tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post1831992193516017379..comments2023-10-28T05:58:07.377-07:00Comments on Anglicans Ablaze: The True Anglican PatrimonyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-43949295043123894332011-06-11T16:16:33.266-07:002011-06-11T16:16:33.266-07:00True Anglicanism is the Lambeth Articles, the Iris...True Anglicanism is the Lambeth Articles, the Irish Articles, and the prayer books edited by Cranmer... <br /><br />There is no way the 39 Articles can be twisted to fit Arminianism since Arminianism wasn't even in consideration when Cranmer crafted the 42 Articles, which are the basis of the 39 Articles.<br /><br />In fact, your argument that the Carolinians were Arminians provides equal fodder for the Tractarians since they are going to say that the Arminians are on their side and lay the foundation for the Tractarian movement. I agree with them. Arminianism IS the forerunner of Tractarianism. Even Augustus Toplady had sense enough to see this.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-72603208705056627232011-06-11T16:12:22.303-07:002011-06-11T16:12:22.303-07:00In short, Robin, I'm accusing you not of being...In short, Robin, I'm accusing you not of being Arminian or Tractarian. I'm accusing you of being a jelly fish. Just as most Anglicans today morph into chameleons to fit with the minimalist doctrine approved by the Tractarians and liberals you have no convictions and no dogmatic theology. <br /><br />Your view of Anglicanism is why Anglicanism is a gutless liberal organization rather than a church.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-41024328987993075392011-06-11T16:09:12.586-07:002011-06-11T16:09:12.586-07:00Robin, I've not read any of Hampton's boo...Robin, I've not read any of Hampton's books... So I can't comment on that.<br /><br />Be that as it may, it is irrelevant to the Reformed position whether or not the Caroline divines were precursors to Tractarianism or not. What is relevant is that they were Arminian, which even YOU concede. Hint: anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of Arminianism knows that the system is in and of itself sympathetic to Roman Catholic doctrine. In short, one does not need to prove the historical connection since the Arminian position denies all five of the solas of the Reformation. Laud was killed by the Puritans for good reason. His theology is in and of itself Papist.<br /><br />Semi-pelagianism is Roman Catholic even when it is watered down and disguised in Arminian garb.<br /><br />Your position not only gives credibility to the Tractarians but also to the Arminians. Both are equally heretical and in fact Arminianism naturally leads to Tractarianism and even Rome--if you doubt me please explain why the vast majority of neo-Calvinists, Arminians and Evangelicals think the Protestant Reformation is over and there is no need to evangelize Roman Catholics as "lost"? Hint: Even Billy Graham thinks Catholics are "in".<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-47911460028522307382011-06-11T15:43:08.867-07:002011-06-11T15:43:08.867-07:00Charlie,
I am going to overlook those remarks. I ...Charlie,<br /><br />I am going to overlook those remarks. I prefer to draw my conclusions based upon primary sources and not secondary sources, upon the writings and sermons of the individual or group that I am examining than the opinions of their peers, in particularly their critics, which after all are opinions and reveal more about those expressing them than those about whom they are expressed. I am also more credible, and I am less susceptible to being exposed as not having done my homework by someone who has done more careful research than I have. <br /><br />Drawing attention to the fact that the Caroline divines were not sympathetic to the Church of Rome and are classifiable as Protestant on a number of points does not make me either an Arminian nor a Tractarian. It is simply accurate objective historic analyis. If we affirm the historically inaccurate claim of the Tractarians and their Anglo-Catholic successors that the Caroline High Churchmen were their forerunners, we give legitimacy to their claim to be a natural development in historic Anglicanism, which is patently untrue. We undercut this claim when we show that the Caroline High Churchman were not sympathetic to the Church of Rome. We also put the Caroline High Churchmen in proper historic perspective. Their theology was in many ways defective from a Biblical and Reformed point of view, however, they were not an Romanizing movement like the Tractarians and Ritualists in the nineteenth century. Indeed, they were not a movement at all. They were a group of clergy and scholars that enjoyed prominence during the Stuart reign. However, their influence would wane after the Restoration. As Stephen Hampton shows in his Oxford monograph, <i>The Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I</i>, the Church of England would in the main remain solidly Reformed, and did not succumb to Arminianism as later writers sympathetic to Arminian theology would claim. Where the Laudians were most influential was not upon doctrine but upon practice, that is liturgical usage. The Church of England acquired some High Church "frills," but these "frills" were nothing like the Medieval Catholic and post-Reformation Roman Catholic practices that the Ritualists introduced in the nineteenth century. We witness in this period in English Church history the emergence of the High Church Calvinists.