. I would not enlarge on our being freely justified by the precious obedience and death of Jesus Christ: "But ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

From which words I shall consider three things:

FIRST, What is meant by the word justified.

SECONDLY, I shall endeavour to prove that all mankind in general and every individual person in particular, stands in need of being justified.

THIRDLY, That there is no possibility of obtaining this justification, which we so much want, but by the all perfect obedience, and precious death of Jesus Christ.

FIRST, I am to consider what is meant by the word justified.

"But ye are justified," says the apostle, which is, as though he had said, you have your sins forgiven, and are looked upon by God as though you never had offended Him at all, for that is the meaning of the word justified, in almost all the passages of Holy Scripture where this word is mentioned. Thus, when this same apostle writes to the Romans, he tells them that "whom God called, those he also justified." And that this word justified implies a blotting out of all our transgressions is manifest from what follows,—"them he also glorified," which could not be if a justified person was not looked upon by God, as though he never had offended Him at all. And again, speaking of Abraham's faith, he tells them, that "Abraham believed on Him that justifies the ungodly," who acquits and clears the ungodly man; for it is a law term, and alludes to a judge acquitting an accused criminal of the thing laid to his charge. Which expression the apostle himself explains by a quotation out of the Psalms: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin." From all which proofs, and many others that might be urged, it is evident, that by being justified we are to understand, being so acquitted in the sight of God, as to be looked upon as though we never had offended Him at all. And in this sense we are to understand that article, which we profess to believe in our creed, when each of us declare in his own person, I believe the forgiveness of sins.

This leads me to the SECOND thing proposed, to prove that all mankind in general and every individual person in particular, stands in need of being justified.

And indeed the apostle supposes this in the words of the text: "But ye are justified," thereby implying that the Corinthians (and consequently all mankind, there being no difference, as will be shown hereafter) stood in need of being justified.

But not to rest in bare suppositions, in my farther enlargement on this head, I shall endeavour to prove, that we all stand in need of being justified on account of the sin of our natures, and the sin of our lives.

FIRST, I affirm that we all stand in need of being justified, on account of the sin of our natures: for we are all chargeable with original sin, or the sin of our first parents. Which, though a proposition that may be denied by a self-justifying infidel, who "will not come to Christ that he may have life", yet can never be denied by anyone who believes that St. Paul's epistles were written by divine inspiration; where we are told, that "in Adam all died;" that is, Adam's sin was imputed to all; and lest we should forget to make a particular application, it is added in another place, "that there is none that doeth good (that is, by nature) no, not one. That we are all gone out of the way, (of original righteousness) and are by nature the children of wrath." And even David, who was a man after God's own heart, and, if any one could, might surely plead an exemption from this universal corruption, yet he confesses, that "he was shapen in iniquity, and that in sin did his mother conceive him." And, to mention but one text more, as immediately applicable to the present purpose, St. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, says, that "Death came upon all men, for the disobedience of one, namely, of Adam, even upon those, (that is, little children) who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression;" who had not been guilty of actual sin, and therefore could not be punished with temporal death, (which came into the world, as this same apostle elsewhere informs us, only by sin), had not the disobedience of our first parents been imputed to them. So that what has been said in this point seems to be excellently summed up in that article of our church, where she declares that "Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, but it is the fault and corruption of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit. Original Sin therefore in every person born into this world deserveth God's wrath and damnation."

I have been more particular in treating of this point, because it is the very foundation of the Christian religion. For I am verily persuaded, that it is nothing but a want of being well grounded in the doctrine of original sin, and of the helpless, nay, I may say, damnable condition, each of us comes into the world, that makes so many infidels oppose this truth, and so many who call themselves Christians, so very lukewarm in their love and affections to Jesus Christ. It is this, and I could almost say this only, that makes infidelity abound among us so much as it does. For, alas! we are mistaken if we imagine that men now commence or continue infidels, and set up corrupted reason in opposition to divine revelation merely for want of evidence, (for I believe it might easily be proved, that a modern unbeliever is the most credulous creature living;) no, it is only for want of an humble mind, of a sense of their original depravity, and a willingness to own themselves so depraved, that makes them obstinately shut their eyes against the Light of the glorious Gospel of Christ. Whereas, on the contrary, were they but once pricked to the heart with a due and lively sense of their natural corruption and liableness to condemnation, we should have them no more scoffing at divine revelation, and looking on it as an idle tale. They would cry out with the trembling jailer, "What shall I do to be saved?" It was an error in this fundamental point that made so many resist the evidence the Son of God himself gave of His divine mission, when he tabernacled amongst us. Every word He spake, every action He did, every miracle he wrought, proved that he came from God. And why then did so many harden their hearts, and would not believe His report? Why, He Himself informs us, "They will not come unto me that they may have life:" They will obstinately stand out against those means God had appointed for their salvation. And St. Paul tells us, "that if the gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the eyes of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine upon them." 2 Cor. iv. 3 4.

