>

Martyred for the Gospel

Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]

Collect of the Day

The Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany.
The Collect.

O LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy Church and household continually in thy true religion; that they who do lean only upon the hope of thy heavenly grace may evermore be defended by thy mighty power; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Daily Bible Verse

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Declaration of Principles (Page 3)

Declaration of Principles (Page 3)

This is the original understanding of the Anglican tradition from a Reformed and Protestant perspective of the English Reformation. Unfortunately, the Reformed Episcopal Church allowed Armyraldianism, Arminianism, and Evangelicalism to lead it in a more "ecumenical" direction. I blame both Dispensationalism and Theonomy as contributing factors as well. However, the end result is that the Reformed Episcopal Church has become Anglo-Catholic, high church, Tractarian, and apostate. Click on the title link to see the Declaration of Principles.



5 comments:

Reformation said...

Charlie:

Let me offer some observations.

1. There was no dispensationalism in the REC in the 1960-1990's period. Certainly, not in the 1980-1990ish period. There was dispensationalism among some Churchmen in the early 20th century, however. My understanding is that it disappeared in the 1950-1960ish period.

2. As to the admission or permission of Amyraldianism and Arminianism amongst the clergy in the 1970-1990ish period, it wasn't there. The entire faculty at RES, Philadelphia, was 5-point Calvinism. So were most, if not all, clergy to my knowledge.

3. As to theonomy, there were two points expressed by former faculty members, e.g. Dr. Milton Fisher (OT, PhD under Cyrus Gordon) and Dr. Allen C. Guelzo (PhD, Un of Penn, dissertation on Edwards), to wit: the very possible connection to Ray Sutton's theonomy, more specifically, the "willingness" to cut deals and form alliances in order "to gain power." Both Professors expressed this connection. Both were driven off by Laud Leo. Yet, the entire REC hegemony--the current sell-outs in leadership--have gone quietly into the night. No writings, no interviews, and the silencing of any opposition.

4. I think a more basic and venal view obtains. "The quest for respectability." Inferiority complexes in Laud Leo and Mr. Ray Sutton. Such complexes that made their committments to Protestant, Reformed and Calvinistic theology "negotiable" or "latitudinarian, unnecessary, and dismissable."

5. Whatever the specific causes of the REC declension, there was dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, disobeying lawful orders, disrespect, even "professional murder," absence from one's post in war, unauthorized absence, and solicitations of enemies to asylum (e.g. Mr. Grote's picking up Anglo-Catholic dissidents, a few gaggles of AC's, in an effort at church growth.)

6. Wikipedia humorously reports 13,000 for membership. On information and belief, they are still using APA numbers to swell the numbers to 13,000. Similarly, they report a hundred in their seminaries. NOT! Yet, the current leaders are "running silent."

7. VOL was attempting to run a story on REC, but--inferrably--ran into the proverbial, "No hablo English."

Charlie J. Ray said...

Thanks for your input, Phil. I was not a member of the REC for as long as you were so I defer to your inside information. However, I was referring to what I know about the Exposition of the 39 Articles by W.H. Griffith Thomas, which is used as a textbook by the REC seminary in South Carolina. Griffith Thomas was Dispensational and Amyraldian. I read his discussion on Article 17 and he definitely held to a universal atonement rather than particular atonement.

I've been told that Ray Sutton is no longer affiliated with theonomy but I find that difficult to believe. There was another connection to theonomy by one James Jordan in the REC. There's an article at the Trinity Foundation which refers to him.

(See The Reconstructionist Road to Rome).

Also, if I remember correctly the REC revised prayer book of 1875 allegedly allowed for an Arminian interpretation. (See 35 Articles). If not, at least some ministers have taken it that way. I've been told that by Jim Reber and Kevin Burke at least. At least one other REC minister has told me that via e-mail, although he prefers to remain anonymous, probably to protect his job. He would be on the hotseat if he acknowledged any connection to the heritage or reformation Anglicans.


Anyway, I posted this for someone who is Reformed Baptist and didn't understand that the Evangelical/Reformed side of Anglicanism does not accept the "historic episcopate" or any other such nonsense. I think I agree with Charles that the Baptists are not really "Reformed" but simply particular Baptists with an Anabaptist bent.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Oops. W.H. Griffith Thomas wrote Principles of Theology.

Reformation said...

Charlie:

Through the 1970-1990 period, Louis Berkhof was the standard Systematics text.

I recollect when Laud Leo was reading it in the early 90's, just fresh off the press. Somewhere in the early 90's, Laud had Thomas's Intro to Theo introduced.

Yes, the 35 Articles was woefully inadequate and was hardly adhered to--I pointed out its woeful inadequacy during classes and at my ordination exam. Also, pointed out the Zwinglianism at my ordination exam, "quoting" from the WCF. The Laud, head of the examiners, told me that this was the best ordination exam they have ever witnessed.

I still think that "the lust, not just quest, but lust for acceptability" drove these men. Biblical exegesis, careful theology, Reformed Theology, and personal fidelity was "jettisoned" in favour of "being liked." After years of reflection, methinks it is just as banal, venal, and cowardly as that. I have no use for any of their leaders. I wouldn't follow any of them.

Nor does Drs. Milton Fisher, Guelzo, and--will add one more--Dr. Zeller. Dr. Zeller barred the Laud from his larger seminary in Colorado.

I can understand why one REC rector must lay and lie low. The Laud can be vindictive.

Reformation said...

Charlie:

Another few belated observations.

1. Dr. Rudolph taught systematics until 1980. He was in the "Rudolphian" line of teachers for decades. Dr. Rudolph was friends with Drs. Van Til and Clark--sponsoring both as lecturers in alternate semesters, despite their opposition to one another in apologetics. Dr. Rudolph, an old line REC man, was supralapsarian.

2. Laud Leo started teaching systematics in 1980. I had the Laud from 84-87. Laud Leo--there were few whiffs then, few if any, of the later transition.

3. Rev. Mark Rudolph, grandson of Dr. Rudolph (AMiA now I believe, St. John's just outside Phillie), RES grad, told me in the early 2000-period that "Systematics stopped being taught in 1980 with the retirement of his grandfather." I saw and heard what I saw and heard in 84-87. There must have been some backstory or subtext to Rev. Rudolph's comments, but not sure about it. He further atttributed Laud's transformation "to being artsy and liking high church music." I like high church music, e.g. sung services, Psalms and the like. That hardly is any ground for capitulating in theology to uncritical, capitulatory, and cowardly defections.

4. I was shocked when I returned from sea duty to find a denomination that was unrecognizable to what I'd know.

5. I doubt there will an history written. The current leadership has circled the wagons. I suspect in a decade, a new generation will have morphed into Laud Leo's and theonomist, deal-makin' Sutton's doctrinal latitudinarian indifferentism.

6. Fortunately, I was raised "better" than the capitulatory cowardice of the Laudster.

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.