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-9029490295640520092011-06-10T14:25:44.087-07:002011-06-10T14:25:44.087-07:00I'm glad the truth is finally coming out, Robi...I'm glad the truth is finally coming out, Robin. Apparently you're in the same bed with the Arminians...<br /><br />Next stop .... Tractarianism...Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-85649502764701738242011-06-10T14:24:28.992-07:002011-06-10T14:24:28.992-07:00George, since you're apparently at this time a...George, since you're apparently at this time a reprobate you're absolutely correct. This conversation is fruitless because you're still in need of regeneration. <br /><br />I don't worship Calvin. I just think that the Reformed/Calvinist interpretation of Scripture is the most consistent, congruent, rational, logical, and applicable one there is. Papists, Arminians, theonomists, neo-Calvinists, and various other heresiarchs must twist Scripture to fit their irrationalism. Scripture, on the other hand, is perfectly rational and logical. The propositional truth claims in Scripture are so simple even a child can read and understand and be saved (2 Timothy 3:15-17).<br /><br />May God grant you the grace to believe the true Gospel of grace before you drop dead...<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-74804174508165442242011-06-10T05:45:05.176-07:002011-06-10T05:45:05.176-07:00Charlie,
If calvinism = the Gospel
than the Gospe...Charlie,<br /><br />If calvinism = the Gospel<br />than the Gospel = Calvinism<br />Than you worship Calvin (not Christ)....hmmm...that's heretical.<br /><br />I am sure you are going to say i am idiot or whatever name calling you like to use. As you say by your own admission this is your logic. <br /><br />Anyway all you want to do is suggest i believe in heresy or I am Tractarian. But I am not going to go any further in any conversation with you because i realized it is pointless.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18402467584294418765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-63069947867248392372011-06-09T17:35:58.310-07:002011-06-09T17:35:58.310-07:00Kevin, by your own admission you deny the five poi...Kevin, by your own admission you deny the five points of Calvinism as defined at the Synod of Dort. What more needs to be said? DUH! You practically admitted you're not Reformed or Calvinist. Let me guess? You're also a theonomist:) Just guessing, mind you...Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-47918840720930941492011-06-09T17:34:25.055-07:002011-06-09T17:34:25.055-07:00George, by your definition "Reformed" me...George, by your definition "Reformed" means Tractarianism. Apples are oranges and homosexuals are Christians in your mixed up thinking I suppose.<br /><br />Simply because you wish to hijack the term "Reformed" to make it mean what it never meant does not justify the heresies you believe. Calvinism IS the Gospel.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-29201736937850672622011-06-09T17:31:46.358-07:002011-06-09T17:31:46.358-07:00Robin, your own view is revisionist since you appa...Robin, your own view is revisionist since you apparently try to redeem a damnable Arminian heretic for the cause of a false unity. There can be no union between two opposing views of the Gospel. One is false. Choose you this day which Gospel is true. Hint: it isn't the semi-papist and semi-pelagian gospel of the Arminians.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-78508482416475585322011-06-09T17:29:25.319-07:002011-06-09T17:29:25.319-07:00I might add that Articles 9-18 leave no room whats...I might add that Articles 9-18 leave no room whatsover for ANY Arminian interpretation. "Prevenient grace", contra John Wesley, is not universally applied to all mankind but is rather applied only to the elect (See Article 17 and Articles 9-10).Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-19560575686197553812011-06-09T17:27:42.254-07:002011-06-09T17:27:42.254-07:00Is Arminianism a Damnable Heresy?<a href="http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/pribble/damnable.html" rel="nofollow">Is Arminianism a Damnable Heresy?</a>Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-16358462193481389052011-06-09T17:25:06.285-07:002011-06-09T17:25:06.285-07:00Sorry, Robin, but the fact that Laud persecuted th...Sorry, Robin, but the fact that Laud persecuted the Calvinists is proof enough that his sympathies were against the Gospel and for works. Arminianism is simply another version of the Roman Catholic error of semi-pelagianism.<br /><br />The idea that Anglicanism is some sort of minimalist hodge podge is basically heterodoxy. Doctrine is nailed down in Scripture and there is no room for Arminianism or any other false gospel. The reason Laud was killed was not trumped up charges but the fact that he persecuted Calvinists and taught false doctrine. <br /><br />Arminianism is incompatible with Scriptural Christianity and in fact denies all five solas of the Protestant Reformation. <br /><br />(See: <a href="http://www.alliancenet.org/cc/article/0,,PTID307086_CHID559376_CIID1952510,00.html" rel="nofollow">Is Arminianism Heresy?</a>Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-5762551594184850682011-06-09T12:21:30.328-07:002011-06-09T12:21:30.328-07:00Robin,
