What Do Reformed Christians Believe? Part 1

I have been negligent of late in writing for my blog due to my discussions and debates on Facebook.  You can visit my Facebook groups at Reformed Anglicans for Scripturalism and Calvinism Defended Against All.  That being said, I want to start a new series of articles where I will compare and contrast the Anglican Formularies (Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Anglican Homilies), the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms), and the Three Forms of Unity (The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechisms, and the Canons of Dort).  Wherever pertinent I will also interact with other Reformed confessional documents and/or Protestant Reformation era theologians or the Anglican and Puritan divines.  In short, I may appeal to other resources besides the primary ones.

I will try to provide a bibliography for my sources at a future date.  For now I want to state upfront that my primary theological resources will be the writings of Dr. Gordon H. Clark or Dr. Carl F. H. Henry.  In particular, I will be making frequent reference to Dr. Clark's book, What Do Presbyterians Believe? 1965.  2nd Edition.   John W. Robbins, ed.  (Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2001).

To begin this discussion two issues first come to mind.  The first one is what do we believe and why do we believe it?  The short answer is that all knowledge must start somewhere.  As the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark correctly pointed out, the beginning of Christian knowledge--and in fact all other knowledge as well--is the Bible.  The axiom for Christianity and the Christian worldview is that Scripture alone is the Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16).  Also, it should be pointed out that every epistemological system begins with unproven starting points.  To begin in the middle of an argument and to presuppose the system is in essence an axiom.  Even the scientific worldviews espoused by empiricism, logical positivism, and secular humanism do not being with empirically verifiable starting points but instead begin with unproven axioms that are considered to be self-evident.  Even Thomas Jefferson most famously began the Declaration of Independence with an axiom: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  The Declaration of Independence.

Rather than jumping into the philosophical and theological issues, however, I have chosen to start with the Bible and the Reformational era confessions of faith which effectually summarize the system of propositional truths contained within the Scriptures.  Of all the confessions, only the Westminster Confession begins with the doctrine of Scripture or sola Scriptura.  Chapter 1 is called "Of the Holy Scriptures.  Every denomination has a written or unwritten confession of faith or what the churches in that denomination believe the Bible says.  That being the case the Westminster Confession of Faith is no different.  The exception is that the Protestant Reformers and the Puritan divines were careful to make a detailed exposition of the system of theology in the Bible with pertinent and appropriate proof texts.

I want to begin with what the 1647 Westminster Confession and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms have to say about Scripture.  I will be breaking this down into manageable portions.  If you wish to read the entire context you will need to refer to an online edition of the appropriate confessions:

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH


CHAPTER I—Of the Holy Scripture

  1.      Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; (Rom. 2:14–15, Rom. 1:19–20, Ps. 19:1–3, Rom. 1:32, Rom. 2:1) yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. (1 Cor. 1:21, 1 Cor. 2:13–14) Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; (Heb. 1:1) and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: (Prov. 22:19–21, Luke 1:3–4, Rom. 15:4, Matt. 4:4,7,10, Isa. 8:19–20) which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; (2 Tim. 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:19) those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. (Heb. 1:1–2)


The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

First of all, please note that the Confession does not disregard general revelation or natural revelation.  The apostle Paul tells us this as well in Romans 1:18-21.  But general revelation cannot tell us enough information for saving faith.  That is why we need special revelation in Holy Scripture.  The evidentialists and empiricists wish to start with science; the rationalists wish to start with pure reason; and the neo-orthodox wish to begin with irrationalism.  But the Christian must begin with the axiom of Scripture for the simple reason that God only speaks in Scripture.  The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be deduced logically from a rock or a tree, although some substance abuse programs like Alcoholics Anonymous seem to think that your higher power can be a rock or a leaf.  I have often wondered how a rock or a leaf could make an alcoholic stop drinking?  If that be the case, would not A.A. be superfluous?

