Anglicanism definitely had an Arminian side. How can I be sure? The Holy Communion from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer talked about believers losing their salvation (something Christ promises will not happen (John 10:27-30). This error was deleted from later editions of the Book of Common Prayer. However, here is your chance to read it now and learn.
(taken from 1552 Anglican Prayer Book)
Then shall the Priest say this exhortation.
DEARLY beloved in the Lord: ye that mind to come to the holy Communion of the body and blood of our saviour Christ, must consider what St. Paul writeth to the Corinthians, how he exhorteth all persons diligently to try and examine themselves, before they presume to eat of that bread, and drink of that cup: for as the benefit is great, if with a truly penitent heart, and lively faith, we receive that holy Sacrament (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, then we dwell in Christ and Christ in us; we be made one with Christ, and Christ with us;) so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily. For then we be guilty of the body and blood of Christ our saviour. We eat and drink our own damnation, not considering the Lord's body. We kindle God's wrath over us, we provoke him to plague us with divers diseases, and sundry kinds of death. Therefore if any of you be a blasphemer, adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or any other grevious crime, bewail your sins, and not come to this holy Table; lest after the taking of that most blessed bread, the Devil enter into you, as he did into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquity, and bring you to destruction, both of body and soul. Judge therefore yourselves (brethren) that ye be not judged of the Lord. Repent you truly for your sins past have a lively and stedfast faith in Christ our saviour, and be in perfect charity with all men, so shall ye be meet partakers of those holy mysteries. And above all things: ye must give most humble and hearty thanks to God the father, the son, and the holy ghost, for the redemption of the world, by the death and passion of our saviour Christ, both God and man, who did humble himself, even to the death upon the Cross, for us miserable sinners, which lay in darkness and the shadow of death, that he might make us the children of God, and exalt us to everlasting life. And to the end that we should alway remember the exceeding love of our Master, and only Saviour Jesu Christ, thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits (which by his precious blood shedding) he hath instituted and obtained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love, and continual remembrance of his death, to our great and endless comfort. To him therefore, with the father and the holy ghost, let us give (as we are most bounden) continual thanks: submitting ourselves wholly to his holy will and pleasure, and studying to serve him in true holiness and righteousness, all the days of our life. Amen.
Thank God that Anglicanism also had Richard Hooker. Compare what Hooker wrote to the above:
ETERNAL SECURITY IN CHRIST
I might, if I had not otherwhere largely done it already, show by sundry manifest and clear proofs how the motions and operations of life are sometimes so undiscernible and secret, that they seem stone-dead who notwithstanding are still alive unto God in Christ. (by Richard Hooker http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hooker/just.ix.html)
For as long as that abideth in us which animateth, quickeneth, and giveth life, so long we live; and we know that the cause of our life abideth in us for ever. If Christ, the fountain of life, may flit and leave the habitation where once he dwelleth, what shall become of his promise, "I am with you to the world's end"? [Mt 28:20] If the seed of God, which containeth Christ, may be first conceived and then cast out, how doth St. Peter term it immortal? [1 Pet 1:23] How doth St. John affirm it abideth? [1 Jn 3:9] If the Spirit, which is given to cherish and preserve the seed of life, may be given and taken away, how is it the earnest of our inheritance until redemption, [Eph 1:14; 2 Cor 1:22] how doth it continue with us for ever?" [Jn 14:16f] If therefore the man who is once just by faith shall live by faith and live for ever, it followeth that he who once doth believe the foundation must needs believe the foundation for ever. If he believe it for ever, how can he ever directly deny it? Faith holding the direct affirmation, the direct negation, so long as faith continueth, is excluded.
But ye will say that, as he who today is holy may tomorrow forsake his holiness and become impure, as a friend may change his mind and become an enemy, as hope may wither, so faith may die in the heart of man, the Spirit may be quenched, [1 Thess 5:19] grace may be extinguished, they who believe may be quite turned away from the truth. The case is clear, long experience hath made this manifest, it needs no proof.
