>

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

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Re: Anglican revival? What will it take? Part 2

Jacob,

Frankly, your views have more in common with theological pluralism than with the magisterial Protestant Reformation. 

I never said Reformed Baptists were liberals.  I said they are not Reformed. 

Also, I believe the theonomic/reconstructionist movement IS liberal as Mohler's confusion of moralism and political activism with the Gospel proves.  No Reformed man worth his salt would compromise with Tractarians and idolaters who worship the bread and wine or pray to the saints.

While there is no perfect Reformed church, unreforming churches are not true churches whatsoever.  If you join with a synagogue of satan hoping to reform it the opposite will happen.  You will find yourself as an apostate idolater in agreement with "orthodox" idolaters.  Simply because a Roman Catholic is morally and theologically conservative does not remove the fact that theologically conservative idolaters are still heretics who deny justification by faith alone.

The ACNA is a heterodox hodge podge of semi-pelagians, Arminians, charismaniacs and outright Anglo-Papists.

True believers are less concerned with belonging to the right social club or "company" and more concerned with the true Gospel and the propositional truths of Scripture.  There are many hirelings out there.  Don't become just another one.

Sincerely yours,

Charlie

On 5/25/2011 10:21 AM, Jacob Todd wrote:
Charlie,

Thanks for the response and I do not mind at all you posting it.  I was surprised as to your feelings on the ACNA.  I would disagree for I do believe they uphold the authority of Scripture.  Having said that there are several points I would also disagree with them on, such as female pastors.  They may well have Anglo-Catholic tendencies, however, there is no perfect denomination out there.  In one way or another every denomination is always in need of reform.  Even if someone planted a truly reformed Anglican church, they would still not be perfect, would still error at times, for we are constantly in need of repentance.  I do not believe there exist a perfect Church and all I can do is fight for orthodoxy where God has placed me, be it a dead southern baptist church or an anglo-catholic, works based, church.  

I am aware of Stott, Packer, and Bray, but most people are not.  Most people are aware of the Driscolls and Pipers.  My problem is that they are old and of another generation.  I see the need for the younger generations to rise to the call of godly leadership, staunchly fighting for biblical truth.  Someone must take the torch from them.  

As far as Baptist are concerned, I will never allow the issue of Baptism to get in the way of advancing the Good News of Christ Jesus.  Neither do they, as most work with paedo-baptist and vice-versa.  The staunch refusal to work with conservatives who hold to a different view of baptism is dying out.  Nobody lets that get in the way in the younger generations.  We respect others who can show in the Bible their beliefs and few would argue that different views of Baptism make someone a liberal.  I don't think anybody would argue that Al Mohler or Charles Spurgeon are/were liberals.

I know there are good Anglicans/Episcopalians who adamantly hold to Justification by faith alone.  If they do exist within an apostate denomination, that does not make them apostates themselves.  I personally look at that situation and see an opportunity.  An opportunity to enter the fray, put forth my leadership, and reform from within and give the godly, Bible believing Anglicans hope in a leader who is willing to stand up for truth.  To give them a parish that will stand up for Christ Jesus and justification by faith, etc.  I see the Anglicans in the US as sheep without a shepherd.  Someone must step up.  

I would not refuse to say Anglo-Catholics are orthodox (at least not some).  I attended Catholic schools my whole life and know of some wonderful people who love Christ and Scripture with a passion.  They are following their leaders.  It comes to LEADERSHIP.  

You are not raining on my parade, I just view the situation differently.  I see a field wide open and worth fighting for.  I see wounded, miserable, and lonely Anglicans/Episcopalians who are desperate for Christ.  I see poor leaders with awful doctrine and no guts unwilling to stand up for biblical authority because they are ensnared in tradition.  I see sheep crying out for shepherds who are willing to fight for them.  I see a church in need of reform, people in need of leaders, and the Bible in need of defending.  I want people to find healing at the Cross of Christ, not squibbling (I'm not addressing this at you...I see this at my school constantly) over sprinkling or immersion.  I want Christ Jesus to conquer sin in people's lives so those people can turn around and let the world know of the indescribable glories of the Messiah, dwelling within our hearts.  

So you haven't rained on my parade at all.  I greatly appreciate your brutal honesty and I still think you have a wonderful blog and I think you are doing a great thing.  Keep up the good work!

Respectfully,

Jake (feel free to post)

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Charlie J. Ray <cranmer1959@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jake,

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:
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

No comments:

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.