What is general or natural revelation anyway?  General or natural revelation is what God has revealed in nature or creation.  It might also include what man can know only from his being a created being in God's image and likeness.  Man has the innate light of reason and logic built into his soul because God is Himself a spirit (John 4:24) and because God is the very essence of Logic.  (John 1:1).  Man is not his body but is instead a spirit or soul living in a body.  When the body dies the soul lives on.  (Matthew 10:28; 2 Corinthians 5:6, 8).  Indeed John 1:9 does not refer to salvation but is instead the light that God grants to all men by virtue of man's being created in God's image.  (Genesis 1:27).  As the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark liked to say, "Man is the image of God."  Obviously, however, the noetic effects of sin causes man's ability to reason to be affected as well.  That's why the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:18 that man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.

The distinction between general and special revelation is further delineated in the Westminster Larger Catechism, question 2:

Question 2

How doth it appear that there is a God?
The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; (Rom. 1:19–20, Ps. 19:1–3, Acts 17:28) but his word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation. (1 Cor. 2:9–10, 2 Tim. 3:15–17, Isa. 59:21)


The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

The very light of nature in man would include John 1:9 and the references in Romans 2 to the Gentiles having the law of God written in their hearts:


 

Romans 2:12–16 (NKJV)
¹² For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law ¹³ (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; ¹⁴ for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, ¹⁵ who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) ¹⁶ in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Notice, however, that Paul is not saying that the Gentiles can be saved by keeping the law of God.  Far from it!  His point is rather that even the Gentiles have some form of morality and this is due to their being created in the image and likeness of God and having the moral law of God written in their hearts.  But to prove this does not entail saving faith, Paul says:

 

Romans 3:9–11 (NKJV)
⁹ What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. ¹⁰ As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; ¹¹ There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.

The fact of the matter is that the Scriptures alone can tell us what to believe unto saving faith.  Paul says this in 2 Timothy 3:15 and Jesus Himself emphasized Scripture many times over in the Gospels.  (John 10:35; Matthew 4:4; Luke 24:44-46).

The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion emphasize the sufficiency of Scripture over against the Roman Catholic view that Scripture is insufficient to provide enough information or understanding for saving faith.  Rome teaches that the Scriptures needs an infallible interpretation in order to be understood toward saving faith.  And Rome supplies the magisterium and the so-called deposit of faith to interpret the Scriptures for the church.  But if an infallible and inerrant Bible cannot be understood, how would believers then understand the many so-called infallible and inerrant magisterial pronouncements of Rome and the papal bulls?  After all, when the pope speaks authoritatively it is supposed to be the voice of Christ.  Article 6 says:

VI. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. HOLY Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.  Article 6

Therefore, no Christian is obligated to believe what Rome says that is not demonstrated in, of and by the Holy Scriptures alone.  The same can be said for any Protestant denomination which tries to go beyond what is written in the Holy Scriptures.  (1 Corinthians 4:6).


Due to a shortage of time today, I will end here for now.  But much more needs to be said in regards to the doctrine of Scripture.  So I will continue this tomorrow.

Belgic Confession of Faith

Article 3

The Written Word of God

We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter saith.1 And that afterwards God, from a special care which He has for us and our salvation, commanded His servants, the prophets2 and apostles,3 to commit His revealed Word to writing; and He Himself wrote with His own finger the two tables of the law.4 Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.

---

1 2 Pet. 1:21

2 Ex. 24:4; Ps. 102:19; Hab. 2:2

3 2 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 1:11

4 Ex. 31:18

Sanctification: A Lifelong Process

These preachers often talk quite a lot about the Holy Spirit; but they deny to the Spirit the power to give a man eternal life. By eternal I mean eternal; not a life that ends in the near future. Thus they do not have assurance; nor do they preach the Gospel, for the Gospel promises at least the possibility of assurance. It promises, not the mere possibility of eternal life; it promises eternal life.   Dr. Gordon H. Clark

CHAPTER XIII—Of Sanctification

1.  They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, (1 Cor. 6:11, Acts 20:32, Phil. 3:10, Rom. 6:5–6) by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them, (John 17:17, Eph. 5:26, 2 Thess. 2:13) the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, (Rom. 6:6,14) and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; (Gal. 5:24, Rom. 8:13) and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, (Col. 1:11, Eph. 3:16–19) to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. (2 Cor. 7:1, Heb. 12:14)


The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

There seems to be some confusion on the part of certain Baptistic "Calvinists" online.  Several of them are advocating the view that sanctification is not a process and that there needs to be no significant change of habit or lifestyle for a person to have a valid profession of faith.   They are advocating what can be identified as the "once saved always saved" view of salvation rather than the more reformed view of sanctification as it is outlined in the Westminster Confessional Standards and other reformed confessional statements, including the Anglican Formularies (Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, 1662 Book of Common, and the Ordinal).   (See:  Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Three Forms of Unity).

This is not the Reformed view, however.  While it is true that justification is by faith alone, it is not true that salvation is by faith alone.  My views on this have been significantly modified because of my reading of Dr. Gordon H. Clark's works recently.  Dr. Clark upheld the Westminster Confession of Faith as the most complete and thorough definition of Christianity.  Further, Dr. Clark did not believe that Christianity is a "religion."  Basically, salvation includes the entire ordo salutis.  Therefore, salvation is not by faith alone.  Salvation would also include repentance and sanctification.  Justification is the bedrock upon which the other temporal out-workings of God's eternal decrees are based. 

Those who take the time to study the Westminster Standards and read all the Scripture proof texts will benefit greatly in their Christian walk.  Salvation is not something to be taken for granted.  Even our perseverance is a struggle, according to Dr. Clark.  However, the Christian need not worry that God will not preserve him or her in their Christian faith and walk:

This is an assurance that many popular evangelists do not have themselves and cannot promise to their hearers. Yes, they insist on assurance, but it is not the assurance that the Bible teaches. These evangelists, the ones I have in mind, are Arminians. They do not believe in the perseverance of the saints, or, as they call it, eternal security. They claim to be very sure that they are saved now; but they are not sure that they will be saved tomorrow or next week. If they die tonight, they will be in Heaven immediately. But if they should live a while longer, they might fall into sin, fall from grace, and then they would be eternally lost. But they are very sure just now. Their mentality is hard to understand. How can anyone be very happy if he thinks he has an eternal life that is so little eternal that it might end next week? How can such a person look to the future with equanimity and confidence if he is so unsure of Heaven? Such an evangelist might as well be a Romanist. They talk about being born again, about regeneration; but the kind of regeneration they preach is something that a man must experience as many times as he falls from grace. To be really saved, i.e., to get to Heaven, one must be born again over and over again. Their hope therefore is one that can easily disappoint. These preachers often talk quite a lot about the Holy Spirit; but they deny to the Spirit the power to give a man eternal life. By eternal I mean eternal; not a life that ends in the near future. Thus they do not have assurance; nor do they preach the Gospel, for the Gospel promises at least the possibility of assurance. It promises, not the mere possibility of eternal life; it promises eternal life.

Gordon H. Clark (2013-03-04T05:00:00+00:00). What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 3353-3364). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

The short answer is that assurance of salvation proceeds from obedience that is founded upon the promises of God in Scripture, including justification by faith alone.  And you will notice that Dr. Gordon H. Clark indirectly implies that Arminians do not preach the Gospel.  Would that more Reformed ministers and scholars would say these things more straightforwardly.

Sanctification is not the basis for saving faith.  But is a necessary result of regeneration.  Those who have no change of habits cannot have assurance of salvation (Hebrews 12:14).  On the other hand, those who endeavor to walk by faith and to obey the information revealed in God's written Word can be most certain that God will never let them fall away.

Question 69

What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?

The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, (Rom. 8:30) adoption, (Eph. 1:5) sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him. (1 Cor. 1:30)

Question 77

Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?

Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, (1 Cor. 6:11, 1 Cor. 1:30) yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; (Rom. 4:6 ,8) in sanctification of his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; (Ezek. 36:27) in the former, sin is pardoned; (Rom. 3:24–25) in the other, it is subdued: (Rom. 6:6,14) the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation (Rom. 8:33–34) the other is neither equal in all, (1 John 2:12–14, Heb. 5:12–14) nor in this life perfect in any, (1 John 1:8,10) but growing up to perfection. (2 Cor. 7:1, Phil. 3:12–14)


The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

Is Anglo-Catholicism a Via Media? Charles Pettit McIlvaine

Rev. Charles Pettit McIlvaine, Born Again Episcopalian.

