Robert ian Williams - 18 November 2008 11:24 AM

Sandy is it a Biblical principle or is it expediency that there is such a thing as secondary issues? I remember reading as an Evangelical Martyn lloyd-Jones , “What is an Evangelical” and my jaw dropping when he designated baptism as a secondary issue. A solemn commandment of our Blessed Lord.

So how do we determine secondary issues...it is when we cannot agree!

I think you’re quite right, Robert. The Sydney Diocese has made it clear that women’s ordination is a secondary issue when it comes to forming alliances to fight the “gay peril”, but an issue of prime importance in which all dissent must be crushed within their own Diocese! That’s essentially why GAFCON is such a farce. GAFCON is not a united grouping of Anglican Dioceses standing for anything in particular, it is a loose confederation of co-belligerents standing against a particular reading of Scripture.

Helpful article and fascinating responses

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17979/

Joshua Aldersley - 18 November 2008 11:54 PM

That’s essentially why GAFCON is such a farce. GAFCON is not a united grouping of Anglican Dioceses standing for anything in particular, it is a loose confederation of co-belligerents standing against a particular reading of Scripture.

Far too early to call Gafcon a farce.

Anglicanisn always has been “a loose confederation of co-belligerents”. What has happened in this instance is that the lliberal element has pushed the envelope beyond endurance.

Even though there were Spong like persons going back at least 100 years as far as doctrinal issues were concerned, those earlier liberals (revisionists, heretics) adhered to Biblical relational morality. The departure from this morality is the turning point from which there will be no return. It should have occurred earlier. Heresy trials however are notoriously difficult as the Presbyterian Church of NSW found in the 1930’s with their Spong replica, Samuel Angus (actually the other was around).

GAFCON claims Orthodoxy and that it is Biblical.....yet it ironically cannot agree on the meaning of ordination..whether women should be ordained or whether deacons should administer the Communion service...This to me proves that the claim of Sola Scripture is flawed .  God would never leave his truth to the speculation (and sublective interpretation however sincere ) of men. Christ established a teaching Church, reflective of his infallible voice.

GAFCON is just a Rebel group

Robert ian Williams - 17 November 2008 06:22 PM

Sydney should hold its head high...you are more authentic to the spirit of Reformed Anglicanism than any of the revisionists elsewhere in the Communion.

Have you re-introduced prayers for the dead...NO

Have you introduced prayers to the Saints… NO

Have you re-interpolated the Anglican Holy communion Service as the Sacrifice of the Mass. and interlarded it with borrowings from the Catholic Church....NO

Have you introduced he sacerdotal vestments...NO

Do you worship the consecrated communion elements and reserve them....No

I’m not an Anglo-Catholic Robert and don’t agree with such things as inclusion of prayer for the dead in the Church’s liturgy and many other common Anglo-Catholic practices and beliefs (though I certainly affirm the “catholic faith” of the Anglican Church--for example, the Creedal doctrine of Baptismal regeneration taught in the Articles/Homilies/BCP--namely that “it is certain by God’s Word, that children being Baptized have all things necessary for Salvation and be undoubtedly saved"1552/1559 BCP)--but to be fair--Anglo-Catholic’s actually follow Cranmer’s own 1549 BCP in prayers for the dead, reservation of the Sacrament for the sick, and in referring to Holy Communion, at times, as “Mass,” among other things.

In your posts you also seem to forget the strong historic Anglican ethos regarding the real authority of “antiquity” or tradition in interpreting Sacred Scripture--which is described for example by Cranmer in his Confutation of Unwritten Verities,* Canon 6 produced by the Bishops who affirmed the 39 Articles in 1571. And Bishop Jewel’s Apology of the Church of England likewise describes the central nature of patristic authority in the doctrine and practice of the Anglican Church.

Confutation of Unwritten Verities:

Austen [Augustine] was more circumspect than to think, that any doctrine might be proved by use and custom without the Scripture. For baptism of infants he bringeth in this text, Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot be my disciple. And because the Donatists, like as the Anabaptists do now, wrest this to them that be of years of discretion ; against this exposition, he allegeth the manner of the Church in christening of infants. By the which he proveth that the Church hath alway taken this sentence, Except a man be born again, to be spoken also of infants. What manner of argument should this be of Austen ? The exposition of the Scripture, and the use of the sacraments, may be judged by the custom used in the holy Church alway : Ergo, the Church may make a new sacrament, and ordain any new article of our faith, without the Scripture.
By the sentences before cited of Austen himself, it may be easily judged. I also grant, that every exposition of the Scripture, whereinsoever the old, holy, and true Church did agree, is necessary to be believed.

