Recent Anglican Posts of Note

Mark Thompson reviews an article by Steve Chalke, and says:

The real issue when discussing the nature of the Bible is the authority, and capacity to communicate, of the God whose word is recorded here for us. If God is the one who created all there is, sustains the world and redeems men and women in the midst of it, and if he is perfectly capable of communicating with men and women across cultures and time periods using human language, then in such a context this written word of God can and should be seen as authoritative and effective. It is indeed profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.

Chalke insists that God ‘chooses dialogue over monologue’. Such a statement is just one of a number of superficial simplifications which distort the picture of who God is and so what the Bible is. God certainly does invite dialogue at points — ‘Come let us reason together’ etc. But at other points something quite like a monologue is much more accurate. Was the Sermon on the Mount or the Farewell Discourse or the vision of Revelation a dialogue? Not to mention the giving of the Ten Commandments, the call of Samuel, the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7 or the preaching of the prophets.

William G. Witt reviews the Church of England’s new baptismal liturgy, and remarks:

Evil is horizontal language. Sin is vertical language. An atheist can reject evil. Sin always has reference primarily to God. Dropping the language of sin is carried through to soteriology. The baptized no longer turn to Christ as “Saviour,” but simply “turn to Christ.” They no longer “submit to Christ as Lord” and Christ is no longer identified as “the way, the truth, and the life.” The extent of Christology is that the baptized “trusts” in Christ and promises to “follow him for ever.”

It is interesting that the baptismal prayer omits all language of sin. The apostles’ creed is dropped in preference to vague promises to trust God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The prayers again omit any reference to sin or forgiveness of sin.

This strikes me as a Nestorian (or adoptionist) Christology an Abelardian soteriology, a Pelagian anthropology and an ethics that has only the second table of the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.