Anglo-Papist Orthodoxy? AlbertMohler.com – ‘Mere Anglicanism’ and the Essence of Biblical Christianity

This audio is from 2009 and the Mere Anglicanism conference in Charleston, SC. Oddly enough, Mohler admires Rick Warren's support of Proposition 8 in California but not one word about Warren's ecumenicalism or his Arminianism. Also, Mohler is blatantly participating in an Episcopal conference predominated by "orthodox" Anglo-Papists. How can someone who claims to be a Calvinist endorse a soteriology that is papist???!

As the Episcopalian Church in the United States of America (ECUSA) has moved further into theological liberalism and away from biblical fidelity, many evangelical American Anglicans have ventured out in search of faithful church structures. In a special broadcast from the Mere Anglicanism Conference in Charleston (SC), Dr. Mohler welcomes Rev. Dr. William Dickson–rector of St. Andrews Episcopal Church in Forth Worth, TX–to the program to discuss the significance of these developments not only for Anglicans, but for evangelicals at large.

AlbertMohler.com – ‘Mere Anglicanism’ and the Essence of Biblical Christianity


Addendum:  Ironically, Mohler himself promotes morally conservative "civil religion":


Why I Signed the Manhattan Declaration


Further condemning evidence for compromise, Mohler thinks the Anglo-Papists are "Evangelical."  And in the discussion Mohler is duped into advocating the 1549 Book of Common Prayer as the ideal for Anglicanism.  What Mohler does not know is that though the 1549 BCP was edited by Cranmer it is NOT the most reformed prayer book.  Rather the 1552 BCP is the reformed standard that influenced the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which is part of the Anglican Formularies.  The fact is that the 1549 BCP is upheld by the Anglo-Papists because they do not want to accept the 1552 reforms and the official 1662 Book of Common Prayer, nor do they accept the literal interpretation of the 39 Articles of Religion, which are Protestant.  I cannot believe that Mohler is so ignorant of the history of the English Reformation and the Tractarian controversy.

The President & The Prophet: Obama’s Unusual Encounter with Eric Metaxas - By Mark Joseph - The Corner - National Review Online

My remarks following are based on an article linked by the Aquila Report. As reported by Mark Joseph, President Obama was taken to task for his theological relativism on the issue of world religions and for his view that abortion is a viable choice for women with unwanted pregnancies. The speaker was Eric Metaxas. Unfortunately, the theologically liberal idea is that all religions have a core moralism that coincides. Basically, President Obama's theology is one that teaches that doctrine or special revelation is irrelevant as long as we all keep God's law. After all, we're all basically just good people.

Unfortunately, both Joseph and Metaxas have merely presented an Evangelical pietism that is as focused on a common moralism as that of the theological liberals. Evangelical pietists, although standing on the principle that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, diminish doctrine to a minimalism that is not that far removed from modernism and religious pluralism. Evangelicals and Catholics Together, the Manhattan Declaration, and other such documents are good examples of this. In fact, Joseph implies that "good" Roman Catholics are in because they believe in Jesus Christ and because they oppose abortion. Apparently, Joseph is unaware of the official Roman Catholic doctrine of implicit faith in other religions and that these other religions are not necessarily a cause for losing one's soul.

The short response here is that civil religion is as liberal and latitudinarian in some respects as the blatant religious pluralism and latitudinarianism of President of Obama. In the end, what unites Roman Catholics and Evangelicals is not a common doctrine of Jesus Christ and the cross, a common doctrine of Scripture, or a common doctrine of justification and the sacraments. What unites Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, according to Metaxas and Joseph is they are good Christians who uphold God's moral law which opposes the murder of the unborn. Of course abortion is infanticide. But how opposing murder makes one a Christian is a mystery. Many atheists and agnostics oppose abortion but that does not make them Christians.

What is problematic with this article is that it assumes Metaxas is some kind of prophet who foresaw the future. It does not require a divine revelation of the future to predict what President Obama might have been preparing to say at a prayer breakfast. Obama's background is in the liberal, mainline United Churches of Christ, a denomination that was once Reformed and Calvinist. Unfortunately, subjective pietism leads to this same loss of doctrinal and confessional standards--as any idiot can see when Protestants think Roman Catholicism is somehow akin to biblical Christianity and confessional Reformed theology. As the Westminster divines rightly saw in 1645, the pope is an anti-christ and the Roman Catholic Church is a synagogue of satan. Without realizing it Metaxas and Joseph are as liberal as Obama himself. Irony of ironies! Maybe Eric Metaxas ought to stick to Veggie Tales since his critique of Obama's theology is based on an anti-intellectualist perspective and a false Evangelical unity.

Click here to read the full article: The President & The Prophet: Obama’s Unusual Encounter with Eric Metaxas - By Mark Joseph - The Corner - National Review Online

Touching the Third Rail! – Why Are Reformed Christians in the U.S. Obsessed With Politics?

Touching the Third Rail! – Why Are Reformed Christians in the U.S. Obsessed With Politics? [Click on the title to see the commentary at the Aquila Report].

I'm appalled at Brits who pretend to understand American Christianity, particularly Carl Trueman and Paul Levy. First off, neither of them understands the American Revolution and the fierce American opposition to governmental interference in private matters like free speech, freedom of religion, and individual freedom. As the federal government continues to usurp the rights of state governments to manage their own affairs, so the cultural divide widens. That is particularly true in the South where the wounds remaining from the American Civil War are still festering and slowly healing. What Trueman and Levy do not get is that Christians from the Bible belt feel the heat of government intrusions into matters of religious freedom. The Democratic Party's platform is essentially atheistic and relativistic and seeks to promote homosexuality, abortion, premarital and extramarital sex via its morally irresponsible cultural and social policies.

Trueman and Levy want Christians to shut up and stay out of politics because they are essentially liberals on both the political and the theological level. It is simply ludicrous to suppose that Christian churches should not be involved in politics, particularly when the government is increasingly curtailing the rights of Christians and Christian churches to voice their opinions on issues like abortion, homosexual/transgender issues, and sexual morality and ethics. For example it is now a "hate crime" for anyone to openly condemn homosexuality as a "sin" in Canada and from the looks of it the same sort of political interference in the individual's freedom of speech and freedom of religion will become law in the United States.

Furthermore, every American citizen was at one time required to take classes educating them about the dangers of atheistic materialism inherent in the communist and socialist worldview. The Democratic Party is increasingly opposed to Christianity and instead has adopted a form of socialism and secularism that is every bit as dangerous as the socialism espoused by the communists of the early 20th century. If Europe and Australia is our example, godlessness and atheism are the result of Trueman and Levy's point of view. Their celebration of hedonism in government simply reveals their true motives are not Christian but secular and materialistic. The Christian and the Christian church are not neutral but actively promoting the kingdom of God by focusing not only on the temporal and earthly extension of the kingdom but by preaching the Gospel and furthering the eternal kingdom which is unseen.

Moreover, Trueman and Levy are naive if they believe that the separation of church and state means that the state gets to dominate the Christian and the Christian church. It is true that Christians have been martyred over the centuries but that does not mean that Christians were beaten into submissive silence on moral issues and on theological issues. Trueman and Levy seem to have forgotten that John the Baptist was beheaded for daring to criticize Herod for marrying his brother Philip's wife, Herodias, which John the Baptist said was "unlawful". (Mark 16:17-29). I guess John should have taken the advice of Trueman and Levy? If individual Christians are members of the Christian church, then it follows naturally that both individual Christians and Christian churches should speak out against immoral government policies. What if William Wilberforce and John Newton had taken the position that Christian churches should not be involved in politics? Do you really believe the slave trade would have been ended in 19th century England? I suppose by Trueman and Levy's view Wilberforce should have simply acted alone and hoped for the best? But the English and the American abolitionist movement was promoted by Christian individuals supported by their churches. As the preacher of Ecclesiastes puts it:

And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him--a threefold cord is not quickly broken. (Ecclesiastes 4:12 ESV)

I am not a theonomist nor am I a reconstructionist. That does not mean, however, that Christians or churches should hide in a corner somewhere and pretend the world is not an enemy of the Gospel. If the Protestant Reformation is any example then we as Christians cannot afford to sit back and hope that the enemies of the Gospel will simply leave us be. As I write this article Christians are being martyred all over the world. Does Trueman and Levy think this will not happen in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia? Christians and churches should stand together and unite against those who hate the Gospel, that much is clear.

I disagree with ecumenicalism on the Evangelical side of things and on the liberal mainline side of things. As Michael Horton has pointed out, many Evangelical churches are simply preaching a form of neo-pelagianism. But that does not mean that we as Christians cannot operate on a level of co-belligerence that refuses to confuse the Gospel with a social gospel or a civil religious compromise with false churches which promote a false gospel of good works or a false gospel of theological relativism. Conservative Christians should unite against the intrusion of the government into private affairs of the Christian churches and the freedom of religion. If the UK, Canada and Australia are any indication it is imperative that churches be involved in the political process. Otherwise we wind up with a nation with no conscience and genocide is the result. Never forget what happened when Christians did nothing to stop the genocide of the Jews in Nazi Germany. What if American Christian churches had done nothing to end Jim Crow laws and racial segregation? Would the American Civil Rights laws have been passed giving black Americans equal rights? I think not. Simply put Trueman and Levy are naive at best and dissimulators with a hidden agenda at worst.

Finally, it seems to me that many churches are already involved in political issues. If conservative Christian churches do not speak out against immorality, then the liberal left version of theonomy--which is basically sanctified godlessness and atheism--then the cultural war is lost by default. Albeit the Gospel is not to be confused with the moral law or with cultural transformation (the error of both theonomists and liberals), it does not follow that churches which preach the true Gospel are to shut up and stay out of politics. No thank-you, Trueman. Maybe you should move back across the pond. We Americans do not need your gutless accommodation to the world.

One has to wonder why Trueman wrote a book on political issues if he really believes that Christian churches should stay in their corner or holed up in solitude? It seems to me that Trueman is irrational if he thinks there is some sort of dichotomy between the individual Christian and the unity of Christians we call a congregation or a church. We all stand together or we all fall together. Church history seems to indicate that well enough.

See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. (1 John 3:1 ESV)

The peace of God be with you,

Charlie J. Ray