By Robin G. Jordan
One of the reasons that I posted D. A. Carson’s column, “The Hole in the Gospel,” from the latest edition of theological journal Themelios was that Carson gives a clear explanation of the gospel:
The gospel is the great news of what God has graciously done in Jesus Christ, especially in his atoning death and vindicating resurrection, his ascension, session, and high priestly ministry, to reconcile sinful human beings to himself, justifying them by the penal substitute of his Son, and regenerating and sanctifying them by the powerful work of the Holy Spirit, who is given to them as the down payment of their ultimate inheritance. God will save them if they repent and trust in Jesus.He goes on to explain what is the proper response to the gospel, which is that “people repent, believe, and receive God’s grace by faith alone.”
Carson further elucidates what the gospel entails for the believer.
The entailment of this received gospel, that is, the inevitable result, is that those who believe experience forgiveness of sins, are joined together spiritually in the body of Christ, the church, being so transformed that, in measure as they become more Christ-like, they delight to learn obedience to King Jesus and joyfully proclaim the good news that has saved them, and they do good to all men, especially to the household of faith, eager to be good stewards of the grace of God in all the world, in anticipation of the culminating transformation that issues in resurrection existence in the new heaven and the new earth, to the glory of God and the good of his blood-bought people.This understanding of the New Testament gospel is how historic Anglicanism understands the gospel. It is the same understanding of the gospel articulated in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the two Books of Homilies and given liturgical expression in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The sacramental theology of these formularies is consistent with it.
The Nairobi Communiqué and Commitment draws attention to a false gospel that is spreading through the Anglican Communion.
This false gospel questioned the uniqueness of Christ and his substitutionary death, despite the Bible’s clear revelation that he is the only way to the Father (John 14:6). It undermined the authority of God’s Word written. It sought to mask sinful behaviour with the language of human rights. It promoted homosexual practice as consistent with holiness, despite the fact that the Bible clearly identifies it as sinful.The communiqué uses the past tense in describing this false gospel. This may be premature as its spread has not been contained as the recent appointments of Grafton and New Westminster new bishops and the issuance of Pillings Report testify.
In the communiqué the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans speak of organizing themselves in a way that demonstrates the seriousness of their objectives. They identify as their first objective:
Proclaiming and contending for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Examples of work we wish to resource are the preparation of convincing theological rebuttals of any false gospel; supporting a network of theological colleges whose students are better oriented to ministry, whose faculties are well-trained, and whose curricula are built on the faithful reading of Scripture.Having identified making disciples as their first priority, the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans stresses the importance of three commitments. These commitments include:
Guarding the gospel. We shall continue publicly to expose any false gospel that is not consistent with apostolic teaching and clearly to articulate the gospel in the church and in the world.As a beginning point I would suggest that the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans deal with the two false gospels found in its own backyard. Both false gospels are found in the Anglican Church in North America.
As J. I. Packer points to our attention in The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, sacramental theology is not a self-contained field of study:
One’s sacramental theology expresses one’s doctrine of God and man, creation and redemption, sin and grace, the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, not to mention church and ministry; it is in truth the roof of one’s theological house, supported by the rest of the edifice, and revealing its shape, the layout and structure of the building as a whole.In the Anglican Church in North America, in the 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books used in the ACNA, in the eucharistic rites that its liturgical commission has prepared and its College of Bishops authorized for the use of its congregations, and in the practices of its congregations and clergy, we find sacramental theology that has no connection to the gospel presented in the New Testament. This sacramental theology denies the New Testament gospel and proclaims “a different gospel,” a false gospel.
The New Testament equates Christ’s sacrifice in atonement for the sins of the world with his death on the cross and declares this work as completed, finished. See R. C. Sproul’s article, “The Most Important Session of All.”
The New Testament also stresses that Christ’s “vicarious sacrificial death” is unique. The New Testament keeps it “distinct from the sacrifice of praise and service which is our response to it.”
In the sacramental theology to which I am referring is found the medieval doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. This doctrine is articulated in Canon 899 of the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church:
§1. The eucharistic celebration is the action of Christ himself and the Church. In it, Christ the Lord, through the ministry of the priest, offers himself, substantially present under the species of bread and wine, to God the Father and gives himself as spiritual food to the faithful united with his offering.It denies the sufficiency and completeness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, rejecting what Scripture teaches. At the same time in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture it maintains that the eucharistic sacrifice was instituted by Christ.