If it be asked, how it suits with the divine goodness, to impute the guilt of one man's sin, to an innocent posterity? I should think it sufficient to make use of the apostle's words: "Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?" But to come to a more direct reply—persons would do well to consider that in the first covenant God made with man, Adam acted as a public person, as the common representative of all mankind, and consequently we must stand or fall with him. Had he continued in his obedience, and not eaten the forbidden fruit, the benefits of that obedience would doubtless have been imputed to us. But since he did not persist in it, but broke the covenant made with him, and us in him, who dares charge the righteous Judge of all the earth with injustice for imputing that to us also?

I proceed, SECONDLY, to prove that we stand in need of being justified, on account of the sin of our lives.

That God, as He made man, has a right to demand his obedience, I suppose is a truth no one will deny: that he hath also given us both a natural and a written law, whereby we are to be judged, cannot be questioned by any one who believes St. Paul's epistle to the Romans to be of divine authority. For in it we are told of a law written in the heart, and a law given by Moses; and that each of us hath broken these laws, is too evident from our sad and frequent experience. Accordingly the Holy Scriptures inform us that "there is no man which liveth and sinneth not;" that "in many things we offend all;" that "if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves," and such like. And if we are thus offenders against God, it follows, that we stand in need of forgiveness for thus offending Him, unless we suppose God to enact laws, and at the same time not care whether they are obeyed or no, which is as absurd as to suppose that a prince should establish laws for the proper government of his country, and yet let every violator of them come off with impunity. But God has not dealt so foolishly with His creatures. No, as he gave us a law, He demands our obedience to that law, and has obliged us universally and perseveringly to obey it, under no less a penalty than incurring His curse and eternal death for every breach of it. For thus speaks the Scripture; "Cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the law to do them;" as the scripture also speaketh in another place, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Now it has already been proved, that we have all of us sinned, and therefore, unless some means can be found to satisfy God's justice, we must perish eternally.

Let us then stand a while, and see in what a deplorable condition each of us comes into the world, and still continues, till we are translated into a state of grace. For surely nothing can well be supposed more deplorable, than to be born under the curse of God; to be charged with original guilt; and not only so, but to be convicted as actual breakers of God's law, the least breach of which justly deserves eternal damnation. Surely this can be but a melancholy prospect to view ourselves in, and must put us upon contriving some means whereby we may satisfy and appease our offended judge. But what must those means be? Shall we repent? Alas! there is not one word of repentance mentioned in the first covenant: "The day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." So that, if God be true, unless there be some way found out to satisfy divine justice, we must perish; and there is no room left for us to expect a change of mind in God, though we should seek it with tears. Well then, if repentance will not do, shall we plead the law of works? Alas! "By the law shall no man living be justified: for by the law comes the knowledge of sin." It is that which convicts and condemns, and therefore can by no means justify us; and "all our righteousnesses (says the prophet) are but as filthy rags." Wherewith then shall we come before the Lord, and bow down before the most high God? Shall we come before Him with calves of a year old, with thousands of rams, or ten thousands of rivers of oil? Alas! God has showed thee, O man, that this will not avail. For he hath declared, "I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goat out of thy fold: for all the beasts of the forests are mine, and so are the cattle upon a thousand hills." Will the Lord then be pleased to accept our first born for our transgression, the fruit of our bodies for the sin of our souls? Even this will not purchase our pardon: for he hath declared that "the children shall not bear the iniquities of their parents." Besides, they are sinners, and therefore, being under the same condemnation, equally stand in need of forgiveness with ourselves. They are impure, and will the Lord accept the blind and lame for sacrifice? Shall some angel then, or archangel, undertake to fulfil the covenant which we have broken, and make atonement for us? Alas! they are only creatures, though creatures of the highest order and therefore are obliged to obey God as well as we; and after they have done all, must say they have done no more than what was their duty to do. And supposing it was possible for them to die, yet how could the death of a finite creature satisfy an infinitely offended justice? O wretched men that we are! Who shall deliver us? I thank God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Which naturally leads me to the THIRD thing proposed, which was to endeavour to prove, that there is no possibility of obtaining this justification, which we so much want, but by the all perfect obedience and precious death of Jesus Christ, "But ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

