The Execution of Ann Boleyn

I have been watching the Showtime series, The Tudors. The series is a tragedy that shows the truly depraved nature of mankind and of those on both sides of the Reformation, Roman Catholic and Protestant. Henry the VIII in particular seems to have been obsessed with having a male heir to the point of being willing to use political intrigue to to do so.

In particular, the execution of Ann Boleyn was tragic, especially in light of her support of the progress of the Reformation in England. She was certainly not perfect and did many wicked things in her own life, sins for which she dearly paid. 

For anyone familiar with the history of the English Reformation this is a series well worth watching.  I have been watching the series on Netflix.  

God have mercy on us all,

Charlie

Click here to read Ann Boleyn's final words:  The Execution of Ann Boleyn

Click here to see the YouTube posting of the reenactment of Ann Boleyn's execution in The Tudors.

Westminster Conference: The Great Ejection of the Puritans in 1662

The director of Church Society, Lee Gatiss, will be speaking in London about the great ejection of the Puritans in 1662.  Was this the end of the Reformation in the Church of England or just a temporary setback?  I recommend this conference for all our English friends.  This year marks the 350th anniversary of the ejection of the Puritans from the Church of England.

Westminster Conference

Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word I: Preaching as Catechesis | Trinity School for Ministry: An Evangelical Seminary in the Anglican Tradition

Ashley Null proclaims that modern scholarship has shown that Cranmer was a thoroughly Protestant and Reformed voice and not a proponent of anything the 19th century Anglo-Catholics and Tractarians taught.

Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word I: Preaching as Catechesis | Trinity School for Ministry: An Evangelical Seminary in the Anglican Tradition


Lecture II:  Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word II: Liturgy as Catechesis

Ashley Null: Converted to Communion: Arcbishop Cranmer's Connection with "that Southern strain of the Continental Protetantism that became known as Reformed . . ."

Anglican and Reformed Theologian, Ashley Null.

Much, for they were all adherents of Reformed theology. While this has not been the conventional portrait of Cranmer for over a century, recent studies have confirmed Cranmerʼs basic agreement with that Southern strain of continental Protestantism that became known as Reformed, at least as it was emerging during his lifetime.  -- Ashley Null

. . . Although Foxe did his best to enlist Cranmer as the true ʻSt Thomas of Canterburyʼ because of his death under Mary,6 the polity and liturgy he bequeathed represented to Puritans all that was not blessed in the Church of England, all that still needed changing. What does he and the founders of our lectureship have to do with one another?

Much, for they were all adherents of Reformed theology. While this has not been the conventional portrait of Cranmer for over a century, recent studies have confirmed Cranmerʼs basic agreement with that Southern strain of continental Protestantism that became known as Reformed, at least as it was emerging during his lifetime.7 The theological stream which ran so fast through St Antholinʼs did not spring up in England only upon the return of the Marian exiles, but in Cranmerʼs day and by Cranmerʼs encouragement. The movement grew and adapted—so much so that subsequent generations of historians have failed to recognise Cranmer as one of their soteriological progenitors. Yet the blessed personal change sought by Puritans for their family, friends and flock Cranmer also desired for the elect of England of his era. Conversion from sin to communion with God was a favourite Puritan theme, and nothing was closer to Cranmerʼs own heart; consequently, he enshrined his Reformed understanding of the process in the formularies he bequeathed to the Church of England. Those wishing to find Anglican legitimacy for the Puritan approach to the cure of the English soul need look no further than the pioneering work of Thomas Cranmer himself. 

*******

By his forties Cranmer had concluded that giving human worthiness any role in justification was clean contrary to Godʼs Word. He equated personal merit in any form with the ʻworks-righteousnessʼ condemned by Paul; consequently, he argued that justification was either totally by the worthiness of our efforts or completely by undeserved divine grace—Scripture gave no other option:

But certain it is, that our election cometh only and wholly of the benefit and grace of God, for the merits of Christʼs passion, and for no part of our merits and good works: as St Paul disputeth and proveth at length in the epistle to the Romans and Galatians, and divers other places, saying, ʻif from works, then not from grace; if from grace, then not from works.ʼ13

Any attempt to make ourselves acceptable to God as the basis for forgiveness was an insult to the depth of the divine love shown for an unworthy humanity by Christʼs death on the cross.14 In short, it was ʻthe work and glory of God alone to justify the ungodly, to forgive sins, to give life freely out of his goodness, not from any merits of our ownʼ.15


-- Ashley Null

Churchman 116:3 (Autumn 2002), pp. 239-257

See also:  Churchman Volume 116

Is the Reformation Over?