I've recently launched a blog which se...Robin,<br /><br />I've recently launched a blog which seeks to document the history of the old High Churchmen (they preferred to be called Orthodox). I have a blog series that I am working on right now dealing with their demise.<br /><br />http://solideogloria10.blogspot.com/The Hackney Hubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814256545664986458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-40522926743923677502011-06-09T08:37:57.468-07:002011-06-09T08:37:57.468-07:00Charlie,
Laud was tried and acquited of the charg...Charlie,<br /><br />Laud was tried and acquited of the charges made against him. His enemies were forced to seek a bill of attainder from Parliament to have him executed for high treason. Laud was a martinet and adopted unnecessarily harsh measures to force his program of "reforms" upon the Church of England. He certainly earned the hatred of Puritans through his ill-treatment of them. Pym so hated Laud that he falsified evidence to secure his conviction but even when the court was presented with this falsied evidence, it found no grounds to convict him of the charges, which included subscribing to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. <br /><br />The historical record simply does not support the accusation that Laud was sympathetic to the Church of Rome. In his Conference with Fisher he shows no sympathy for Rome. The Church of Rome thrice offered him a cardinal's hat if he would persuade Charles I to bring the Church of England into the Roman fold. He declined all three times. <br /><br />Laud was certainly a ritualist, an Arminian, and a supporter of the divine right of kings and bishops, and made numerous enemies due to the way he treated those who became between him and his ambitions. He was decidely an unlikable fellow and had few, if any, friends. He surrounded himself with syncophants who were seeking his patronage, trusting them more than he did other people because he understood their motives. <br /><br />Laud's enemies would accuse him of Romanism but in the final analysis is a charge that will not stick. Being High Church and being Romanist are not synonymous. The Tractarians and the Ritualists who were not true High Churchmen in the historic Anglican sense would certainly do all they could to make the High Church and Romanist synonymous but we play into the hands of their Anglo-Catholic successors if we accept their redefinition of High Church. We allow them to define High Church for us rather than drawing attention to the fact that their redefinition of High Church is a revisionist view. <br /><br />I believe that it is important to counter this revisionist view and give readers the true facts about the Caroline High Churchmen, good and bad. I believe that it is important to show that the nineteenth century Tractariarians and Ritualists and their modern day Anglo-Catholic successors are not an outgrowth of the Caroline High Churchman or even the Georgian High Churchman. They are an foreign intrusion in the Church of England. <br /><br />I have good reason for not drawing attention to the Laudians' Arminianism at this stage, preferring to save it for future articles. It is obvious from this discussion that I needed to clarify what I have been talking about so far. I need to better define my terms, including what I mean by "Catholicism," "Romanism," and so forth. This may clear up any misunderstandingRobin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-8847382617674600732011-06-09T05:48:07.815-07:002011-06-09T05:48:07.815-07:00Charlie,
Reformed doesn't equal Calvinist. An...Charlie,<br /><br />Reformed doesn't equal Calvinist. And what you define as Calvinist isn't even in line with Calvin himself.<br /><br />You comments are ludicrous with no basis. And you are just plain wrong.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18402467584294418765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-52949268752187673392011-06-08T18:51:59.307-07:002011-06-08T18:51:59.307-07:00Charlie,
Your comments are simply in error. I wi...Charlie,<br /><br />Your comments are simply in error. I will leave it at that for now. Maybe sometime I'll post some of the stuff I've written in the past so people can see for themselves exactly how far off you are. At any rate, I don't appreciate your language or your errant assertions. But responding further would be a waste of time.Kevin D. Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040153375886164291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-84207415089473314332011-06-08T16:39:00.142-07:002011-06-08T16:39:00.142-07:00Hogwash. The high churchmen are by and large Armi...Hogwash. The high churchmen are by and large Arminians, not Reformed. The term "Reformed" means "Calvinist", not Arminian.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-59929265511747072892011-06-08T16:38:29.244-07:002011-06-08T16:38:29.244-07:00@Robin... Amen to your comment on auricular confe...@Robin... Amen to your comment on auricular confession. It's obvious to anyone who reads the original comments in the homily, et. al.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-6140914968141641352011-06-08T16:36:51.045-07:002011-06-08T16:36:51.045-07:00@Jordan...