But this having been in some measure proved by what has been said under the foregoing head, wherein I have shown that neither our repentance, righteousness, nor sacrifice, no not the obedience and death of angels, themselves, could possibly procure justification for us, nothing remains for me to do under this head, but to show that Jesus Christ has procured it for us.

And here I shall still have recourse "to the law and to the testimony." For after all the most subtle disputations on either side, nothing but the lively oracles of God can give us any satisfaction in this momentous point. It being such an inconceivable mystery, that the eternal only begotten Son of God should die for sinful man, that we durst not have presumed so much as to have thought of it, had not God revealed it in His holy word. It is true, reason may show us the wound, but revelation only can lead us to the means of our cure. And though the method God has been pleased to take to make us happy may be to the infidel a stumbling block, and to the wise opiniator and disputer of this world, foolishness; yet wisdom, that is, the dispensation of our redemption, will be justified, approved of, and submitted to, by all her truly wise and holy children, by every sincere and upright Christian.

But to come more directly to the point before us. Two things, as was before observed, we wanted, in order to be at peace with God.

1. To be freed from the guilt of the sin of our nature.

2. From the sin of our lives.

And both these (thanks be to God for this unspeakable gift) are secured to believers by the obedience and death of Jesus Christ. For what says the scripture?

1. As to the FIRST, it informs us, "as by the disobedience of one man, (or by one transgression, namely, that of Adam) many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, Jesus Christ (therein including His passive as well as active obedience) many were made righteous." And again, "As by the disobedience of one man, judgment came upon all men unto condemnation;" or all men were condemned on having Adam's sin imputed to them; "so by the obedience of one, that is, Jesus Christ, the free gift of pardon and peace came upon all men, (all sorts of men) unto justification of life." I say all sorts of men; for the apostle in this chapter is only drawing a parallel between the first and second Adam in this respect, that they acted both as representatives; and as the posterity of Adam had his sin imputed to them, so those for whom Christ died, and whose representative he is, shall have His merits imputed to them also. Whoever run the parallel farther, in order to prove universal redemption, whatever arguments they may draw for the proof of it from other passages of scripture, if they would draw one from this for that purpose, I think they stretch their line of interpretation beyond the limits of Scripture.

2. Pardon for the sin of our lives was another thing, which we wanted to have secured to us, before we could be at peace with God.

And this the Holy Scriptures inform us, is abundantly done by the death of Jesus Christ. The evangelical prophet foretold that the promised Redeemer should be "wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of our peace should be upon him; and that by His stripes we should be healed," Isaiah liii. 6. The angels at His birth said, that he should "save his people from their sins." And St. Paul declares that "this is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners." And here in the words of the text, "Such (or, as I observed before, these things) were some of you; but ye are washed, &c." and again, "Jesus Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." And, to show us that none but Jesus Christ can do all this, the apostle St. Peter says, "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, but the name of Jesus Christ."

How God will be pleased to deal with the Gentiles, who yet sit in darkness and under the shadow of death, and upon whom the sun of righteousness never yet arose, is not for us to inquire. "What have we to do to judge those that are without?" To God's mercy let us recommend them, and wait for a solution of this and every other difficult point, till the great day of accounts, when all God's dispensations, both of providence and grace, will be fully cleared up by methods to us, as yet unknown, because not revealed. However, this we know, that the judge of all the earth will, most assuredly, do right.

But it is time for me to draw a conclusion.

I have now, brethren, by the blessings of God, discoursed on the words of the text in the method I proposed. Many useful inferences might be drawn from what has been delivered; but as I have detained you, I fear, too long already, permit me only to make a reflection or two on what has been said, and I have done.