§2. In the eucharistic gathering the people of God are called together with the bishop or, under his authority, a presbyter presiding and acting in the person of Christ [emphasis added]. All the faithful who are present, whether clerics or laity, unite together by participating in their own way according to the diversity of orders and liturgical functions.
§3. The eucharistic celebration is to be organized in such a way that all those participating receive from it the many fruits for which Christ the Lord instituted the eucharistic sacrifice.
A second doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice found in this sacramental theology is the doctrine the 1958 Lambeth Conference commended. This doctrine maintains that Christ continues his sacrificial activity in heaven. It ties our self offering to Christ’s. It claims that through our celebration of the Holy Eucharist we share in Christ’s ongoing sacrificial activity. Bishop Bill Thompson refers to this doctrine in the FAQ section on Liturgical page on the Anglican Church in North America’s website. The emphases of the Lambeth doctrine do not come from the New Testament gospel. Like the emphases of the medieval doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice, they reject what Scripture teaches.
As Roger Beckwith draws to our attention in his Churchman article, “Lambeth 1958 and the ‘Liturgy for Africa’ (ll),” the committee that recommended this doctrine to the 1958 Lambeth Conference also proposed that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer “should cease to be a norm of doctrine” and recommended prayer for the dead. He points out:
these are not the sole instances of divergence from Anglican doctrine, either in the committee's report or in the Liturgy for Africa they are simply the most prominent.Later in the article he further points out:
Such, then, are the doctrinal innovations which the Lambeth committee recommends and which the Liturgy for Africa embodies. It is clear that at least three of the four are connected: for a watered-down doctrine of sin naturally belongs with a watered-down doctrine of the atonement, and the two together open the way for a doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice which makes us in effect our own saviours.1958 was a watershed in the history of Anglican Communion in which a number of doctrinal and worship innovations were introduced in the Communion. The beginning of the Episcopal Church's rejection of central Christian beliefs is traceable to this period. The controversial Bishop James Pike was elected in 1958. His writings would challenge a number of these beliefs. Five years later Church of England bishop J. A. T. Robinson would cause a firestorm of controversy of his own with Honest to God, in which he criticized traditional Christian theology.
In the Anglican Church in North America may be found not just one false gospel but two false gospels right under the noses of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. The ACNA, I may add, is member organization of the fellowship, an organization the formation of which the fellowship’s other member organizations encouraged and supported. Representatives of the ACNA took part in the drafting of the Nairobi Communiqué and Commitment. They also signed the communiqué.
The ACNA constitution assigns to the College of Bishops the duty of propagating and defending the faith. The ACNA canons give the individual bishops responsibility for protecting the Anglican faith and order in their respective jurisdictions and not permitting the establishment of anything contrary to God’s Word. Yet the ACNA bishops as a whole have so far shown that they are not capable of guarding the New Testament gospel.
What steps is the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans going to take to require the Anglican Church in North America as a member organization to put its house in order? If it fails to do anything, it will show itself as ineffectual in disciplining member organizations as the existing Anglican Communion structures are in disciplining Anglican provinces that depart from the teaching of the Bible. It cannot ignore or minimize the problem of false gospels in the ACNA.
8 comments:
The Roman Church is quite clear that they teach that the "Eucharistic sacrifice" is the one all sufficient sacrifice of Christ is being made present to the worshiping congregation. It is not a new sacrifice or a repetition of something that was insufficiently done previously.
Here's a link to what they actually teach about the meaning of this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3Y.HTM
Whether you agree or disagree with what Rome teaches is not my concern... simply that we do not bear false witness. It does no one any good for us to falsely present another's beliefs.
In any case, your source of criteria for the one true gospel, from which you claim the ACNA deviates, is a Presbyterian. I have no issue with Carson, I really appreciate much of his work. I am curious, though, if you are some liturgy-hating evangelical that has no room for anything that is not austere Calvinism?
Jim,
I posted the canon relating the Roman Catholic Church's eucharistic doctrine so I don't think that you can claim that the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church were falsely presented. The catechism supplements the canons. The canons are more authoritative document. The catechism explains for the ordinary Roman Catholic the doctrine authoritatively set out in the canons.
