An excerpt from my sermon on Purgatory today: But how did some Anglicans start to believe in it, even though the Anglican Church flatly denies it? It seems to have started with John Henry Newman in the 1800’s. He explained that Purgatory was not the place of hellish suffering, so typically believed by Roman Catholics, but rather more like the Eastern view – a place where the purging away of sin was more like a healing process than a suffering process. It was similar to the idea of Purgatory in Dante’s Divine Comedy . This is also the idea of Purgatory that C. S. Lewis wound up holding. Now, notice this: since Newman’s idea was of a different kind of Purgatory than that of the Roman Church, he did not think that he was contradicting the Articles of the Church of England, for Article XXII states: "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, … is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." (emphasis
Below is the link to the sixth chapter of Bishop Meade's Reasons for Loving the Episcopal Church . It is a .pdf file. Meade Chapter 6 . The conclusion is brief. It is followed by an appendix which I will post soon. Below is a very interesting paragraph from this conclusion: "Viewing her as to doctrine, discipline, and worship, we claim no infallibility for her. That is left to Rome and to some of the German devotees, who, at a certain period after the Reformation, claimed for certain symbolical books, that they were divine, and therefore perfect. Our English and American Fathers only ask for our prayer-book, such just and favorable construction, as in common equity, ought to be allowed, to all human writings. We think, that in the use of our carefully-composed forms, we are aided to pray with the spirit, because we pray with the understanding also. We think, that we not only "worship the Lord with an holy worship," but also" in the beauty of holiness,"
Today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Robert Edward Lee. Acknowledged universally as one of the greatest military commanders ever to live, more importantly, he was one of the most honourable Christians - an Episcopalian - to have ever lived. As the Scriptures instruct us, let us give honour to whom honour is due. ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who dost enkindle the name of thy love in the hearts of the Saints; Grant to us, thy humble servants, the same faith and power of love; that, as we rejoice in their triumphs, we may profit by their examples; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
For all you Reformed guys interested in Federal Vision issues and Anglican beliefs, check out the series of blog posts Peter Toon has about infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the covenant, etc. You may find it interesting. Link to Toon's blog An excerpt: One may close with a historical footnote. I wrote in 1979 these words and I still think what I said is true: “It would appear that because of the intensity of feeling raised by the Gorham controversy there developed in [Anglican] Evangelicalism such a fear of baptismal regeneration ex opera operato that gradually all views involving full baptismal regeneration were given up and thus part of evangelical belief at the end of the nineteenth century was the denial of baptismal regeneration.” And what was true in 1900 seems to be true also in 2007!
I posted this portion of Meade's Chapter 4 before I finished editing the rest of the scan. I'll leave it up, though now I've posted the whole chapter as a .pdf (see next post above). THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. WE are commanded to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to tbe saints." That faith is in the sacred Scriptures, and we have shown how our Reformers regarded them as the only rule of faith, drawing all their doctrines and prayers from them. That faith is also briefly set forth in the Creeds, for the preservation of the same, and for purposes of worship. In the Apostles' Creed we have the faith which each baptized adult and child is bound to receive. It is not affirmed that it was actually drawn up by the Apostles, each one furnishing a part, as some have said, but only that it contained the sum and substance of what the ApostIes believed and taught. Wherefore, in the article on the subject, it is said, "which is commonly called the Ap
My response to the article by Father Jonathan Morris, "Saddam Got What He Deserved" at Foxnews.com. "Dear Father: Grace and peace. With regard to your recent article about the execution of Saddam Hussein, I do appreciate your concern that human life be rightly valued. However, you do not seem to take into account such passages of Scripture as Genesis 9:5f and Romans 13. Saddam was a murderer. Capital punishment by a rightful civil authority is not performed in order to defend the community from an evil doer – though it will, or may, do that. It is to be used because murder is an attack upon the image of God. Here is the required transcendant necessity, of greater weight than self defense or a sentimental appreciation for human life. As for who should perform such an execution, it is the authority appointed by God to bear the sword. In fact, if that authority does not use that sword it is derelect in its duty. The result is that the image of God in man is not