I grant that we are apt, prone, and ready to forsake God; but is God as ready to forsake us? Our minds are changeable; is his so likewise? Whom God hath justified hath not Christ assured that it is his Father's will to give them a kingdom? [Lk 12:32] Which kingdom, notwithstanding, shall not otherwise be given them than "if they continue grounded and established in the faith and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel", [Col 1:23] "if they abide in love and holiness."[1 Tim 2:15] Our Saviour therefore, when he spake of the sheep effectually called and truly gathered into his fold, "I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand," [Jn 10:28] in promising to save them, promised, no doubt, to preserve them in that without which there can be no salvation, as also from that whereby salvation is irremediably lost. Every error in things appertaining to God is repugnant unto faith; every fearful cogitation, unto hope; unto love, every straggling inordinate desire; unto holiness, every blemish whereby either the inward thoughts of our minds or the outward actions of our lives are stained. But heresy, such as that of Ebion, Cerinthus, and others, against whom the Apostles were forced to bend themselves, both by word and also by writing; that repining discouragement of heart which tempteth God, whereof we have Israel in the desert for a pattern; [1 Cor 10:6ff; Heb 3:7ff] coldness, such as that in the angel of Ephesus; [Rev 2:4] foul sins known to be expressly against the first or the second table of the law, such as Noah, Manasses, David, Solomon, and Peter committed: these are each in their kind so opposite to the former virtues that they leave no place for salvation without an actual repentance. But infidelity, extreme despair, hatred of God and all godliness, obduration in sin, cannot stand where there is the least spark of faith, hope, love, or sanctity, even as cold in the lowest degree cannot be where heat in the first degree is found.
Whereupon I conclude that, although in the first kind no man liveth that sinneth not, and in, the second, as perfect as any do live may sin, yet since the man who is born of God hath a promise that in him the seed of God shall abide, [1 Jn 3:9] which seed is a sure preservative against the sins of the third suit, greater and clearer assurance we cannot have of anything than of this, that from such sins God shall preserve the righteous, as the apple of his eye, for ever. [Dt 32:10; Ps 17:80] Directly we deny the foundation of faith, is plain infidelity. Where faith is entered, there infidelity is for ever excluded. Therefore by him who hath once sincerely believed in Christ the foundation of Christian faith can never be directly denied. Did not Peter [Mt 26:69ff], did not Marcellinus [see Keble, p 519], did not many others both directly deny Christ after they had believed and again believe after they had denied? No doubt, as they may confess in word whose condemnation nevertheless is their not believing (for example we have Judas), so likewise they may believe in heart whose condemnation, without repentance, is their not confessing. Although therefore Peter and the rest, for whose faith Christ had prayed that it might not fail,[Lk 22:31f] did not by denial sin the sin of infidelity, which is an inward abnegation of Christ (for if they had done this their faith had clearly failed); yet, because they sinned notoriously and grievously, committing that which they knew to be so expressly forbidden by the law, which saith, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve, [Dt 6:13; Mt 4:10] necessary it was that he who purposed to save their souls should, as he did, touch their hearts with true unfeigned repentance, that his mercy might restore them again to life whom sin had made the children of death and condemnation.
Touching this point, therefore, I hope I may safely set it down that if the justified err, as he may, and never come to understand his error, God doth save him through general repentance; but if he fall into heresy, he calleth him either at one time or other by actual repentance; but from infidelity, which is an inward direct denial of the foundation, preserveth him by special providence for ever. Whereby we may easily know what to think of those Galatians whose hearts were so possessed with love of the truth that, if it had been possible, they would have plucked out their very eyes to bestow upon their teachers. [Gal 4:15] It is true that they were afterwards greatly changed, both in persuasion and affection, so that the Galatians, when St. Paul wrote unto them, were not now the Galatians which they had been in former times, for that through error they wandered, although they were his sheep. [Gal 1:6] I do not deny, but I should deny that they were his sheep, if I should grant that through error they perished. It was a perilous opinion which they held, in them who held it only as an error, because it overthroweth the foundation by consequent. But in them who obstinately maintained it I cannot think it less than a damnable heresy.
Showing posts with label Holy Communion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Holy Communion. Show all posts
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Weakened Anglicans to face the pope
Benedict XVI will soon visit Great Britain and evangelicals are mobilizing in hopes of limiting the damage.
So why is the Anglican world so susceptible to the Pope and his Roman Catholic Church? The answer is: The Gospel and the Eucharist.
Despite the Anglican’s 39 Articles, which clearly outline the Gospel of Christ dying for those who believe in him—the elect—Anglicans have always been at odds among themselves as to whether Christ died for all or for the elect alone.
No agreement on the true Gospel means Anglicans are weak and susceptible to receiving the pope’s gospel of Christ dying for only the “possibility” of salvation for all—which is the gospel the pope preaches. Therefore, the pope convinces people that they need him and his church’s sacraments to help Jesus in his mediatorial work if they are to ever enjoy the possibility of getting to heaven.
You can know when a church believes and preaches such a false gospel because they will tell you there is no assurance of salvation or heaven for anyone, and that a person can lose their salvation at anytime. All of these contradict Jesus’ own promises, found throughout the Gospel of John, especially see John 5:24, 6:44, 6:47 and 10:28-30.
Many Anglican priests continue to preach a similar false gospel about Christ dying for the “possible salvation” of all people and are thus condemned in Gal. 1:8-9 unless they repent. They mislead many.
Similarly, when it comes to the Eucharist or Holy Communion, again—few Protestants (mainly, only Lutherans) believe that they truly receive Jesus’ body and blood as he promised at the Lord’s Supper—though they too are mislead in believing that Christ died only for the “possible salvation” of all—for Lutherans believe you can lose your salvation.
As for the Anglicans, this is a case where the wording of the article (Article 28) on the Lord’s Supper has proven to cause further division. Instead of being urged to simply believe Christ’s promise that we receive his body and blood, the article goes on to insist it is taken and eaten in a “heavenly and spiritual manner.”
In any case, the Protestant Truth Society has issued the following “Joint Protest agaistn the 2010 Papal Visit,” which will be published in The Times of London and presented to the Queen and the Government:
Joint Protest Against the 2010 Papal Visit to the United Kingdom
Remembering Martin Luther’s historic protest in 1517 against the errors of the Church of Rome, we the undersigned protest against the state visit of the Pope to the United Kingdom.
The Pope claims to be the supreme head of the universal church and that all governments should be subject to him. There is only one head of the universal church and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. No man can claim that title. In the United Kingdom, the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and is pledged to uphold the Church of Scotland. She is the head of state and, together with the British Parliament; we accept no other temporal authority.
We reject the Pope’s absurd pretensions to power over governments and churches. In particular, we reject his blasphemous claim to infallibility. God alone is infallible. We affirm that there is only one mediator between God and men – the man Christ Jesus. At Calvary, Jesus Christ died for the sins of His people. That sacrifice was made once for all and can never be repeated. Repentant sinners find forgiveness by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.
The Bible, the inspired Word of God, is our supreme rule and contains no shred of evidence for the false and idolatrous doctrines of the Roman Church. Thanking God for the great outburst of spiritual light that shone during the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century we declare: The Pope cannot mediate between man and God. Neither Mary nor the ‘Saints’ can make intersession for us. Jesus Christ is our only advocate with God the Father.
The so-called sacrifice of the mass is, as the Articles of the Church of England make plain, a ‘blasphemous fable’ and a ‘dangerous deceit’. God alone can absolve our sins and the confessional is a fraud. There is no biblical authority for the Roman doctrine of purgatory. There are only two possible destinations for men and women after death – heaven or hell.
The papal visit is a betrayal of our Protestant Constitution and of the Gospel that sustains it. Christ promised, ‘He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.’ He alone is King of kings.
For more on this, read Richard Bennett’s article, “Biblical Protest and Witness Await Pope’s UK Visit,” at his website http://www.bereanbeacon.org/.
So why is the Anglican world so susceptible to the Pope and his Roman Catholic Church? The answer is: The Gospel and the Eucharist.
Despite the Anglican’s 39 Articles, which clearly outline the Gospel of Christ dying for those who believe in him—the elect—Anglicans have always been at odds among themselves as to whether Christ died for all or for the elect alone.
No agreement on the true Gospel means Anglicans are weak and susceptible to receiving the pope’s gospel of Christ dying for only the “possibility” of salvation for all—which is the gospel the pope preaches. Therefore, the pope convinces people that they need him and his church’s sacraments to help Jesus in his mediatorial work if they are to ever enjoy the possibility of getting to heaven.
You can know when a church believes and preaches such a false gospel because they will tell you there is no assurance of salvation or heaven for anyone, and that a person can lose their salvation at anytime. All of these contradict Jesus’ own promises, found throughout the Gospel of John, especially see John 5:24, 6:44, 6:47 and 10:28-30.
Many Anglican priests continue to preach a similar false gospel about Christ dying for the “possible salvation” of all people and are thus condemned in Gal. 1:8-9 unless they repent. They mislead many.
Similarly, when it comes to the Eucharist or Holy Communion, again—few Protestants (mainly, only Lutherans) believe that they truly receive Jesus’ body and blood as he promised at the Lord’s Supper—though they too are mislead in believing that Christ died only for the “possible salvation” of all—for Lutherans believe you can lose your salvation.
As for the Anglicans, this is a case where the wording of the article (Article 28) on the Lord’s Supper has proven to cause further division. Instead of being urged to simply believe Christ’s promise that we receive his body and blood, the article goes on to insist it is taken and eaten in a “heavenly and spiritual manner.”
In any case, the Protestant Truth Society has issued the following “Joint Protest agaistn the 2010 Papal Visit,” which will be published in The Times of London and presented to the Queen and the Government:
Joint Protest Against the 2010 Papal Visit to the United Kingdom
Remembering Martin Luther’s historic protest in 1517 against the errors of the Church of Rome, we the undersigned protest against the state visit of the Pope to the United Kingdom.
The Pope claims to be the supreme head of the universal church and that all governments should be subject to him. There is only one head of the universal church and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. No man can claim that title. In the United Kingdom, the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and is pledged to uphold the Church of Scotland. She is the head of state and, together with the British Parliament; we accept no other temporal authority.
We reject the Pope’s absurd pretensions to power over governments and churches. In particular, we reject his blasphemous claim to infallibility. God alone is infallible. We affirm that there is only one mediator between God and men – the man Christ Jesus. At Calvary, Jesus Christ died for the sins of His people. That sacrifice was made once for all and can never be repeated. Repentant sinners find forgiveness by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.
The Bible, the inspired Word of God, is our supreme rule and contains no shred of evidence for the false and idolatrous doctrines of the Roman Church. Thanking God for the great outburst of spiritual light that shone during the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century we declare: The Pope cannot mediate between man and God. Neither Mary nor the ‘Saints’ can make intersession for us. Jesus Christ is our only advocate with God the Father.
The so-called sacrifice of the mass is, as the Articles of the Church of England make plain, a ‘blasphemous fable’ and a ‘dangerous deceit’. God alone can absolve our sins and the confessional is a fraud. There is no biblical authority for the Roman doctrine of purgatory. There are only two possible destinations for men and women after death – heaven or hell.
The papal visit is a betrayal of our Protestant Constitution and of the Gospel that sustains it. Christ promised, ‘He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.’ He alone is King of kings.