The Scriptures teach that Christ’s all sufficient sacrifice was made once for all time on the cross so to claim that Christ continues to offer himself in the Eucharist to God the Father is to infer that his sacrifice was in some way deficient and incomplete. While the catechism may not describe what is a happening as a representation or reiteration of Christ’s sacrifice the doctrine explained in that document entails such a representation or reiteration. What the Roman Catholic Church teaches in its canons and its catechism is not what the Scriptures teach. This is a longstanding criticism of the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice and it is not based upon any misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this doctrine. The Scriptures clearly tell us that when Christ ascended into heaven, he sat down at the Father’s side. There he reigns. This is referred to as his session, his heavenly sitting. Having offered himself on the cross, died, risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, his sacrificial activity has ceased. He does not offer himself to the Father at each eucharistic celebration—the Roman Catholic doctrine. He does not continue his sacrificial activity in heaven and the church participates in that sacrificial activity through each eucharistic celebration—the Lambeth doctrine.
One thing that the Reformed Churches share is a common understanding of the New Testament gospel. It is grounded in the teaching of the Scriptures. The Church of England at the time of the English Reformation joined the ranks of the Reformed Churches. Its Thirty-Nine Articles is a Reformed confession of faith and articulates this understanding of the New Testament gospel. The Westminster Confession was the work of clergy of the Church of England who were Reformed in their theology. The Presbyterians were ejected from the Church of England not due to their theology but because of their unwillingness to accept and use the Book of Common Prayer. They believed that God ordained a presbyterial form of church government. They, however, were not the only clergy who were ejected from the Church of England due to their refusal to accept and use the Book of Common Prayer. So were the Congregationalists.
Other Reformed clergy would conform and use the Prayer Book. In his Oxford theological monogram, Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I, Stephen Hampton documents the continuation of the Reformed tradition in the Church of England after the Restoration. Among the conforming Reformed clergy and theologians were many of the most prominent churchmen of the age.
From this comment, "...some liturgy-hating evangelical that has no room for anything that is not austere Calvinism...," I only can conclude that you have not read many of my articles.
Robin,
Thanks for the extended reply. You are correct, I have not read many of your articles here. I am here very infrequently.
I came to the Episcopal Church from a very low-church tradition years ago. Long story, but my journey is not terribly unique it turns out. I thank God for the ACNA. I give no claim that it is perfect, but it is certainly an option whereas TEC is simply not an option for me any longer.
I've listened to countless hours of Roman apologists on the radio and read extensively. I have other issues with Rome that prevent me from becoming a Roman Catholic, but I have heard enough from them directly to still contend that you are spinning Rome's words about what they claim to believe happens at the Eucharist.
You seem to imply that they are being deceitful about what they teach in the Catechism, that they really believe and practice something else.
You might find it helpful to look at the history of the development of the Roman Catholic doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. While the language used to explain the doctrine may have changed, the doctrine itself has not changed. I studied Roman Catholic eucharistic theology back in the 1980s. At the time Roman Catholic theologians were exploring fresh ways of explaining Roman Catholic eucharistic theology. The catechism was not approved and promulgated until 1992.
The problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice (and the Lambeth doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice) is that it denies what the Scriptures teach—that Christ’s sacrificial activity ceased with his offering of one sacrifice, once and for all, when he offered himself. Christ offered one sacrifice for sins, an offering that is effective for ever, and then he sat down at the right side of God. Christ does not keep offering himself to the Father in the eucharistic celebrations of the Church.
The oldest account of the Lord’s Supper is in Paul’s first letter to ‘the Corinthians. Paul tells the Corinthians that on the night before he died, Jesus instructed his disciples that whenever they shared the cup of wine and ate bread together, they should do so in memory of him. Paul further tells the Corinthians that whenever they drink the cup and eat the bread, they proclaim Lord’s death until he comes again. We find nothing in this account or in Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper that Jesus instituted it as a sacrifice, much less he continues to offer himself to the Father in the Lord’s Supper.
Elsewhere in his first letter to the Corinthians Paul tells the Corinthians that the cup they use in the Lord’s Supper and for which they give thanks to God: when they drink from it, they are sharing in the blood of Christ. He also tells the Corinthians that the bread they break, when they eat it, they are sharing the body of Christ. Paul does not elucidate what he means. Rather he goes on to warn the Corinthians against drinking the cup of demons and eating at the table of demons. This is a reference to the habit of the Corinthians frequenting pagan temples and sharing the ritual meals at these temples. The juxtaposition of these passages suggests that Paul was seeking to reinforce in the minds of the Corinthians the importance of the Lord’s Supper, drawing their attention to the connection between the cup and the bread and Christ’s passion and death. It is not another ritual meal like the ones they share in the pagan temples and should not be taken lightly.