[The following quote is from Oxford Divinity Compared with that of the Romish and Anglican Churches, with a Special View to the Illustration of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, by Charles Pettit McIlvaine.  Click here to see the Google book:  Oxford Divinity Compared.]

"If any  man thirst let him come unto me and drink;" a mode of preaching Christ, that shall ever delight to proclaim to all people a full, perfect and ready salvation to the vilest sinner, whenever, in sickness or health, he turns unto God, truly repenting and believing in Jesus--a salvation which justifies perfectly, and immediately, on the act of a living faith, and which sanctifies perfectly, but progressively, as the necessary fruit of the same faith; a salvation so perfect and free, that, in the words of Hooker, "although in ourselves, we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet even that man that is impious in himself, full of iniquity, full of sin, him being found in Christ, through faith, and having his sins remitted through repentance, him God beholdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his sin by not imputing it, taketh quite away the punishment due thereto by pardoning it, and accepteth him in Jesus Christ, as pefectly righteous as if he had fulfilled all that is commanded him in the Law."  --Charles Pettit McIlvaine.

Chapter II

STATEMENTS PREPARATORY TO THE RIGHT ESTIMATION OF THE OXFORD DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

Professions of Oxford Divines concerning the conformity of their doctrine with that of the Church of England--Their account of Ultra-Protestantism--Their identity of their system with that of Alexander Knox--The condemnation of the latter, as Romish and dangerous, by certain eminent divines, of diverse schools in the Church of England, before its development, at Oxford, had excited special interest.

Before proceeding any further, it is proper to state that the Divinity which we propose to examine, is loudly proclaimed by its advocates to be the middle path, the Via Media, of the Church of England, "distinct from the by-ways of Ultra-Protestantism on the one side, and neither verging towards, nor losing itself in, Romanism on the other."(1)  The formularies of the Church of England, and the writings of her standard Divines are often and confidently appealed to as exhibiting the precise doctrines of the system.  Now it is the simple question how far these pretensions are true, which we propose to institute.  But in order to estimate this Via Media aright, the first thing is to get a view of the opposing sides between which it proposes to pass.  Of the one side, viz. of Romanism, we are to speak particularly hereafter.  Of the other, ULTRA-PROTESTANTISM, a something which occurs with singular frequency in the works of these writers, what shall we say?  What is Ultra-Protestantism?  We have seen no definition.  But according to the use of Dr. Pusey, and others, the name seems to be applied to whatever is in religion, or relating to it, negatively, or positively, for, or against, only excepting Romanism or Oxfordism; embracing of cause and effect, doctrine and inference; from the case of those clergy of the Church of England, who are, "in the main, orthodox and sound, in spite of the natural tendency of their principles," through Lutheranism and Calvinism, and every grade of unromish dissent and heterodoxy, down to what is considered the result of the common tendency, an entire Rationalism, and Socinianism, ut nec pes, nec caput uni reddatur formae.  One would suppose that a coast so undefined would afford but little guidance in keeping the middle way, except when as mariners, under fear of hidden shoals and currents, on an unseen shore, keep as far away as possible.

Some specimens will help us judge how far the Via Media is really a middle way.

Dr. Pusey describes "a large portion" of the clergy of the Church of England as holding "Justification is not a gift of God through His sacraments, but the result of a certain frame of mind, of a going forth of themselves and resting themselves upon their Saviour; that this is the act whereby they think themselves to have been justified; and so as another would revert to his "baptism and engraffing into Christ, and thus his being in Christ, so do they this act whereby they were justified."  "They sever Justification from Baptism, and make it consist in the act of reliance upon the merits of Christ only; sin, according to them, is forgiven, at once, upon each renewal of this act: and in this they virtually substitute this act for Baptism; a man has no more to do with his past sins than he has with those remitted by baptism;" according to them "when men have been been once brought, in repentance to renounce their sins, and seek reconciliation through the free mercy of Christ--then their sins are done away, they are covered, they can appear no more; the handwriting is blotted out." This "apprehension of Christ's merits is to them a full remission of sins, completely effacing them."  "To revert to past sins is to doubt of Christ's mercy; to bear a painful recollection of it is to be under the bondage of the law; to seek to efface it by repentance is weakness of faith; to do acts of mercy or self-denial, or self-abasement, or to fast with reference to it, is to interfere with 'the freeness and the fulness of the Gospel:'  to insist upon them 'is place repentance in the stead of Christ.'" (2)

It is impossible not to see in this strange caricature, which really applies, in all respects, to no class of the clergy of England, that "the large portion" intended is that which is best known in this country by such names as Robinson, Scott, Venn, the two Milners, Simeon; of whose mode of exhibiting the way of salvation, the writings of such living divines as the present Bishop Wilson, of Calcutta, the two Bishops Sumner, the one of Winchester, the other of Chester, the Rev. G. S. Faber, &c. are fair examples.  True indeed the views of this most honourable and useful body of the English Clergy are very singularly overdrawn; one can hardly recognize them under the strained and warped features for which they are made to be accountable; but without doubt, the Ultra-Protestantism referred to in the above extracts, is intended to be understood as being displayed in the general mode which appears in that class of English divines, of representing "the nature and essence of the medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease, the manner of applying it, and the number and the power of the means."

Of such views, does Dr. Pusey write as follows:  "This abuse of the doctrine of justification by faith sears men's consciences now, as much as the indulgences of the Romish system did before.  It used to be said that 'the Romish was an easy religion to die in,' but even the Romish, in its corruptions, scarely offered terms so easy, at all events made not a boast of the easiness of its terms."  Then follows an evident preference of the Romish system, on the ground that if only "the stale dregs of the system of the ancient Church," it has the dregs--"something of the bitterness of the ancient medicine;" it still teaches men "to make sacrifices for the good of their souls; to accuse and condemn themselves, that so they might find mercy" through Christ--to be "punished in this world, that their souls might be saved in the Day of the Lord."  We are given distinctly to understand that "a large portion" of the English Clergy, is worse than even these stale dregs of the medicine of the ancient Church; because it stifles continually the strong emotions of terror and amazement which God has wrought upon the soul, and by an artificial wrought-up peace, checks the deep and searching agony, whereby God, as in a furnace, purifies the whole man, by the spirit of judgment and the Spirit of burning."  It is "a spurious system, misapplying the promises of the Gospel, usurping the privileges of baptism which it has not to confer, giving peace which it has not to bestow, and going counter to the whole tenor of Scripture, that every man shall be judged according to his works." (3)

The same singularly extravagant and most painful strain of condemnation is found everywhere in Mr. Newman's Lectures on Justification.  The following is a specimen.  He calls the righteousness of Christ imputed to us for Justification as held by the "large portion" of the English Clergy, above referred to, "an unreal righteousness and a real corruption," "bringing us in bondage to shadows"--"another gospel."  "Away then (he says) with this modern, this private, this arbitrary system, which promises liberty conspires against it; which abolishes sacraments; to introduce dead ordinances; and for the real participation of Christ, and justification through His Spirit, would at the very marriage  feast, feed us on shells and husks, who hunger and thirst after righteousness."(4)