For more on this, read Richard Bennett’s article, “Biblical Protest and Witness Await Pope’s UK Visit,” at his website http://www.bereanbeacon.org/.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Is brother Jim a Calvinist? Maybe just a Bible Catholic?
For instance, I'll readily admit that I'm not offended by being called a Calvinist, to a certain extent at least, because I certainly agree with the gospel that is preached by honest 5-point Calvinism.
However, you would have to call me more of a Lutheran of sorts when it comes to the Lord's Supper. You could even call me a "Eucharistic Calvinist" and I wouldn't be offended, though you might find several Calvinsts real stirred up about that.
I write this because, unlike Calvinism, I very much literally believe the promise of Christ that we recieve his very body and blood when we receive the bread and wine during the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion. Not because the priest has some special charism or gift from the Holy Spirit that makes it possible for him to "confect" the body and blood of Christ, as taught by the Roman Church. No. I believe that I receive the body and blood of Jesus because Jesus himself promises it to all who believe in him.
Jesus plainly promises us that we receive his body and blood when we receive the bread and wine during Holy Communion (Matthew 26:-28). Though you may think that's the Roman Catholic teaching, it is not. The Romans teach that the bread and the wine become the body, blood as well as soul and divinity of Jesus Christ--the whole Christ (transubstantiation). This makes it possible to bow down to the bread.
They say the bread and wine are totally destroyed during the priest's prayer and become his body, blood, soul and divinity--which was added by popes who believed the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. While they get an "A" for being imaginative, they get an "F" for making this a belief that is required for salvation. They get an F minus for urging people to kneel and pray to the bread from Holy Communion as they would pray to Jesus (known as Eucharistic adoration). Even the Orthodox Church rejects this teaching.
Again, we very much disagree with Roman Catholics when it comes to the teaching of transubstantiation. We say that Aquinas and the church borrowed way too much from the pagan philosopher Aristotle to come up with an explanation that suddenly became the "word of God" (according to the pope) for Roman Catholics. Because they made this explanation a belief required for salvation for all, they messed up big time. It became part of their whole false gospel.
Roman Catholics and Protestants should listen all the more to Paul who clearly tells us that "whosever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11: 27)
How can we be "guilty of sinning agianst the body and blood of the Lord, if what we eat and drink is not the body and blood of the Lord? For more specifics, go to http://www.biblecatholics.com/holy_communion.htm.
In addtion, I very much oppose those so-called Calvinists who favor "Common Grace" and I am very much with the Protestant Reformed Church when it comes to the total rejection of Common Grace. To read the specifics, go to http://www.biblecatholics.com/grace_uncommon.htm.
In other words, I don't believe "common gracers" are true Calvnists. Sadly, this is another reason (in addition to Holy Communion) that I am essentially at odds with most Calvinists, even though we certainly agree on the gospel. Amazing isn't it? We agree on the gospel, the message about and from Christ, but disagree on the gospel of Christ through the sacrament of Holy Communion. They believe that we spiritually receive Christ's body and blood. I believe that too, but I also believe that we receive him physically through the bread and wine. My excuse? I've just got to go where the word of God leads me.
By the way, The basic reason I reject the idea of common grace is that I don't believe God even "passively" blesses those who don't believe in him. Yeah, unbelievers may be alot richer than me in dollars and cents but that money just ensures that they don't much care about God and what he can do for them. What good is their money if they're headed for hell? In this case, their money makes life a lot more comfortable, but what is that compared to an eternity in hell? My hope for them is that God with have mercy via annihilation.
The concept of Common Grace is also an essential denial of predestination. While people get all hot and bothered about that word, as I have written before, it is essentially no more than our humble admission that God is in total control of everything. If he wasn’t in total control, he would not be an almighty God. All who worship a God who is not in total control, worship an idol of their own making.
Because we worship a God who is in total control, we know he can keep all of his promises. He has proven that many, many times already by showing us that his Old Testament phophecies have indeed come to pass in the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.