From Canon 6 of 1571:

Preachers shall behave themselves modestly and soberly in every department of their life. But especially shall they see to it that they teach nothing in the way of a sermon, which they would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this selfsame doctrine.

Apology of the Church of England:

“We have returned to the Apostles and the old Catholic Fathers. We have planted no new religion, but only preserved the old that was undoubtedly founded and used by the Apostles of Christ and other holy Fathers of the Primitive Church.”

and

“we have ... returned again unto the primitive Church of the ancient fathers and Apostles; that is to say, to the first ground and beginning of things, as unto the very foundations and headsprings of Christ’s Church.”

Blessings in Christ,
William Scott

p.s. The position of the Anglican Church on “Eucharistic Adoration” is described in detail by Lancelot Andrewes in his response to Cardinal Bellarmine on behalf of the Church of England:

About ‘the adoration of the sacrament’ he stumbles badly at the very threshold.  He says, ‘of the Sacrament, that is, of Christ the Lord present by a wonderful but real way in the Sacrament’.  Away with this.  Who will allow him this?  ‘Of the Sacrament, that is, of Christ in the Sacrament’.  Surely, Christ Himself, the reality (res) of the Sacrament, in and with the Sacrament, outside and without the Sacrament, wherever He is, is to be adored.  Now the king [i.e. King James I] laid down that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, and is really to be adored, that is, the reality (rem) of the Sacrament, but not the Sacrament, that is, the ‘earthly part’, as Irenaeus says, the ‘visible’, as Augustine says.  We also, like Ambrose, ‘adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries’, and yet not it but Him who is worshipped on the altar.  For the Cardinal puts his question badly, ‘What is there worshipped’, since he ought to ask, ‘Who’, as Nazianzen says, ‘Him’, not ‘it’. And. Like Augustine, we ‘do not eat the flesh without first adoring’.  And we none of us adore the Sacrament.

A very interesting post..thank you ....but Cranmer must be taken definitively as regards his final lagacy, the 1552 Prayer Book. 1549 was only transistional...but even 1549 freed the Communion service of the oblation

The appeal to antiquity is selective ( all the Reformers made it ...calvin does in his Institutes).. In the Homily in Peril of idolatry Cranmer believes the Church of England has been in idolatry for 9OO years. Yes the English reformers believed they were returning to the ancient Church..but it is a Church of their imagining and not the actual reality.

A selective use of the Fathers is always dangerous.. Mormons for instance use it to prove their doctrine that nman becomes a God.

Augustine is quoted, but ignored not when he affirms the See of Peter, the Sacrifice of the Mass and other authentic Catholic teachings. Furthermore St john Chrysostom taught sacerdotalism with a capital S.

Cranmer was wedded to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which he describes as a most “comfortable doctrine. “

Furthermore his “Response” to the Catholic minded Bishop Gardiner ( he had sent to the Tower) refutes the idea that the first prayer book is Catholic in its view of the Eucharist.

The Sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence is “the weed that choketh the Gospel. “

His book on the Lords Supper shows he rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence.

However I concede that he taught baptismal regeneration as did Luther.

The Rev Dr Stephen Noll is Vice-Chancellor of the Christian University of Uganda and thus a key theological player in one of Sydney’s closest allies in Africa.

He was a member of GAFCON’s theology resource team.

Dr Noll has posted a long reply to David Ould’s blog previously mentioned saying:

For many of us, the defence of diaconal and lay presidency or administration of Holy Communion comes out of left field. I think David Ould is warning us, especially those of us committed to the GAFCON movement, not to jump to condemnation before we talk with brothers and sisters in Christ (see JD clause 12). Of course, the same could be said of the Anglicans in Sydney. They say that their decision is the fruit of a thirty-year argument and synods that predate GAFCON. I find that only partially satisfying, and it almost looks like they wanted to let the horse out of the barn before the issue could get to a wider forum. In any case, diaconal presidency is now a “fact on the ground” like women’s ordination.

and

I also think we need to beware jumping to draw a moral equivalence between the actions of Sydney synod and those of TEC… Having said that, their decision is a major breach of catholic order and the practice of the Church of England and Anglican Communion. The burden of defence is on them, in my opinion. 