If then we are freely justified by the death and obedience of Jesus Christ, let us here pause a while; and as before we have reflected on the misery of a fallen soul, let us now turn aside and see the happiness of the believing soul. But alas! how am I lost to think that God the Father, when we were in a state of enmity and rebellion against Him, should notwithstanding yearn in His bowels towards us His fallen, His apostate creatures. And because nothing but an infinite ransom could satisfy an infinitely offended justice, that should send His only and dear Son Jesus Christ (who is God, blessed for ever, and who had lain in His bosom from all eternity) to fulfil the covenant of works, and die a cursed, painful, ignominious death, for us and for our salvation! who can avoid crying out, at the consideration of His mystery of godliness? "Oh the depth of the riches of God's love" to us His wretched, miserable and undone creatures! "How unsearchable is his mercy, and his ways past finding out!" Now know we of a truth, O God, that thou hast loved us, "since thou hast not withheld thy Son, thine only Son Jesus Christ," from thus doing and dying for us.

But as we admire the Father sending, let us likewise humbly and thankfully adore the Son coming, when sent to die for man. But O! what thoughts can conceive, what words express the infinite greatness of that unparalleled love, which engaged the Son of God to come down from the mansions of His Father's glory to obey and die for sinful man! The Jews, when he only shed a tear at poor Lazarus' funeral, said, "Behold how he loved him." How much more justly then may we cry out, Behold how he loved us! When he not only fulfilled the whole moral law, but did not spare to shed His own most precious blood for us.

And can any poor truly convicted sinner, after this, despair of mercy? What, can they see their Saviour hanging on a tree, with arms stretched out ready to embrace them, and yet, on their truly believing on Him, doubt of finding acceptance with Him? No, away with all such dishonourable, desponding thoughts. Look on His hands, bored with pins of iron; look on His side, pierced with a cruel spear, to let loose the sluices of His blood, and open a fountain for sin, and for all uncleanness; and then despair of mercy if you can! No, only believe in Him, and then, though you have crucified Him afresh, yet will He abundantly pardon you; "though your sins be as scarlet, yet shall they be as wool; though deeper than crimson, yet shall they be whiter than snow."

The Third Sunday after Trinity. The Collect. O LORD, we beseech thee mercifully to hear us; and grant that we, to whom though hast given an hearty desire to pray, may by thy mighty aid be defended and comforted in all dangers and adversities; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Elephant in the Tent Comments

[The following is an e-mail response to a bishop of a continuing Anglican denomination which purports to be Evangelical and Reformed. I have removed the name to protect anonymity.]

----- Original Message -----

From: Charlie J. Ray

To:

Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 10:09 AM

Subject: Re: The Elephant in the Tent

Hi, _________

Pentecostalism is indeed a serious error. In fact, it developed out of the Wesleyan-Holiness movement, which is itself Arminian. Arminianism pretends to believe the supernatural but instead places the central focus on man's "free will." Sound familiar? In essence, Arminianism is a return to semi-pelagianism. Thus, Arminians and Pentecostals have no problem integrating with Anglo-Catholicism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Pentecostalism is not a more powerful enemy of the Gospel. It is merely another facet of the same attack. The enemy comes against God's church like a flood from every direction but God will raise a banner against it.

Likewise, the church growth movement is a spiritual stepchild of Pentecostalism. It focuses on techniques, business management, advertising, and popular music rather than right liturgy, right doctrine, and Holy Scripture. This is why I have a problem with so-called "seeker sensitive" theology. Many so-called "Reformed" churches are really using Arminian approaches because of a pragmatic focus rather than focusing on theological precision and Scriptural authority.

Pentecostalism and Anglo-Catholicism are compatible precisely because both focus on man's ability rather than God's sovereignty. Truly Reformed Anglicanism is incompatible with Anglo-Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Arminianism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism.

While there is no perfect church either locally or universally, we must always be about the business of reforming the church. If your desire as a bishop is the Gospel rather than numerical success and growth, then I believe God will bless your efforts. The Gospel requires a commitment to doctrinal purity rather than ecumenical tolerance. There is a tension between communion and purity but at some point the commitment to doctrinal purity has to win over tolerance.

"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1-3, KJV)

The rector at my own church seems to be Reformed as far as I can tell. The problem is his theology is often imprecise, which he thinks is great and I think is sloppy. As I have contended many times, the only basis for fellowship are the five solas of the Reformation and a confessional commitment of some sort so that we know precisely and exactly where a church stands on the issues.