--brother Jim
Monday, November 16, 2009
Cautions against Romanism and the priesthood's proper place
(Short note from Bro. Jim...)
While the late Bishop J.C. Ryle of Liverpool (died 1900) and I may not see exactly eye to eye on the Lord’s Supper (see below), on many matters we are in very real agreement--much of the following included. It's all very worthy of consideration for BibleCatholics. We have much to thank Ryle and others in the old Anglican Church and especially those of the so-called “low church” like Ryle, who are indeed a near dead breed in the days of the ecumenical Roman takeover. Here are some important thoughts Ryle had against the creeping adoption of Roman Catholic errors among Anglican priests and some specific cautions to keep the priesthood itself in proper perspective. (I made a few comments in parenthesis)
Bishop Ryle (pictured at right) wrote:
2. For another thing, I charge you to beware of Anglo-Romanism, and do all you can to resist it.
Resist it in little things. Resist strange dresses, sacrificial garments, the eastward position in consecrating the bread and wine, idolatrous reverence of the consecrated elements, processions, banners, incense, candles on the communion table, turning to the East, crosses and crucifixes in the chancels, and extravagant Church decorations.
Resist it in great things. Oppose with might and main the attempt to re-introduce the Mass and Auricular Confession in our parishes. Send your boy to no school where auricular confession is ever tolerated. Allow no clergymen to draw your wife and daughter to private confession. Oppose sternly, but firmly, the attempt to change the Lord’s Supper at your parish churches, into the Romish sacrifice of the mass. Draw back from the communion in such churches, and go elsewhere. The laity have a great deal of power in this matter, even without going to law. They should tell the clergy their minds. They cannot do without the laity any more than officers in a regiment can do without privates. Let the English laity all over England rise in their might, and say, “We will not have the mass and auricular confession.”
Resist it for Christ’s sake. His Priestly and Mediatorial offices are being injured and dishonoured. They are offices He has never deputed to any order of ordained men.
Resist it for the clergy’s sake. The worst and cruellest thing that can be done is to lift us out of our proper places, and make us lords over your consciences, and mediators between yourselves and God.
Resist it for the laity’s sake. The most degrading position in which laymen could be put, is that of being cringing slaves at the foot of a brother sinner (the priest).
Resist it, not least, for your children’s sake. Do what in you lies to provide that, when you are dead and gone, they shall not be left to the tender mercies of Popery. As ever you would meet your boys and girls in heaven, take care that the Church of England in your day is maintained a Protestant Church, and preserves her Articles and the principles of the Reformation wholly uninjured and undefiled.
--From "What do we owe the reformation" by J.C. Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool
ON THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY AND SACRAMENTS
(3) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not under value the Christian ministry. It is not true to say that we do. We regard it as an honourable office instituted by Christ Himself, and of general necessity for carrying on the work of the Gospel. We look on ministers as preachers of God’s Word, God’s ambassadors, God’s messengers, God’s servants, God’s shepherds, God’s stewards, God’s overseers, and labourers in God’s vineyard.
But we steadily refuse to admit that Christian ministers are in any sense sacrificing priests, mediators between God and man, lords of men’s consciences, or private confessors (and they are certainly not "another Christ" as taught by Roman Catholicism). We refuse it, not only because we cannot see it in the Bible, but also because we have read the lessons of Church history. We find that Sacerdotalism, or priestcraft, has frequently been the curse of Christianity, and the ruin of true religion. And we say boldly that the exaltation of the ministerial office to an unscriptural place and extravagant dignity in the Church of England in the present day, is likely to alienate the affections of the laity, to ruin the Church, and to be the source of every kind of error and superstition.
(4) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not undervalue the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It is not true to say that we do. We honour them as holy ordinances appointed by Christ Himself, and as blessed means of grace, which in all who use them rightly, worthily, and with faith, “have a wholesome effect or operation.”