 

 

 

Is the Reformation Over?

This Sunday we had a guest "priest" speak at our church because our rector is on vacation in Sydney, Australia. I had the privilege of discussing why I prefer the 1662 Book of Common Prayer which in fact turned into a "bash the Reformation" session and a personal attack against myself as someone who is "opinionated." One has to ask, however, who is opinionated and who is not opinionated? As if saying that your opponent is opinionated somehow means that you yourself are not opinionated? I have never denied being opinionated. I have opinions on just about everything. My humble and tolerant opponents, however, imply that they are somehow not "opinionated."

But the deeper we dig the more we discover that in fact our opponent is opinionated after all. For one, our opponent thinks the Reformation is over. "Well," I politely responded, "that depends on who you ask." When my opponent said that the Reformation and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is not entirely in line with Anglicanism I responded, "Well, if you're referring to pre-Reformation Anglicanism, then you would be correct. However, the real question is what is your historical perspective?" By this I implied that the Reformation is actually faithful to apostolic Christianity as it was recorded infallibly and inerrantly in Holy Scripture. Making church tradition equal in authority to Scripture in effect makes Scripture subservient to the church rather than the church being subservient to Scripture. When traditions of men evolve and supersede Scripture what we wind up with is extra-biblical and additional revelation which makes Scripture null and void. Also, these Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic traditionalists tend to allegorize Scripture to fit their preconceived traditions and additional "revelations" and accretions added over the centuries.

So the Protestant Reformation is not just a blip on the radar screen of history;  it is not just a punctiliar spot on a timeline forever static and to be left behind and forgotten as a relic of church history and the history of dogma. No, the Protestant Reformation was in fact a restorationist movement which was inspired by the Renaissance. When the humanist scholars of the Roman Catholic Church discovered through textual criticism, and other new ways of studying the past, that the dogmas of the Roman church did not in fact match up with the what the Bible said in the original languages—not Latin but Koine Greek and biblical Hebrew—they sought to reform the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, when a top-down system of authority is challenged from below it is not amicable to change.

The problem with an anthropocentric system of revelation and authority is that it eventually winds up in corruption, which is what happened with Rome and is still happening today in the Anglican Communion. Rather than placing Scripture at the head of the three legged stool of Scripture, tradition and reason, the Anglo-Catholics and high churchmen place tradition at the top of the triangle. This should sound familiar to those of you who are familiar with Scripture. Jesus often attacked the traditions of men and the traditions of the Jewish scribes and religious leaders because the traditions were added to God's Word revealed in the inspired writings of the Law and the Prophets. These writings are what we would call the Old Testament. (See Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13; Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:8).

Likewise, the Protestant Reformers, being trained in scholastic theology, discovered through their humanist training received from the influence of the Renaissance that allegorizing the Bible—rather than reading it at face value and interpreting it in the light of its various literary genres and in the light of its historical and grammatical context—led to all sorts of man-made traditions which were not in fact taught in Scripture at all. [For a good discussion of these issues, I highly recommend Alistair McGrath's book, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, (New York: Anchor Books, 2002).]

If the Bible is merely written, collected and canonized by humans, then it is not the inspired written revelation from God to humankind. On the other hand, if the Bible is the very words of God in written form, then according to Dr. Martin Luther and the other Protestant Reformers, every man should have a right to read and interpret it for himself:

The Reformation urged all Christians to read and value the Bible, and act on what they found written within its pages. The traditional response of the opponents of the Reformation to this proposal was that the Bible—which all agreed, although, with markedly varying degrees of enthusiasm, was ultimately the foundation of Christian life and thought—was difficult to understand. People needed help to make sense of it. Not only was it written in a language few could understand, its ideas were complex, and needed explanation for the people. The Church, of course, was more than willing to provide such and explanation. Luther, however, argued that the interpretation offered by the Church merely reinforced its own position. The Bible was not, as a matter of principle, allowed to critique either the teachings or the practices of the medieval Church. For Luther, it was axiomatic that every Christian had the right to read and interpret the bible for herself. (Alistair McGrath, In the Beginning, 113-114).

