The Anglicans said they were very involved in their church. The husband and wife had both graduated from Asbury University in Kentucky and lived in California for about 6 months. They claimed to believe the gospel, didn't think salvation was by works but by grace, and that the Lord's Table was only a symbol. They couldn't keep talking at that time, but their church interested me, so I went home and looked it up.
The church of the young Anglican family believed the 39 articles, which date back to 1571. They were better than I thought. From history and my knowledge of Henry VIII, I thought they would be worse. They have good differences that distinguish them from the doctrine of Roman Catholicism. The following article is the biggest problem:
BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.How does this relate to Lutherans? I lived in Wisconsin for 13 years -- jr. high, high school, college, and graduate school. We played several Lutheran schools in sports in jr. high, high school, and college. After games, I evangelized players on their teams. They were not saved. I never talked to a saved Lutheran. My next door neighbor, really a rarity in our area, is a Lutheran, conservative one, and not saved. He's depending on his works for salvation and doesn't need any help -- nice guy but lost.
I follow the Pyromaniacs twitter feed, because I like to look at their linked articles. I noticed that Phil Johnson was at a Lutheran church in Minnesota and preaching at a conference with Lutherans. The mention of Martin Luther at times by these conservative evangelicals has been disconcerting to me. I evangelized many Lutherans when I was in Wisconsin and they were not saved people, not friendly at all to evangelism. The Lutheran Church where Johnson spoke was American Association of Lutheran Churches. It has a short doctrinal statement with these sentences.
The Holy Spirit, through the Word, reveals our sinful nature and God’s perfect, eternal nature. Through Baptism, the Word works through water to bury our sinful nature and raise us to a new, eternal life in Christ. In the Lord's Supper, the believer receives the forgiveness of sins through the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in bread and wine.The church claims to believe the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, which is very similar to the Anglican Church of the earlier young family. That confession says:
Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.The Anglican statement on baptism might be a little better than the Lutheran one. This is a corruption of the gospel by adding a work to grace. When I have talked to those who believe like Anglicans and Lutherans, I have gone to Galatians 1:6-9 and Galatians 5:1-4.
How many works need to be added to corrupt the gospel? Just one. Adding circumcision corrupts the gospel. Christ becomes of no effect. You replace circumcision with baptism and you've got the same, very serious problem. Paul says if someone preaches another gospel, let him be accursed. That's different than preaching with them. Preaching with them is not saying, let them be accursed.
Evangelicals and Catholics together have violated Galatians 1:6-9. Evangelicals and Lutherans or Evangelicals and Anglicans together do the same.
". . . they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God"
ReplyDeleteThis statement make water baptism an efficacious sacrament whereby grace is conferred. Although it is less than Luther's catechism, it is nonetheless heretical.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteTrue. Thanks.
Anglican documents plainly teach baptismal regeneration, although evangelical Anglicans of the past, such as J. C. Ryle, tortured the text of their confessional standards so that they could continue to be Anglican while embracing Christ's gospel.
ReplyDeleteHello KJB1611,
ReplyDeleteI concur with your assessment that, "Anglican documents plainly teach baptismal regeneration". Now, with that said, I am not convinced that baptismal regeneration—properly understood—is a "work". Though Martin Luther taught that 'salvation is by faith alone', he also clearly embraced baptismal regeneration.
Eight years ago, I published a post which explores the issue of whether or not baptism is a "work". Would be very interested in your thoughts on this important issue.
[LINK TO POST]
Grace and peace,
David
Dear David,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, your article does not deny that baptismal regeneration is a false gospel from Scripture, but argues from big quotes from historical figures. The Bible teaches that baptismal regeneration is a false gospel, and the passages cited in your article from historical figures are themselves heretical. Please see:
http://faithsaves.net/baptismal-regeneration/
and concerning Luther/Lutheranism, please see:
http://faithsaves.net/bible-truths-lutheran-friends/
and the doctrine in general historically, please see:
http://faithsaves.net/were-the-reformers-heretics/
Hello again KJB1611,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for the links. Will read through the material today, and get back to you once I am finished, the Lord willing...
Grace and peace,
David