(I still maintain that we should believe that partaking of the bread and wine is the same as receiving the very body and blood of Christ, as he promised us. "This is my body...this is my blood.." Paul tells us that those who recieve without faith are guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. How can we be "guilty of the body and blood of our Lord" if it is not true? "...whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 1 Cor. 11:27. This is not idolatry as long as we keep to his promise in the Lord's Supper--but it most certainly is when we try to take the elements out of the context Christ gave us--as in so-called Eucharistic adoration--which is most definitely idolatry.)
--From “Evangelical Religion” by J.C. Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool
Read more Ryle at http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/john_charles_ryle.htm
Short overview at the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Charles_Ryle
While the late Bishop J.C. Ryle of Liverpool (died 1900) and I may not see exactly eye to eye on the Lord’s Supper (see below), on many matters we are in very real agreement--much of the following included. It's all very worthy of consideration for BibleCatholics. We have much to thank Ryle and others in the old Anglican Church and especially those of the so-called “low church” like Ryle, who are indeed a near dead breed in the days of the ecumenical Roman takeover. Here are some important thoughts Ryle had against the creeping adoption of Roman Catholic errors among Anglican priests and some specific cautions to keep the priesthood itself in proper perspective. (I made a few comments in parenthesis)
Bishop Ryle (pictured at right) wrote:
2. For another thing, I charge you to beware of Anglo-Romanism, and do all you can to resist it.
Resist it in little things. Resist strange dresses, sacrificial garments, the eastward position in consecrating the bread and wine, idolatrous reverence of the consecrated elements, processions, banners, incense, candles on the communion table, turning to the East, crosses and crucifixes in the chancels, and extravagant Church decorations.
Resist it in great things. Oppose with might and main the attempt to re-introduce the Mass and Auricular Confession in our parishes. Send your boy to no school where auricular confession is ever tolerated. Allow no clergymen to draw your wife and daughter to private confession. Oppose sternly, but firmly, the attempt to change the Lord’s Supper at your parish churches, into the Romish sacrifice of the mass. Draw back from the communion in such churches, and go elsewhere. The laity have a great deal of power in this matter, even without going to law. They should tell the clergy their minds. They cannot do without the laity any more than officers in a regiment can do without privates. Let the English laity all over England rise in their might, and say, “We will not have the mass and auricular confession.”
Resist it for Christ’s sake. His Priestly and Mediatorial offices are being injured and dishonoured. They are offices He has never deputed to any order of ordained men.
Resist it for the clergy’s sake. The worst and cruellest thing that can be done is to lift us out of our proper places, and make us lords over your consciences, and mediators between yourselves and God.
Resist it for the laity’s sake. The most degrading position in which laymen could be put, is that of being cringing slaves at the foot of a brother sinner (the priest).
Resist it, not least, for your children’s sake. Do what in you lies to provide that, when you are dead and gone, they shall not be left to the tender mercies of Popery. As ever you would meet your boys and girls in heaven, take care that the Church of England in your day is maintained a Protestant Church, and preserves her Articles and the principles of the Reformation wholly uninjured and undefiled.
--From "What do we owe the reformation" by J.C. Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool
ON THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY AND SACRAMENTS
(3) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not under value the Christian ministry. It is not true to say that we do. We regard it as an honourable office instituted by Christ Himself, and of general necessity for carrying on the work of the Gospel. We look on ministers as preachers of God’s Word, God’s ambassadors, God’s messengers, God’s servants, God’s shepherds, God’s stewards, God’s overseers, and labourers in God’s vineyard.
But we steadily refuse to admit that Christian ministers are in any sense sacrificing priests, mediators between God and man, lords of men’s consciences, or private confessors (and they are certainly not "another Christ" as taught by Roman Catholicism). We refuse it, not only because we cannot see it in the Bible, but also because we have read the lessons of Church history. We find that Sacerdotalism, or priestcraft, has frequently been the curse of Christianity, and the ruin of true religion. And we say boldly that the exaltation of the ministerial office to an unscriptural place and extravagant dignity in the Church of England in the present day, is likely to alienate the affections of the laity, to ruin the Church, and to be the source of every kind of error and superstition.