It is not the purpose here to say a word, in argument, concerning all these wonderful and melancholy of morbid mind and spiritual discernment.  Whoever has paid any serious attention to the writings of the Clergy, thus professedly displayed, will need no help in estimating the justness of the condemnation.  But where there is no need of argument, there may be propriety in assertion; and sometimes there is a solemn duty in assertion, if only for the purpose of bearing our solemn testimony, whatever it may be worth, to some precious, but despised and reviled portion of the truth as it is in Jesus.  Such testimony, the present writer feels constrained to give, in this place,  after such an afflicting reprobation of what he most solemnly believes to be nothing else than "the glorious Gospel of the blessed God," our Saviour.  Denying entirely the justice of the draft of doctrine laid to the charge of the class of divines professedly described; but perceiving just enough of truth therein to mark distinctly who compose "the large portion" of Clergy whom our Oxford divines have thus represented as teaching for the way of salvation, "another gospel"--a spurious system--"an unreal righteousness and a real corruption,"--worse even than the system of indulgences in the Church of Rome; the author of these pages does earnestly hope that his name may be counted worthy to take part in their condemnation.  If the way here called another gospel, even that of Justification through the obedience and death of Christ, accounted unto us for righteousness, through the instrumental agency of a living faith, be not the only hope of the sinner, then he, for one, has no hope.  He has learned of no other "anchor of the soul sure and steadfast, which entereth to that within the veil."  He does hope that he may ever be identified with that divinity, that way of preaching Christ Jesus the Lord, which instead of a "reserve" in making known the precious doctrine of Atonement, instead of treating salvation by grace, through faith, as "a great secret," and keeping the secret out of the sight of the ungodly for fear of "an indelicate exposure of the sacred mystery," as these writers urge,(5) shall lift up the voice to the perishing and penitent, like the Master and Lord, when to the great multitudes, on the last day of the feast, He cried, "If any  man thirst let him come unto me and drink;" a mode of preaching Christ, that shall ever delight to proclaim to all people a full, perfect and ready salvation to the vilest sinner, whenever, in sickness or health, he turns unto God, truly repenting and believing in Jesus--a salvation which justifies perfectly, and immediately, on the act of a living faith, and which sanctifies perfectly, but progressively, as the necessary fruit of the same faith; a salvation so perfect and free, that, in the words of Hooker, "although in ourselves, we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet even that man that is impious in himself, full of iniquity, full of sin, him being found in Christ, through faith, and having his sins remitted through repentance, him God beholdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his sin by not imputing it, taketh quite away the punishment due thereto by pardoning it, and accepteth him in Jesus Christ, as pefectly righteous as if he had fulfilled all that is commanded him in the Law.  Let it counted folly, or frenzy, or fury, whatsoever; it is our comfort and our wisdom." (6)  So testifies our admirable Hooker--most suredly an Ultra-Protestant, in the matter of Justification,  as branded, as others, with the hot denunication of these Oxford divines.

Click here to see Chapter II of Charles Pettit McIlvaine's book, Oxford Divinity Compared with that of the Romish and Anglican Churches....

[Addendum:  It would appear that the Lordship Salvation view as well as the view of the neo-legalists would be more in line with the Tractarians than with Canterbury or Geneva or Wittenberg on the issue of justification by faith alone.  The neo-legalists would appear to agree with the Tractarians that some sort of good works must be added to faith.  The Reformed view is that justifying faith is a living faith..   Charlie].

Footnotes:

1.  Pusey's Letter, page 14.
2.  Ibid., pp. 74, 8, 54, 5.
3.  Ibid., pp. 56-59.
4.  Lectures on Justification, p. 61.  Extremes meet.  Socinus calls the same doctrine, faeda, execranda, pernitiosa, detestanda.
5.  See No. 80, Tracts for the Times.
6.  Discourse of Justification, Paragraph 6.

--

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

J. I. Packer's Continued Crusade: Catechism Classes

{This article is pirated from Christianity Today without their express permission.  Sue me!  Click here to read the full article:  Small Groups and Heresy}

Note: J. I. Packer is the award-winning author of numerous books, including the classic Knowing God. SmallGroups.com recently had the chance to speak with Dr. Packer as part of an editors' panel in the offices of Christianity Today International.

Do churches and small groups have a responsibility to fight heresy when laypeople teach others?

Yes, churches are responsible for weeding out heretical teaching, and that's pretty clear from the New Testament. In those early days of Christianity out in the pagan world, there were any number of cults and any number of false views. And in the Pastoral Epistles we see individuals who are held up as solemn warnings—"Don't go their route."

Let me also say that it's my firm conviction that churches ought to foresee this unhappy possibility of heresy getting in when lay-folk are leading. And they should counter the possibility by what in the history of the church has been called "catechesis." We hardly hear of it these days, but in the second and third centuries A.D.—and indeed for some centuries after—it's rather amazing to discover that inquirers into the faith were fed into catechetical classes.

Can you explain a little more about the process of catechesis?

First, there are other ways of doing catechesis than by question and answer, which is what we are used to when we think of catechizing children. Catechesis is the teaching of the truths that Christians live by, and linked with that it's the teaching of how to live by those truths. It's a practical, pastoral discipline of instruction.

In the second and third centuries, the inquirers didn't have any Christian background—they didn't have any kind of theistic background even. They were polytheists who came out of various pagan cults. And so the catechists had to begin at the beginning and take them through the whole body of Christian doctrine.

