>

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

Sunday, February 20, 2011

The Normative Principle of Worship

[Click here to see the article posted at the Anglo-Reformed blog:  Regulative Principle of Worship????].

Barton,

The fellow you're citing is an advocate of the "regulative" principle of worship, which means that anything that is not specifically commanded in Scripture for worship is forbidden in worship.  The irony here is that the author is himself going beyond the "broader Reformed" center!  The Anglican Reformers upheld a "magisterial" view meaning that they held to a "normative" principle of worship.  The normative principle of worship means that unless Scripture "forbids" something in worship, like idolatry, it is permitted.  That's why we can in good conscience utilize the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.  The more radical Puritans rejected the prayer book altogether. Lee Gatiss, in his new book, The True Profession of the Gospel, says:

The Anglican Catholic group was not alone in its discomfort with Queen Elizabeth's determined resolution to stand still religiously after 1559.  The Reformed Church of England was agreed in one important principle with the Lutherans, that of the so-called normative principle: the English Reformation was generally conducted along the lines that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church.  The Church of England, for example, therefore retained bishops whereas the Reformed on the continent (following the regulative principle, that whatever is not commanded is prohibited) generally abandoned episcopacy in favour of Presbyterianism.  Not everyone was in agreement with this way of settling matters:  the puritans of the late sixteenth century continued to seek further reformation of church government and the abolition of various practices which they considered to be a hangover from the medieval past, such as the sign of the cross used in baptism or the use of the surplice and other vestments.  (Pp. 15-16)

I am posting this comment to my blog since you have disabled commenting on your own blog.  I happen to agree with R. Scott Clark's view that there needs to be a recovery of the Reformed Confessions, although I do disagree with Clark's view of regulative worship.  J.I. Packer is now advocating a recovery of the practice of catechesis of new church members and current church members.  The Anglican Formularies function as a Reformed Confession of the Anglo-Reformed faith.  That would include following the Anglo-Reformed view of the vestments expressed by the ornaments rubric under Edward VI and not the revisionist interpretation of that rubric by high church Arminians and Anglo-Catholics.  Basically, high church Arminians are in collusion with the Anglo-Catholics whether they admit such  or not.  That does not mean that the normative principle permits idolatrous practices like the veneration of bread and wine, the saints, or prayers to Mary and the saints.  I hardly believe that Luther himself would have permitted such a thing. 

I should also point out that the reason high church Arminians in the Anglican Communion favor the "Lutheran" view is that they side with the more semi-pelagian side of Lutheranism, i.e. Philip Melanchthon.  Lee Gatiss argues that point effectively in his book as well.

Peace,


Charlie


The book is published by Latimer Trust.

For the original article by Alan Strange see Rejoinder to Clark Response to Review.  It looks like Strange is complaining about Clark's evaluation of Jonathan Edwards among other things.  I would agree that both Clark and Muller have overreached in their critique of Edwards in some ways.


--
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

6 comments:

aaytch said...

To begin with Charlie, my name is Hudson, not Barton. That gets tiresome if only for the fact you would know better than to make such a mistake if you had not chosen to discontinue our Facebook friendship.

Then there's the fact that comments to my blog are disabled because they are expected to come be means of the "Anglicans in the Wilderness" Facebook page, which they do. Of course you might have known that except for the fact that you no longer participate there on account of my insistence that participators abide by my rule not to so dominate the space that others feel unwelcome.

That being said, I agree with your comments here. Too bad that your pigheaded rudeness overshadows everything that so many of us might otherwise love about you.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Barton,

Your name is somewhat confusing.

Be that as it may, my blog is not subject your censorship. Also, since your blog is public it is subject to public scrutiny.

My "pig-headed" rudeness is really a determination not to give any credibility to those who preach another gospel. My view is the same as that of the Protestant Reformers: The Roman Catholic Church is a "synagogue of satan" and the Pope is an "antichrist". Since the Tractarians preach against the Protestant Reformation and against the very Gospel itself they are false prophets on the same order as Roman Catholics.

Your "broad evangelicalism" has become so broad to be more "latitudinarian" or "liberal" than "Reformed".

I refuse to participate at Anglicans in the Wilderness because its only practical result is to give the false teachers a forum to deceive others. If you actually convert one of them to Christ, please do let me know.

Charlie

On 2/20/2011 1:41 PM, Hudson Barton wrote:
> To begin with Charlie, my name is Hudson, not Barton. That gets tiresome if only for the fact you would know better than to make such a mistake if you had not chosen to discontinue our Facebook friendship.
>
> Then there's the fact that comments to my blog are disabled because they are expected to come be means of the "Anglicans in the Wilderness" Facebook page, which they do. Of course you might have known that except for the fact that you no longer participate there on account of my insistence that participators abide by my rule not to so dominate the space that others feel unwelcome.
>
> That being said, I agree with your comments here. Too bad that your pigheaded rudeness overshadows everything that so many of us might otherwise love about you.
>

Charlie J. Ray said...

If refusing to compromise with false teachers on any level whatsoever makes me "pigheaded", so be it. Maybe you should consider joining up with the broad "orthodoxy" of the Anglican Church in North America?

aaytch said...

Very few of us, least of all me, wish to argue with your views on various points of theology. They are not being criticized.

It is your attitude with respect to fellow human beings that results in you being described as rude and pigheaded. Your Christian demeanor toward those who deserve to be called your friends, much less those who might only hope for your charity, is abusive and an affront to our common confession.

H.

Charlie J. Ray said...

What is abusive to our common confession is when you let Anglo-Catholics and various other false prophets run roughshod over the Gospel and then attack your friends in a public forum over it.

The Gospel is not to be peddled or bargained over.

I get tired of those who think "love" is more important than doctrine. Allowing false doctrine to go unchallenged is not "love" because it sends people to hell.

In fact, living a moral life and being tolerant won't get anyone to heaven. It's just as important to believe the right doctrines as it is to be "tolerant".

I might add that is just as important not to fall for the Anglo-Catholic tactic of painting everyone who is Reformed as "mean-spirited" and "evil" simply because they are willing to fight back against their lies.

Their agenda is and always has been outright deception.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

For some reason I had Barton Hudson in my address book. Must have gotten it backwards somehow.

Your name is Hudson Barton, not Barton Hudson.

Sorry about that.

Charlie

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.