(4) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not undervalue the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It is not true to say that we do. We honour them as holy ordinances appointed by Christ Himself, and as blessed means of grace, which in all who use them rightly, worthily, and with faith, “have a wholesome effect or operation.”
But we steadily refuse to admit that Christ’s Sacraments convey grace ex opere operato, (I'm with that) and that in every case where they are administered, good must of necessity be done. We refuse to admit that they are the grand media between Christ and the soul,—above faith, above preaching, and above prayer. We protest against the idea that in baptism the use of water, in the name of the Trinity, is invariably and necessarily accompanied by regeneration. We protest against the practice of encouraging any one to come to the Lord’s Table unless he repents truly of sin, has a lively faith in Christ, and is in charity with all men. We protest against the theory that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, as a theory alike contrary to the Bible, Articles, and Prayer-book. And above all, we protest against the notion of any corporal presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Lord’s Supper, under the forms of bread and wine, as an “idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians.”
--From “Evangelical Religion” by J.C. Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool
Read more Ryle at http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/john_charles_ryle.htm
Short overview at the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Charles_Ryle
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A church that believes the promises of Christ
Remember the gospel—Jesus the Christ won everlasting life for all who believe in him. This is the gospel, the Good News of Jesus. Those who preach to the contrary are condemned (Galatians 1:8-9)
Whatever the pope’s intentions in recently mentioning that he would make it easy for Anglicans to become Roman Catholics, please let this former Roman Catholic attempt to dissuade you (Anglicans), if you should need some dissuading. I address this particularly to those Anglicans who have avoided allowing women priests into their fold, but I would be glad for others to consider my simple words as well.
I am often told that I will never find the perfect church because many assume that’s what I must be looking for since I am so dissatisfied with what passes for “church” in our time. However, I have often replied that I seek only a church with one real doctrine—and that’s the doctrine which insists that all the promises of Christ are true.
Promises such as “he who believes in me has everlasting life.” Promises such as “this is my body, given for you.” Promises such as, “…and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Promises such as, “I go to prepare a place for you..."
That means that such a church would preach the true gospel based on Christ’s promises that:
“…he who believes in me has everlasting life.” (John 6:47) and
“…he who hears my word and believes in him that sent me, has everlasting life and shall not come to condemnation; but is passed from death to life.” (John 5:24) and
“My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me: And I give them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” (John 10:27-29)
"I go to prepare a place for you." (John 14:2)
"I will come again and take you to me, so that where I am you may be also." (John 14:3)
This is the Gospel or good news of Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God and those who believe it are so glad that Christ alone has won heaven for them that they want to do something for him. They want to obey him. They don’t often do a good job of that, but they try.
Instead of “obedience” a better way to put it is they just want to say “thank you” to Jesus with their lives. Again, they often fail miserably at this “thank you” business—this business of loving God and their neighbor--this business of obediance.Yet, as often as they fail, they also confess and ask his forgiveness and remind themselves that it is Christ that they trust for their salvation and not themselves. Yes, they trust that Christ has won heaven for them, something they know they could never do.
Again, they remember Jesus’ promise that he has chosen them and that their ability to believe in him is a sure sign to them that he has given them the gift of faith. "For it is by grace that you are saved through faith; not of your doing, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Another promise that Jesus makes is to be with them always and to give them his body and blood. That’s what he promised and that’s what we should believe. "For my body truly is the food, and my blood truly is the drink. He who eats my body and drinks my blood will abide with me, and I with him." (John 6:55)
Read that last line again. Jesus promises us his body and blood and that when we, as believers, partake...we abide with and in him.
"Therefore whosoever shall eat of the Lord's bread and drink of his cup unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (Corinthians 11: 27)
What church preaches this gospel? What church believes all the Lord's promises? BibleCatholics will. --Bro. Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)