At least you get the theology of the s...@Jordan...<br /><br />At least you get the theology of the sacrament right. <br /><br />Other than that....<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-65450375111797161622011-06-08T16:33:58.226-07:002011-06-08T16:33:58.226-07:00Steve, absolutely right. Arminianism is simply a ...Steve, absolutely right. Arminianism is simply a watered down version of Roman Catholicism. Reformed theology is the only accurate interpretation of the Gospel.<br /><br />Lutherans who follow Luther rather than Melanchthon are in agreement with the Gospel as well.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-70790674105937129232011-06-08T16:32:23.508-07:002011-06-08T16:32:23.508-07:00The Arminians were condemned as a whole on heresy ...The Arminians were condemned as a whole on heresy charges at the Synod of Dort, which was attended by Anglicans in agreement with that assessement. Furthermore, Arminianism did not exist when the English Reformation occurred. It was a later innovation of the Laudians and the high church Carolinians.<br /><br />One thing that pisses me off is a liar and a dissimulator, Kevin. What is even more distressing is that someone like Robin would fall for your line of bullshit.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-3411904559015726452011-06-08T16:30:04.824-07:002011-06-08T16:30:04.824-07:00Kevin, your comment proves you're a liar. The...Kevin, your comment proves you're a liar. The Reformed Catholicism blog was an attack on the Reformed faith, which is Calvinist. The 39 Articles are Calvinist and served to inspire the Irish Articles and the Lambeth Articles.<br /><br />You've simply confessed that I was correct in my assessment of your blog. Dissimulation meant to deceive others into the Arminian/semi-pelagian errors along with the errors of Rome like prayers to the saints and seven sacraments, etc.<br /><br />Case closed, enamigo.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-83931060286115464782011-06-08T16:26:38.639-07:002011-06-08T16:26:38.639-07:00Robin, in case is has escaped your notice the reas...Robin, in case is has escaped your notice the reason that Archbishop Laud was killed by the Puritans was the fact that he was in sympathy with ROME.<br /><br />The idea that Archbishop James Ussher was a Carolinian high churchman is ludicrous. The man was a Calvinist... Calvinism and high church Arminianism are as opposed one to the other as Rome and Geneva are opposed to one another.<br /><br />It's this sort of confusion that leads others into the Anglo-Catholic heresy. Arminianism is no better since it denies all five of the solas of the magisterial Reformation.<br /><br />Modern writers do not capitalize "catholic" because of dissimulators like the late Peter Toon who tried to hijack the English Reformation and make it appear to be some sort of via media between semi-pelagianism and Calvinism/Lutheranism. The English Reformation was not semi-pelagian, nor was it Arminian. The English Reformers were in full agreement with Luther's Bondage of the Will and with Calvin's theology of total depravity. Anyone reading the 39 Articles of Religion should be able to see that. <br /><br />Articles 9-18 are a solid rebuttal of both semi-pelagianism AND Arminianism. Hence, Arminians are heretics by the Canons of Dort and by the 39 Articles of Religion.<br /><br />Charlie<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-13478062794921735482011-06-08T16:20:28.740-07:002011-06-08T16:20:28.740-07:00Kevin, that's odd. I read the blog and it was...Kevin, that's odd. I read the blog and it was definitely pushing Roman Catholic doctrine. Do you deny advocating prayers to the saints and infused righteousness? Puhleeze....<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.com