Noll has read our book ‘The Lord’s Supper in Human Hands: Who Should Administer?’, which he claims puts forth ‘different and possibly contradictory arguments for the new practice’.

However he does acknowledge Sydney’s arguments:

So the argument would seem to go like this:
• Evangelical Christians must uphold the gospel.
• There is no basis in Scripture for priest-only administration of Communion
• There are historical developments in the idea of priestly power that raise the Sacrament over the Word.
• Therefore it is a gospel mandate to change the practice.

However, Sydney’s defenders also seem to argue that priestly presidency is an “indifferent” matter, not commanded in Scripture and therefore subject to local option. Hence the reference to Article XXXIV. Woodhouse himself seems to concede that the traditional practice is not essentially contrary to Scripture but only that it has been distorted. He argues that the Reformers’ insistence on priestly presidency was a pragmatic, “quality control” decision, due to the shortage of educated church leaders (p. 11).

He nevertheless appears to see this as a major blow to the theological coherence of GAFCON but ends hopefully..

But before we throw in the towel, let’s listen to what each other is saying. That is the freedom we have in Christ and cut loose from the byzantine politics of TEC. Even within Sydney, I think there are those who believe this decision is mistaken (the book refers to arguments made by Abp. Donald Robinson but unfortunately I could not get access to his articles), and others like Abp. Jensen are aware of its potential to distract from the wider Gospel mandate for a “Global Anglican Future.”

A major breach of Catholic order.......Cathoilic order as understood by Rome and Constantinople, has a sacerdotal concept of ministry.

Sydney and classic Anglicans believe that is a heresy and corruption of the Church ministry., alomng wit the idea that the Holy communion service is a Mass....

Calssic Anglicanism as exemplified by hooker nver teaches the necessity of episcopal ordination.

When an Anglo-Caholic uses the expression Catholic order he means Rome’s understanding…

I am not too sure what an Evangelical Anglican means by Catholic Order.... three fold ministry is far more appropriate.

May I point out that female teaching preaching deacons is a breach of Catholic order, as much as diaconal administration.

Furthermore Doctor Noll is licensed in a Province which has violated Catholic order by ordaining women presbyters!

Robert ian Williams - 21 November 2008 10:57 AM

Furthermore Doctor Noll is licensed in a Province which has violated Catholic order by ordaining women presbyters!

Robert that’s brilliant!  How can he think to sit there and critique Sydney when that’s already happened!

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9401

Mark’s link is to an article by Chris Sugden aka Mr Anglican Mainstream

His conclusion about the impact of our lay/diaconal decision:

It is not a stable situation at the moment. But it is not yet a broken one. It is to be sincerely hoped that in this new atmosphere of working together, the people of Sydney Diocese while expressing their biblical and pastoral concerns will be willing to continue to dialogue patiently with their fellow orthodox Anglicans; at the same time it is to be hoped that the Anglo Catholics will also be willing to listen afresh to Sydney and its mission-based concerns. This is also an opportunity to test the nature of our fellowship, as representing far more than detractors suggest, only pragmatic opportunism, but based on a willingness to work together under Scripture for the future of orthodox Anglican belief and practice.

Dan Baynes - 21 November 2008 09:32 PM

Robert ian Williams - 21 November 2008 10:57 AM

Furthermore Doctor Noll is licensed in a Province which has violated Catholic order by ordaining women presbyters!

Robert that’s brilliant!  How can he think to sit there and critique Sydney when that’s already happened!

I think you’ll find that the important difference is that these arrangements already existed when the Sydney Diocese entered into the whole GAFCON debarcle. The validity of women’s ordination aside, the Sydney Diocese knew what they were signing up for. However, this latest move on lay administration has happened since the Conference. It shows not only the contempt that the Sydney Diocese has for the rest of the Communion, but even those Dioceses within GAFCON itself. The Sydney Diocese has truly shown that it is a law unto itself.

I’m sorry Joshua.... that is not only not fair, but not true.

At it’s most recent synod, it merely expressed an opinion that there is no law against deacons leading a communion service.

It hasn’t changed any law. Hasn’t officially started any new practices.

It has simply agreed with a detailed legal opinion.

With thanks,

Mark

With all due respect Mark, the Synod decision wasn’t an abstract debate, but rather a decision to lay the framework for further action on the matter. It was nothing less than a signal of intent.