Later on in the letter, as we have seen, he will describe the Lord’s Supper as a proclamation of Christ’s death. Here again he also emphasizes that the Lord’s Supper should not be taken lightly. It should not be an occasion for gluttony and reveling; those who come early should be mindful of the latecomers. They are also the body of Christ. Commentators on the Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians do not agree on what Paul means when he refers to failing to discern the body of Christ. Based upon what he says before and after this reference he appears to be referring to those arriving late to the meeting. The latecomers would have been poor working class people and slaves who would have had to slip away at the last minute to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Commentators who have a sacramental mindset regard this reference as referring the substantive presence of the body of Christ in the eucharistic elements. In any event the thrust of these passages is that the Corinthians were not showing the Lord’s Supper the respect that it was due. The Lord’s Supper was not something that could be taken lightly. Those sharing in the Lord’s Supper should show the proper attitude toward the sacrament. (By the way Paul himself does not refer to the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament.)
Corinth was a pagan city with numerous pagan temples. The ritual meals that the Corinthians shared at these temples frequently became orgies.
Nowhere in the letters of Paul or the writings of the other apostles do we find anything which suggests that Christ continues to offer himself to God in the Lord’s Supper. What we do find is that the apostolic writers believed that Christ’s offering of one sacrifice for sins on the cross was effective for ever. No other sacrifice is necessary. Having offered this sacrifice Christ ceased from all sacrificial activity. He sat down at the Father’s right side.
Christ’s offering of himself on the cross was the Father’s will. It accomplished what God purposed it to accomplish. That is why it is the “perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction” (Article 31). Christ has no need to continually offer himself to God nor does he have a need to make any continual offering of himself present to the faithful. Those who truly repent of their sins and steadfastly believe Christ that Christ suffered death on the cross for them and shed his blood for their redemption receive all the benefits of his passion and death.
Why then do Roman Catholic theologians insist that Christ offers himself to God in the eucharistic celebration? They interpret the Words of Institution as teaching that the eucharistic celebration is “representation (or making present)” of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. This interpretation is problematic. They are taking the Words of Institution out of context and reading a meaning into them that cannot be read out of them. The meaning is not a meaning that can be deduced from the text and the surrounding texts. It is a meaning that they bring to the text themselves.
The key to this particular interpretation of the Words of Institution is found in Canon 899 §3: “The eucharistic celebration is to be organized in such a way that all those participating receive from it the many fruits for which Christ the Lord instituted the eucharistic sacrifice.” In his discussion of the New Testament doctrine of justification in Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs, J. I. Packer draws to our attention:
Official Roman Catholic theology includes sanctification in its definition of justification, which it sees as a process rather than a single decisive event, and affirms that while faith contributes to our acceptance with God, our works of satisfaction and merit contribute too. Rome sees baptism, viewed as a channel of sanctifying grace, as the primary instrumental cause of justification, and the sacrament of penance, whereby congruous merit is achieved through works of satisfaction, as the supplementary restorative cause whenever the grace of God’s initial acceptance is lost through mortal sin. Congruous, as distinct from condign, merit means merit that it is fitting, though not absolutely necessary, for God to reward by a fresh flow of sanctifying grace. On the Roman Catholic view, therefore, believers save themselves with the help of the grace that flows from Christ through the church’s sacramental system, and in this life no sense of confidence in God’s grace can ordinarily be had. [emphasis added]
Their interpretation of Scripture is driven by their sacramental theology rather than a careful reading of Scripture informing their sacramental theology.
You can download Concise Theology at http://www.scribd.com/doc/94178803/Packer-J-I-Concise-Theology
You can also find individual chapters on the Internet. The whole book was at one time posted on the Monergeism Books website. I cut and paste the above passage from the chapter on justification.
Robin, thank you again for the time you took to write. Thanks also to the link to Packer's book.
I am inclined to believe in the real presence and in the belief of the Eucharist as Christ making his one all sufficient sacrifice present to us... and I came to that conclusion from the Bible. I cannot say that this is an ACNA doctrine. I suspect that in my own local parish many, maybe most, hold to Calvinist or Zwingillian views. I found the same diversity of belief in all of the Episcopal churches to which we belonged. Even though Rome, and even the Lutherans, hold concrete views on these topics, my conversations with friends who are their laity lead me to conclude that there is great diversity of belief on the ground in those churches as well.
The scriptures you reference from 1 Corinthians were some of the first to make me reconsider the Zwingillian views I once held, and also whether in the Eucharist we were joining in a new "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" or if it was to be understood as entering into the one all sufficient sacrifice Jesus made for us on the cross.
