Does that include the Tradition we call the Canon of Scripture? Does that include the Tradition that teaches that the Canon is closed? Does that include the Tradition (παράδοσις) St. Paul spoke of in II Thes. 3:6? Do you understand the difference between tradition, and the Tradition, in which the Scriptures take the highest place of authority? Do you even know what you are talking about, or rather, what others are talking about? If you want to criticize what others say, first learn to speak their language; otherwise your words are simply irrelevant.
Anyone who denies that justification by faith alone is an essential point of the Gospel message cannot be saved.
The only verse that uses the words "faith" and "alone" in close proximity is James 2:17. Does not faith abide with hope and charity, making it essentially never really alone at all?
Nonetheless, using the expression as it was used by the Reformers (opposed to what modern Evangelicals to with it) requires that these questions be answered: What is faith? Does not the life of faith include obedience? Does not obedience require partaking of Christ in the sacramental system he himself established? Does it not involve of necessity repentance from willful sin? Does not repentance from willful sin require good works in accord with charity?
Amen. But, concerning the idea that sacraments could save "in and of themselves," who has ever said any such thing? I know of no one anywhere who has ever taught this, whether Roman, Greek, Anglican or any kind of Protestant. That is, except for Revivalists who have created their own "sacrament" of accepting Jesus as a one time act, that is, the "sacrament" of the Altar Call.
"Absolutely" you say? See how you must add a word to set up a straw man. Nonetheless, the Reformers would not consider the faith of any man to be true if he refused to receive these sacraments. The Church has never taught, however, that God depends on the sacraments; rather, that we have no right to neglect what he has commanded and revealed, as much as it is in our power to obey. Otherwise, when this cannot be done (that is, by no fault of anyone), we look to the thief crucified next to Jesus as the Scriptural example of God saving by no means other than his promise and the faith of the dying man. If you think anyone teaches otherwise, you are seriously misinformed. This fact may kill your prejudices and make it harder to be consumed by hate; but I am not trying to spoil your fun in and of itself. I am trying to save you from its consequences.
The fact that you deny that Cranmer's theology undergirds the 39 Articles shows how ignorant you are of the Protestant sources of Anglicanism. Why don't you consult Gerald Bray's work on the documents of the English Reformation? He has most of the changes listed in parentheses.
I have never denied the importance of Cranmer. Rather, I have pointed out that he stands alongside other Anglican fathers, not above them. That is the only position of Anglican patrimony.
If you commented like an adult, with proper manners, you would see your comments posted, and might even find others who comment on the blog to present quite a challenge to your certainty about a good many things. In fact, you might even enjoy having others open up for you a path to better understanding, if you could learn simple humility. It is a joy to be challenged by those who can teach new things, but not for those consumed by pride.
What he said, clearly, was that it did not matter if Christ was present in the elements before they were received with faith; that he was present in a saving manner after the believer received them is all that truly matters. That is the kind of "real presence" that mattered to Hooker.
Funny you would pretend to know what is in my articles, and yet quote one of the points I lingered on, a quotation I myself posted in an article.
But, this quotation is in my article [Richard Hooker on the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood]. Did you read it? Does your knee jerk with reaction before you finish reading?
Literal? Of course not. That would be cannibalism. But, the Lord established a sacrament, with commandments, and that suddenly made the promises of John 6 come within reach. This is not so with metaphors. Here, therefore, we have an effectual sign, because it is connected to a promise. Only baptism is akin to this, not metaphors like door, shepherd, etc. The word "effectual" is in Cranmer's vocabulary. Why is it not in yours?
As for the timing of the crucifixion, do you really mean to include such a weak and meaningless point? The principle here is eternal, outside of time; and we partake of the Risen and Living Christ; for he is not to be sought for among the dead. You may have heard, but maybe not: He rose from the dead on the third day.
And so, therefore, It is not truly Anglican; no Prayer Book indeed! Excluding that 1979 fraudulent edition, no Book of Common Prayer means not Anglican. And, that heretical Lay Celebration thing would have angered all the English Reformers.
No matter the excuse, you are in Jefforts-Schori's cult, officially by membership.