There are those who have criticized me for belonging to a local church which is "officially" part of The Episcopal Church. However, since I cannot find even one Anglican Mission in America church or any other Anglican denomination or local church in my area which is Reformed at all, then I have settled on what is less than perfect. At least the rector is a product of the Sydney Anglicans, which is a Calvinistic and Reformed diocese. Likewise, the vestry here has agreed to allow me to teach an adult Sunday school class where I will systematically teach the doctrines of grace from the Scriptures and go through the 39 Articles showing how they were derived from the Scriptures.

I no longer take the Pentecostal view of success which is pragmatic results in numerical growth, wealth, and popularity. My measure of success is Scriptural growth and the maturity of God's people. One man plants, another waters, but God gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:5-10). If I can reach just one person with the doctrines of grace and that one person truly understands the Gospel of grace, then I view that as a success.

Arminianism and its Pentecostal stepchild are both departures from the Protestant and English Reformation because the English and Continental reformations were Augustinian, not Arminian or Semi-Pelagian to any degree. Salvation is all of grace from beginning to end and the 39 Articles uphold that scriptural doctrine. Arminianism is in fact directly contradicted in Article 17.

Since I spent at least ten years in the Pentecostal movement, you're preaching to the choir here. I already know that Pentecostalism is a false religion. They pretend that man's free will enables men to do miracles simply by claiming by faith that they can do so. Nevermind that the only evidences they can give are anecdotal or their own testimony or word. Try the spirits to see if they are of God (1 John 4:1). While I would not say that I was not a Christian at that time, it is despite their false teachings and not because of it that I am saved today. There is an element of truth even in false preaching. God can and does lead his elect through false teaching to get them where they need to be later on. My journey took a wrong turn but God got me here.

True faith is a supernatural gift preceding conversion, repentance, and baptism. Baptism itself is merely the outward sign or ceremony confirming what the Spirit of God has already done in regeneration. That does not make baptism optional, though it does mean that baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation when circumstances prevent it. In fact, baptism does not save at all. What it does is serve as a confirmation of our faith for ourselves and for the congregation and the universal church at large.

I do appreciate your input and feedback.

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie

[I neglected to mention that the 1928 BCP is Anglo-Catholic. Any God fearing Anglican should use the 1662 BCP minus the prayers for the queen. Regarding Pentecostalism see my article on Cessationism.]

----- Original Message -----

From:

To: Charlie J. Ray

Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 8:55 AM

Subject: Re: The Elephant in the Tent

Dear Rev. Ray,

While I have spoken against Anglo-popery amongst neo-con Anglicans for years, I have come to believe that there another, much more potent enemy of the Gospel amongst us. It is pentecostalism.

I find no one willing to address this issue, even amongst Calvinist/Reformed confessing Anglicans. There are 10 ACNA congregations within a 50 mile radius of my house. Some are AMiA, some are "African connection" CANA, one is even in the APA at the moment but still advertises an ACNA connection. ALL are charismatic in worship and theology.

I have seen Duncan in "high praise" at "high mass" - I have seen Rogers "speaking in tongues" - I have seen several AMiA bishops doing both. One AMiA official, formerly a local TEC priest, confessed to me some time ago, "Charlie, I really don't care about Prayer Books or the ordination of women... all I want to do is be a charismatic Episcopal priest."

One very large CANA parish in Alabama approached the PEC seeking membership and oversight. They were tired of their African connection and wary of the forthcoming ACNA - they even preferred to use the accursed 1928 BCP and 1940 hymnal! As soon as they found out our position on charismania, they ran.

The silence of evangelicals and confessing Anglicans on this issue is deafening. It reminds me of the silence of the neo-cons on the matter of the number of homosexual clergy - deacons and presbyters that is - already in their ranks. Why do they only find gay bishops objectionable and why, oh why, do peopale continue to refer to Gene Robinson as the "first openly gay bishop" in TEC? Has no one ever Googled Otis Charles or read a biography of Paul Moore?

Down the rabbit hole once again,
________

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Charlie J. Ray <cranmer1959@gmail.com> wrote:

http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2009/06/elephant-in-tent.html

The Second Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
O LORD, who never failest to help and govern them who thou dost bring up in thy stedfast fear and love; Keep us, we beseech thee, under the protection of thy good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Local Churches to Avoid

Never join a church which hides its beliefs. If there is no formal statement of faith, avoid the church at all costs!

Secondly, if the statement of faith is so bare bones that it says practically nothing, avoid the church at all costs. We vote with our feet. Never give a thumbs up for a church which might or might not be orthodox, evangelical and reformed in doctrine.