We know from surviving catechetical materials that they taught not by separating truths from each other in order to focus on them in isolation. Rather, they taught the whole Christian view of Christianity—God's great economy of grace for the salvation of sinners—and the syllabus was essentially the themes of the Apostle's Creed.

And you feel that the practice of catechesis would be beneficial in modern churches, as well?

Yes. If we could recover catechesis as a regular element of church life, well, we'd be anticipating a lot of these problems with heresy and other troubles. We'd be constantly sustaining orthodoxy and reminding people of what the Christian faith is when you put it all together as a single ball of wax.  And in the absence of catechesis you do find laypeople who believe themselves to have a teaching gift—and perhaps have impressed the church as having a teaching gift— but allow themselves to deviate.

In your opinion, what should churches do when they identify someone who may be leading others astray?

Don't let them go on doing it, first and foremost. It seems to me that the responsibility of the small group is to let it be known that a leader is saying some things that appear to be unsound, unbiblical, or untrue. And that complaint must go up to the leadership of the congregation, whatever form the leadership takes. As an Anglican I'm thinking in terms of the rector; all bucks stop on the rector's desk. But there will always be a leadership group in any congregation.

Well, the complaint goes up to the leadership group, and it's the leadership group's responsibility in the first instance to handle it—which means that they ask the person who's been making waves to explain him or herself. And then according to the way the offender reacts to the corrective response, well, you take it from there. You hope that the errorist will allow him or herself to be put straight. Sometimes it happens that way and sometimes it doesn't.

What kinds of heretical beliefs have you found to be common in the church today?
 

What is common in this post-Christian age is all the various forms that are taken by the fantasy, and it's a very potent fantasy, that all religions are somehow one. Somehow they are the same religion. Somehow they are all of them pointing to the top of the same mountain, and as we climb we become more and more aware that we're getting closer to everybody else who is climbing by other paths—Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever—and when we get to the top, we shall find that we're totally together.  It's a sweet dream, but the early Christians rejected it out of hand. And, I think, so should we.

Going back to the topic of catechism, is it still possible to do catechesis or guard against heresy as effectively when so many of our modern churches are so large?

I think it would be possible if the will was there.  I mean, if you have a megachurch, what's important is the infrastructure. You've got to develop an infrastructure which takes in all the people, thousands of them, to give them such basic instruction as they all need. Of course, it's easier to arrange an infrastructure for a congregation of about 100, but the principle is the same even though the work is harder.

You break people down into learning groups, call them classes or whatever you choose, and you have persons who are gifted and know their stuff as catechists. The catechists teach the faith as the integrated unity that it is in Scripture. They don't teach isolated points of doctrine; they teach the whole Christian story as it's brought together, and they teach the creeds. And as they go along they sort out the inquirers and they dispel the errors.

—J. I. Packer; copyright 2011 by the author and Christianity Today International.

--
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

Anglican Formularies

• 
  
  Surely much of the dissension within Anglican churches since the mid-nineteenth century is the bitter fruit of not respecting the original intent of our framers. When the Anglican formularies become a kind of wax nose that can be shaped by partisans who were avowed enemies of the principles of the English Reformers, then is it any wonder that Anglicanism is in dire straights? As many of us are now involved in the recovery of authentic Anglicanism in North America, let us not shrink from the hard work of understanding the original intent of the Articles and the even harder job of really applying them to the teaching and practice of our congregations.
  
  
  GILLIS J. HARP is Professor of History, Grove City College, Grove City, USA
•  
• http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_116_3_Harp.pdf

The so-called "via media" principle of Anglicanism has tolerated outright heresy, including the ordination of practicing homosexuals and even the denial of the deity of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think Professor Gillis makes an excellent point here. Is Anglicanism just a collection of disjointed sects that have nothing in common except an artificial communion that is merely superficial and not genuine? How can those who are strong advocates of the Protestant and Evangelical views on justification by faith alone be in true communion with those who advocate a form of justification that is based on the Roman Catholic version of infused righteousness? How can those of us who believe that apostolic doctrine is the same as the Protestant understanding of the Gospel be in communion with those who believe that tradition is equal with Holy Scripture?

These are questions worth asking. I wonder how sincere the framers of the agreement between the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province in America really are?

Charlie