The Scriptures are so plain even an idiot can understand them. I need no Anglo-Catholic idiots to explain to me what is obvious to anyone who reads it for themselves and compares Scripture with Scripture. The Bible is the best commentary on the Bible.
Once again, if this is so, make your case from Scripture rather than ranting about Scripture. I have made points from Scripture, and you have not done so yet at all, not even once.
The Greek word is μυστήριον (mystērion). So, does this mean that the sacraments (or the mysteries) are not at all mysterious to you? Are you aware that, by this boast, you claim to be God?
What it does say is, "Do this in remembrance of me." What the Bible does say is REPENT! What the Bible does say is you must believe that you are a miserable sinner and you need a Savior who died for your sins on the cross.
I know this very well; and a great sinner, a miserable offender, I am indeed. Are you a sinner too?
All of your religion, smells and bells and rituals...
My whole religion is Jesus Christ, as we confess the truth in the Great Creeds that are drawn from the Bible. Allow me to introduce myself: I am a Christian. What exactly are you?
...will only earn you a deeper spot in hell along side the self-righteous Pharisees and scribes. Unless and until you realize that nothing you do can merit or earn your justification or salvation before an omni-Holy God you can never be saved. Until you realize you good works are worthless outside of faith in Christ, you can never be saved.
Are you saying that "smells and bells" lead to Hell? I thought only unbelief and rejection of Christ did that. Or does one have to accept the "five points" instead of Jesus Christ, to be saved?
What if I said, Your whole religion, the five T.U.L.I.P. points, ties and shirts as vestments, no smells allowed, no bells rung or heard, yes your whole religion of TULIP without bells and smells (that being your WHOLE RELIGION) will only lead you to Hell...You must repent and call on the Lord for mercy instead of wearing a tie...?
And, are smells and bells somehow part of my "religion"? How would you know? But, inasmuch as High Churchmen (and I am a High Churchman) use these things to aid their worship, your condemnation is simply a hateful example of Pharisee religion in and of itself, making your self-righteous prejudices all the more sinful. You damn those who approach God through Jesus Christ, simply because they make use of good created things (Genesis 1:31) that uplift their spirits to praise him, as they worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. If smells and bells, and so forth, are sinful, then prove it by certain warrant of Holy Scripture, or be silent.
Good works are only accepted by God after you are converted and even then they cannot withstand the severity of God's judgment.This is precisely the teaching of the Articles.
Yes. That is in our Article XIII. Why would you presume to imagine that we have ever taught differently? In fact, I know of no one who teaches differently, and that means not even those bloody papists (as you think them to be). I perceive that this irrelevant subject has come up suddenly due to prejudice, some notion that all Catholic Christians are teaching salvation by good works; But, no one in the Church has ever taught that anywhere at all, at least not as far as I am aware of.
Only the perfect life of Christ can merit eternal life for you and this can only be imputed to you. You cannot ever be infused with enough grace to make you perfect because you were born with original sin, a sinful nature, and you sin daily in thought, word and deed, in what you have done and in what you have left undone. Your only hope is to cry out for mercy to Almighty God and rely only on Christ and His promises to save you.
The Book of Common Prayer cannot be used without the need for "hearty repentance and true faith" made obvious and clear; so why would you imagine that we need you to point out what our very liturgy has us confess? If you think that "Prayer Book Catholics" need you to teach them what the Holy Communion, the Daily Offices, and the Bible place before their eyes each and every day, then it is obvious that your prejudice and hate has driven you far from reality. We cannot even begin our services without facing these things. Don't you know anything at all? Just how long has it been since you opened a real Book of Common Prayer and looked inside?
There is none righteous. No NOT EVEN ONE. This means you.
And, how about you? Does it mean you too? Are you the one who is righteous, and who may rightly despise others? Dare you say, "I thank thee God I am not as other men are...?"
So, will you accept that Christ is the ONLY substitute for your sins? Or will you continue on in your blindness which can lead only to hell?
Do you mean sacrifice for sins? I hope you mean sacrifice rather than "substitute."
Our Holy Communion service cannot be celebrated without this proclaimed for all to hear:
"ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious the death and sacrifice, until his coming again..."
Well folks, this is not something I made up. When I speak of their prejudices, it is quite a real problem. May our tongues be seasoned with grace.