In 1 Cor. 10, St. Paul references the sacrifice of the people of Israel, "Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" He then says the sacrifices of pagans are in reality made to demons, and this makes the worshipers, "participants with demons" (v. 20). He says that the Eucharist is a, "participation in the body and blood of Christ" (v. 18).
He is comparing three like (but unequal) things, sacrifices, in order to drive home the point that Christians are not to, "partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons" (v. 21). His line of argument does not make sense if he is comparing and contrasting three wholly unlike things.
Beyond this, there is the mention made in Hebrews 13 that Christians, "have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat" (v. 10). We do not need an "altar" if there is no sacrifice. The author of Hebrews goes on, in the same stream of thought referring to the altar and Lord's supper, to make a contrast that, "[f]or the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood" (v. 11,12).
Jesus shed his blood for us on the cross. He also told us that in the Eucharist, the cup is his blood. I finally decided there was no point to try to explain away his words. If he said them so frankly, who was I to embarrassedly say, "what he really meant was..."
The final point for me that made sense of this was reflection on the passover seder. The seder liturgy reads as if the people participating in the meal are present with the Israelites that came out of Egypt. Time and space collapse, if you will, as far as those involved are concerned. It was the context of a passover seder in which our Lord instituted the meal we discuss. It was also in the context of Passover that he was sacrificed on the cross. "Do this in remembrance of me," means calling to mind more than the last supper, but the whole of his passion on our behalf.
I realize this is probably a non-mainstream Anglican view, and I know it was contested by Cranmer, etc. I'm convinced from Scripture of the view, I don't know what else to do but believe it. In any case, I do wish you all the best, and God's blessings for this new week.
Jim,
Is Paul actually referring to a sacrifice on the Lord's Table or to Christ's sacrifice on the cross?
The meaning you are giving on Hebrews 13:10 is highly questionable. You are assuming that the author of Hebrews is referring to the altar table and the Lord's Supper. But is that to which the text is referring? Or are you reading your own meaning into it? I believe that you are doing the latter.
The author of Hebrews in Hebrews 13:15-16 writes: "Let us, then always offer praise to God as our sacrifice through Jesus, which is the offering presented by lips that confess him as Lord. Do not forget to do good and help one another, because these are sacrifices that please God"
Jesus, after he had given thanks over the cup of wine and distributed it to the disciples with the words of institution referred to it as "the fruit of the vine." This points to his use of figurative language in the words of institution. Jesus also uses figurative language elsewhere in the gospels. For instance, he describes himself as a gate and as a vine.
The concept of anamnesis that you are describe may be applicable to the Lord's Supper--time and space are suspended and those celebrating the Lord's Supper are present with the disciples at the Last Supper. However,it does not support the view that the eucharist is a sacrifice unless you believe like the Usager Non-Jurors did that Christ did not offer himself to God on the cross but at the Last Supper. Nor does it support the view that Christ in referring to the cup as his blood and the bread as body was referring to his natural blood and to his natural body. Indeed it supports the view that he was using figurative language.
Christ is certainly present at the Lord's Supper. He is present in the gathering and the means by which he is present is the Holy Spirit. His presence is real: it is not imagined. However, the substance of body and blood are not present in or under the forms of bread and wine. The substance of the bread is that of bread; the substance of the wine is that of wine. It has not been changed or added to.
Does this mean that the Lord's Supper is a bare memorial as Zwingli believed? Far from it. Those who "worthily, rightly, and with faith," eat the bread and drink the cup receive the benefits of Christ's passion and death. They, however, do not receive these benefits through the means of the bread and wine. Rather the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of Christ's passion and death to them.
If you study the history of eucharistic doctrine in the Anglican Church, you will discover that Anglicans did not concern themselves with precise explanations of what happens in the celebration of the Holy Communion until the Catholic Revival of the nineteenth century. When they thought of sacrifice in connection with the Lord's Supper, they though of Christ's offering of himself for sins on the cross commemorated in the Lord's Supper and their own offering of praise and service in response to that sacrifice. They were content to believe that those who "worthily, rightly, and with faith," eat the bread and drink the cup receive the benefits of Christ's passion and death. They did not overly concern themselves how this happened. They recognized the need for proper preparation for the celebration of he Holy Communion and reverently consumed any remaining consecrated bread and wine after the blessing. In my opinion this attitude toward the Holy Communion has a lot to commend it.
I wish you all the best too. May God bless your new week and fill it with the refreshment of the spirit that He alone can give.
Post a Comment