Thirdly, make sure that the church still believes its own confession of faith. Often an official adherence to a confessional faith is no guarantee that the church still preaches and teaches the Scriptures from which such a confession is derived.

Sound advice.

Peace,

Charlie

The Elephant in the Tent

[The following article is from SydneyAnglicans.net]

Robert Ian Williams:

Classic quote from Archbishop Duncan, " It was a miracle that those who believe the ordination of women was a grave error along with those who see it as being justified by Scripture can work together towards mission."

So it is possible for Word of God as given to St Paul to be re-evaluated on women but not on gays!

"This is a reformed church," proclaimed Duncan.

In defiance of Reformed Anglicanism all the following are found in ACNA.....

Prayers for the dead
Invocation of the Saints
Requiem Masses
Eucharistic reservation
Adoration and worship of the Communion elements.

All tolerated in the Anglican Church in North America.

THIS IS a GREAT reformation according to Duncan ...yet the doctrines of Rome (thrown out at the birth of the Anglican reformation) are all back in place. Despite the fact the Church has in Roman Catholic understanding no valid orders to celebrate them!

[Note: Robert Ian Williams is a convert to Roman Catholicism. We Reformed Anglicans thank him for making our point for us. Anglo-Catholics are neither Reformed nor Roman Catholic. See: Anglo-Catholicism: Why the Reformed Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion Network, and the American Anglican Council Are Wrong.]

ACNA is the elephant in the tent

Robert Tong
June 24th, 2009

The Washington Times of June 17 under the banner of 'New Anglican Church poses dilemma' commented that the inauguration of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) posed a "dilemma for the worldwide Anglican Communion over who represents Anglicanism in the United States and Canada".

The formation of ACNA is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of The Episcopal Church (TEC). Four dioceses have left TEC: San Joaquin in California, Quincy in Illinois; Fort Worth in Texas and Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. The new Province includes 11 Northern Virginia parishes, some of which pre-date the American War of Independence. It is no surprise then that TEC is litigating over millions of dollars worth of property.

Reaction to the election of Gene Robinson and the authorising of same-sex blessings forced the commissioning of the Windsor Report and the establishment of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Panel of Reference. Two of the Panel's references were the Church of the Redeemer in Florida Diocese and St John's Shaughnessy in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada. Despite visits from panel members and week-long conversations, both references failed to provide any meaningful help to the congregations. The Florida congregation and some 20 other Florida clergy ejected by the bishop have now found a new home in the new province. St John's, with other Canadian churches grouped as the Anglican Network in Canada, has also found lodging in the new province.

The ACNA has an average attendance of 100,000, which is more than the number of Anglicans in 13 of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion. So far seven provinces recognise ACNA in place of TEC. There is no formal process of recognition in the Anglican Communion by any of the so-called 'instruments of communion'.

The GAFCON Primates' Council has welcomed ACNA as fulfilling the Jerusalem Declaration aspiration, 'we believe the time is now ripe for the formation of a province in North America for the federation currently known as Common Cause Partnership to be recognised by the Primates' Council'.

This new Province in North America provides a constitutional framework for the exercise of Christian ministry in accordance with Anglican principles and doctrines.

Can we pray that, under God's providential hand, the new province will be one where the Scriptures are studied with true understanding, false doctrines are driven out, and good works abound?

Robert Ian Williams 2 days, 7 hours ago What price is this for evangelicals and the historic Reformed nature of Anglicanism? A Compromised Consitution which affirms the 39 articles in their " literal and grammatical sense" and their role in defining doctrne and settling disputesbut allows their meaning to be ignored and flouted. One of the Bishops subscribining is Jack Iker of Fort worth..he was recently at Walsingham, where he prayed to the Blessed Virgin Mary and claimed to preside at benediction..worship of the Holy Commumion elements. All such actions contradict the 39 articles. Indeed the opening ceremony of ACNA took place in a Cathedral in Bedford, Texas where there is a tabernacle, venerated statues and the smell of incense in the air. The Cathedral website advertises confessions and a Rosary prayer group. Within ACNA there are at least 200 such parishes and four dioceses of the most advanced Anglo-Catholic nature. #1 of 6