While Protestants do not accept that the church is the final authority, they do accept the church as a secondary authority. Scripture alone is infallible and inerrant and in all matters of controversy we are to stand upon Scripture as the final word in all matters of dogma, theology, and doctrine. This does not mean that every individual has the right to invent his own religion or start a new cult. It does, mean, however, that the church does not have the right to teach or force belief in matters not spoken of directly in Holy Scripture. The church is only authorized to teach and preach what Scripture specifically teaches and is not to go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6-7). While the Protestant believer opposes tradition as equal to Scripture, he is not opposed to reading the church fathers and other sources to more completely understand what the church has said regarding the Scriptures. But we are not to blindly follow church leaders without testing what they say by the Holy Scriptures (Isaiah 8:20, 34:16; Luke 16:29; John 5:39-40; Acts 17:11 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 Timothy 2:9, 3:15; 1 John 4:1).

Furthermore, in answer to my opponent I have to ask, "If the Reformation is over, why are we not all Roman Catholics?" Obviously, if there are no more reasons to remain divided, then the breach has already been healed and there is no need for debate, discussion, or dialogue but instead let us be about the business of reunification and reconciliation here on the earth. If the Reformation is over, why are conservative Anglo-Catholics not taking up the pope on his offer to become Roman Catholics? (See Pope Brings Anglicans Into the Fold). It should be obvious to anyone with any discernment at all that the Protestant Reformation is not over.

In fact, the deeper we go into the details the more confirmed we become in our convictions that the Reformation is not over. The anathemas against the Gospel and against the doctrines of Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church in the canons of the Council of Trent have never been reversed—not even by the Second Vatican Council. The Manhattan Declaration is just the latest attempt to deny the obvious: Rome and Geneva have absolutely nothing in common. Likewise, Rome and Wittenberg have nothing in common. In fact, despite the liberal Anglo-Catholicism of Canterbury, Rome and Canterbury have nothing in common either! Basically, Evangelicals who think the Reformation is over have been duped by crypto-papists who desire to institute the pope as the vicar of Christ on earth and usher in the kingdom of God as a militant form of christendom emphasizing the here and now and the use of coercion and political authority as a means of proselytizing the world for Roman Catholicism. Whatever happened to the Reformation idea that the pope is an antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church is a synagogue of satan?

There will always be a tension between separation and union. But we can never trust the movement toward the amalgamation of denominations since the purpose is not true union but a false union based on secular authority on earth rather than the spiritual authority of true believers who read the Bible for their dogmatic doctrine and are members of the church of Christ gathered in heaven by and through the Holy Spirit. We are not lone rangers out on our own but where two or three are gathered together in Jesus' name there we find the true church gathered in the Spirit (Matthew 18:20; Acts 4:30-31; 1 Corinthians 5:4). The ecumenical movement leads to compromise, the watering down of the law and Gospel. The misplaced emphasis on minimalism inevitably winds up pointing toward an anthropocentric theology which in turn leads to a denial of Scriptural dogma and eventually to atheism and liberalism like that which we see running rampant and wreaking havoc in the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion.

Rather than being concerned about being "company" men or "belonging" to a denomination, we ought to be concerned about being faithful to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and to the Holy Scriptures which reveal the only binding doctrine we are obligated to believe (See Article 6). While denominations are not in and of themselves evil, they have a tendency to emphasize union, amalgamation, and communion over against the purity of doctrine and the right preaching of the law and the Gospel. It should rather be our concern to preach and teach what God has ultimately revealed to us as His final word on all matters of faith, doctrine, and communion—Holy Scripture.

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie