You've said a mouthful here and I don't know where to begin. I hope you will forgive me for posting this to the blog. However, I believe this needs to be said to the blogosphere at large.
First of all, I consider the Anglican Church in North America to be as apostate or worse than The Episcopal Church. The reason being that it is an Anglo-Catholic/Tractarian denomination and fully opposes the five solas of the Protestant Reformation and despises true Calvinism.
Also, you should be aware that John Stott, James I. Packer, and Gerald Bray are all Anglican scholars. Stott, unfortunately, does not believe in eternal punishment but endorses the annihilation of the soul. I could also mention Ashely Null.
As for the so-called "reformed" scholars you mention, I would regard Tim Keller as a theological liberal pretending to be reformed and evangelical. His theology of "triperspectivalism" does not even begin with Scripture.
I would also question whether or not "reformed" Baptists are really "Reformed". The Protestant Reformation was magisterial, not Anabaptist. Reformed Baptists are Calvinistic but not truly Reformed since they reject the sacraments and infant baptism.
I would not recommend the ACNA to anyone since I regard Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics as heretics who preach "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6-9) and another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). I have noted that Albert Mohler has spoken at an Anglo-Catholic event in South Carolina, which makes me wonder if he has ties to the Reconstructionist/Theonomy movement. That theology leads to ecumenicalism and to a form of liberalism that sacrifices Reformed and Protestant theology and the Gospel to their goals for social and political change.
I also reject Cornelius Van Til and accept the views of Gordon H. Clark and his student, Carl F. H. Henry on the issue of propositional truth. Van Til's theology has produced theonomy, reconstruction, triperspectivalism, and the idea that Scripture is merely an "analogy" of God's Word and not God's Word in and of itself. How this differs from neo-orthodoxy no one has been able to tell me.
I would further reject neo-Calvinist doctrines like common grace and the free offer. Classical Calvinism does not teach those views, which are products of Abraham Kuyper and his student, Herman Bavinck.
The short of it is that in my opinion there are no Reformed Anglicans today. They are an extinct breed. Even Packer and Bray are willing to say that Anglo-Catholics are "orthodox". That is something I absolutely refuse to do. In fact, as much as I like the writing of both men, I must say that the both of them are jellyfish with no spines. Anglo-Catholics are lost and in need of conversion to the true Gospel. There is only ONE Gospel and the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthdox, Anglo-Catholics, theological liberals, and theonomists do not have it.
If you want to plant a Reformed Anglican church, that would be about the only way to go. The idea that doctrine should be minimalized for unity of differing beliefs is just bunk. The 39 Articles of Religion were never meant to endorse Anglo-Catholicism, Amyraldianism, Arminianism or any other semi-pelagian or idolatrous system of theology.
If I've rained on your parade, please forgive me. However, I believe the truth should be laid on the table openly. What will it take for an Anglican renewal? It will take a sovereign decree of God, which has not happened yet. Anglicanism is apostate. That would include the Anglican Mission in America and even the Sydney Anglicans, who are by and large Amyraldians with a few exceptions. The Archbishop in the Sydney Diocese, Peter Jensen, is a five point Calvinist. His brother, Philip Jensen, unfortunately, is an Amyraldian or one point Arminian. I regard both Amyraldianism and Arminianism as heresies to be seriously challenged and confronted and not something to be tolerated.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
On 5/24/2011 9:12 AM, Jacob Todd wrote:
-- First of all, I consider the Anglican Church in North America to be as apostate or worse than The Episcopal Church. The reason being that it is an Anglo-Catholic/Tractarian denomination and fully opposes the five solas of the Protestant Reformation and despises true Calvinism.
Also, you should be aware that John Stott, James I. Packer, and Gerald Bray are all Anglican scholars. Stott, unfortunately, does not believe in eternal punishment but endorses the annihilation of the soul. I could also mention Ashely Null.
As for the so-called "reformed" scholars you mention, I would regard Tim Keller as a theological liberal pretending to be reformed and evangelical. His theology of "triperspectivalism" does not even begin with Scripture.
I would also question whether or not "reformed" Baptists are really "Reformed". The Protestant Reformation was magisterial, not Anabaptist. Reformed Baptists are Calvinistic but not truly Reformed since they reject the sacraments and infant baptism.
I would not recommend the ACNA to anyone since I regard Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics as heretics who preach "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6-9) and another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). I have noted that Albert Mohler has spoken at an Anglo-Catholic event in South Carolina, which makes me wonder if he has ties to the Reconstructionist/Theonomy movement. That theology leads to ecumenicalism and to a form of liberalism that sacrifices Reformed and Protestant theology and the Gospel to their goals for social and political change.
I also reject Cornelius Van Til and accept the views of Gordon H. Clark and his student, Carl F. H. Henry on the issue of propositional truth. Van Til's theology has produced theonomy, reconstruction, triperspectivalism, and the idea that Scripture is merely an "analogy" of God's Word and not God's Word in and of itself. How this differs from neo-orthodoxy no one has been able to tell me.
I would further reject neo-Calvinist doctrines like common grace and the free offer. Classical Calvinism does not teach those views, which are products of Abraham Kuyper and his student, Herman Bavinck.
The short of it is that in my opinion there are no Reformed Anglicans today. They are an extinct breed. Even Packer and Bray are willing to say that Anglo-Catholics are "orthodox". That is something I absolutely refuse to do. In fact, as much as I like the writing of both men, I must say that the both of them are jellyfish with no spines. Anglo-Catholics are lost and in need of conversion to the true Gospel. There is only ONE Gospel and the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthdox, Anglo-Catholics, theological liberals, and theonomists do not have it.
If you want to plant a Reformed Anglican church, that would be about the only way to go. The idea that doctrine should be minimalized for unity of differing beliefs is just bunk. The 39 Articles of Religion were never meant to endorse Anglo-Catholicism, Amyraldianism, Arminianism or any other semi-pelagian or idolatrous system of theology.
If I've rained on your parade, please forgive me. However, I believe the truth should be laid on the table openly. What will it take for an Anglican renewal? It will take a sovereign decree of God, which has not happened yet. Anglicanism is apostate. That would include the Anglican Mission in America and even the Sydney Anglicans, who are by and large Amyraldians with a few exceptions. The Archbishop in the Sydney Diocese, Peter Jensen, is a five point Calvinist. His brother, Philip Jensen, unfortunately, is an Amyraldian or one point Arminian. I regard both Amyraldianism and Arminianism as heresies to be seriously challenged and confronted and not something to be tolerated.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
On 5/24/2011 9:12 AM, Jacob Todd wrote:
Charlie,
Thanks for the great blog! I think its probably the best Anglican blog around. I am a student at Southern Seminary in Louisville with strong Anglican leanings and I have some questions and observations for you (I am asking you because I believe you hold to the correct Anglican theology...truly reformed and undeniably Anglican.).
What is it going to take for the ACNA to rally together and become a unified body fighting for orthodoxy in America? I see the credo-baptist world really doing this, along with greats like Sproul and Keller. There seems to be this unity among conservative, reformed Christians in America but from my vantage point, the Anglicans seem not to be a part of this alliance? At least publicly. It seems that the group I mentioned above has figure heads that the Church can rally behind. Driscoll, Piper, Keller, Sproul, MacArthur, Stanley, Mohler. Have the Anglicans nobody to put forth? Nobody to team up with the Mohlers and Driscolls of the age to represent the Anglicans in North America? Am I wrong in my assessment or am I missing something?
What power there would be in seeing an Anglican pastor writing books with Driscoll and speaking with Mahaney!
I am leaning on the fence of the ACNA, that is, in ordination. A part of me wants to enter the fray and join hands with the guys I mentioned above. Anyway...just some thoughts that I was curious as to your opinions.
Respectfully,
Jake Todd
Reasonable Christian Blog Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. 1662 Book of Common Prayer
--
Reasonable Christian Blog Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. 1662 Book of Common Prayer
Posts
5 comments:
Mark Driscoll is an Amyraldian as well. I also have problems with C.J. Mahaney since he is a charismatic. The charismatic theology is inherently semi-pelagian and Arminian. It is at its root incompatible with Reformed theology. Wayen Grudem and C.J. Mahaney are not Reformed. They are charismatics pretending to be Calvinists.
I guess all the church fathers taught "another gospel" too, huh? They must have, since we agree with them, and you don't agree with us.
John, your ignorance of the theology of the Protestant Reformers is appalling:) Cranmer, for example, argues directly from the church fathers to prove that Rome's views not only twist Scripture out of context but the church fathers as well.
Read Cranmer's treatise on the Lord's supper some time:)
Like I said, your fake triumphalism is just that: fake. Church history, the church fathers, AND Holy Scripture is solidly on the side of the true "catholic" faith, which is Protestant.
Charlie
Err, Rome's view on what? Since I don't give much hoot what Rome thinks, what do I care?
John, I again point out your ignorance of church history. I did say Rome, didn't I? Yes, Cranmer rejected Rome's reading of the church fathers. I know you have no understanding of church history, the church fathers, or Cranmer.
But since Rome's views on the Lord's Supper and Constantinople's views are so similar, it stands that the Protestant Reformation recovered the Scriptural doctrine and that same doctrine is substantiated in the church fathers.
You really should read Luther, Cranmer, Calvin and the other Reformers. You're sure to get a good dose of the church fathers in context. Don't forget that the Renaissance led to a re-examination of church tradition in light of the literary criticism applied to the Scriptures and the church fathers. But then, an anti-intellectualism that is blinded to the plain reading of the texts wouldn't be interested in the truth. As Jack Nicholson said in the movie, A Few Good Men: "The truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
Post a Comment