Robin Grant Jordan 1 day, 14 hours ago The constitution and canons the inaugural ACNA Provincial Assembly ratified on June 23, 2009 do establish an ecclesiastical structure that is from a conservative evangelical perspective Catholic in doctrine and order. To read more about the constitution and canons, go to the Heritage Anglican Network at:http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/ I have also posted several articles related to the inaugural Provincial Assembly at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/ After the ratification of the canons, Mr. Michael Howell, Director of Forward in Faith North America commented, "They're good, but by no means complete with regards our understanding of Catholic Faith and Order but... they're a good starting point." #2 of 6

Robin Grant Jordan 17 hours, 30 minutes ago For Sydney Anglicans who do not have time to read the articles on the Heritage Anglican Network and Anglicans Ablaze, I am providing a brief summary of how the ACNA constitution and canons affect them. 1. They make fools of Sydney Anglican leaders who have supported the ACNA, adopting doctrinal positions that these leaders do not hold nor teach and represent a repudiation of their doctrinal views. 2. Sydney Anglicans who are evangelical and Reformed in their doctrinal views and who take a job in North America would not be able to join an ACNA church without compromising their convictions. 3. Sydney Anglicans who are evangelical and Reformed in their doctrinal views and accept a ministerial or teaching position in the ACNA would not be able to minister or teach in the ACNA without compromising their convictions. 4. Entities like the Diocese of Sydney, More Theological College and the Anglican Church League would not be able to enter into ministry partnerships with the ACNA without subscribing unreservedly to its doctrinal positions, which include the recognition of other doctrinal authorities beside the Bible, the Creeds, and the Anglican formularies; recognition of seven sacraments; the Real Presence; baptismal regeneration; recognition of bishops and episcopacy as being of the essence of the Church; and tactual succession. These doctrinal positions, if not stated in the constitution and canons, are implied. 5. Under the ACNA definition of Anglican orthodoxy Sydney Anglicans are not orthodox Anglicans. 6. The ACNA includes some of the most vocal proponents of Sydney' expulsion from the Anglican Communion for lay and diaconal administration of the Lord's Supper. To be continued. #3 of 6

Robin Grant Jordan 17 hours, 26 minutes ago Continued from above. In the light of the foregoing Archbishop Jensen and the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Sydney may want to reconsider the welcome they extended to the "new province" and issue a statement calling upon the ACNA to take a more comprehensive position toward Reformed-evangelicals. However, there are those in the ACNA who might regard such a statement as meddling in the affairs of an autonomous province like their brethren in The Episcopal Church and become even more opposed to making the new church genuinely comprehensive as conservative Anglicans understand comprehensiveness. When members of the Provincial Council, the highest governing body in the ACNA, proposed that the partisan doctrinal position of one of the Fundamental Declarations in the constitution should be modified to make the new church more comprehensive, the Anglo-Catholic bishops were opposed to any substantive change. Those who made the proposal backed down out of fear of a church split. In this sense Anglo-Catholics leaders in the ACNA might be seen as holding the new church hostage with the other leaders tiptoeing around them lest they upset the former. To be fair to the Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA, there are also other dynamics operative in the new church. #4 of 6

Robert Ian Williams 15 hours, 59 minutes ago However the lip service to the 39 articles is appalling! Plus the fact that the Reformed Episcopal Church had to reject its former position of welcoming non-episcopally ordained clergywithout re-ordination. Several evangelicals have walked out and mauinatain that the original evnagelicalism of tne REC has been subverted. Just wait until the legal cases start going against ACNA big time. #5 of 6

Robert Ian Williams 7 hours, 26 minutes ago Classic quote from Archbishop Duncan, " It was a miracle that those who believe the ordination of women was a grave error along with those who see it as being justified by Scripture can work together towards mission. So it is possible for Word of God as given to St Paul to be re-evaluated on women but not on gays! This is a reformed church proclaimed Duncan. In defiance of Reformed Anglicaism all the following are found in ACNA..... Prayers for the dead Invocation of the Saints Requiem Masses Eucharistic reservation Adoration and worship of the Communion elements. All tolerated in the Anglican Church in North America. THIS IS a GREAT reformation according to Duncan ...yet the doctrines of Rome ( thrown out at the birth of the Anglican reformation) are all back in place. Despite the fact the Church has in Roman Catholic understanding no valid orders to celebrate them !

[One wonders how Robert Tong can make his views compatible with the more radical views of Phillip Jensen and others in Sydney?]

The Second Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
O LORD, who never failest to help and govern them who thou dost bring up in thy stedfast fear and love; Keep us, we beseech thee, under the protection of thy good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.