Are you an Anglican or an Anglican't?

...or Why Anglicanism is heretical

If one opens the Book of Common Prayer or visits The Church of England website, they will find written in ‘The ministration of Public Baptism of Infant to be used in the Church’ these words:

‘It is certain by God's Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.’

This is basically the heretical doctrine of baptismal regeneration.  It is the popish doctrine which proposes the error that the waters of baptism can remove the sinful nature of man as a result of our fall in Adam (otherwise known as ‘original sin’).
The logical conclusion of this is that, once baptized, an individual could live a perfectly sinless life, as they would not be in bondage to sin; furthermore, such a person may have no need of Christ at all.

This is blasphemous and illogical for numerous reasons.  And this is why Anglicanism or Episcopalianism is heretical.   There have been many good Christians and ministers in the C of E.  But, the truth is, they were used of God in spite of the C of E.

At least the Book of Common Prayer recognises that the primary form of baptism for infants should be immersion, unless the child is infirm etc.

May God lead Christ’s sheep out of this mess or to reform this Protestant group for the good of England.  The question every Anglican needs to ask themselves is: Can we remove any sins, purely by the will of the baptizer and through some mystical power of the baptismal waters? Or can only the imputed righteousness through faith in Christ and the power of His redeeming blood, wrought in the soul by almighty God, cleanse a man from sin?

Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

The Westminster Cathecism Cataclysm

The first Question and Answer of the Westminster Shorter Catechism is:

Question. 1. What is the chief end of man?

Answer. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

But that’s not what my Bible says.  Oh yes, the ends of all men will glorify God ultimately, but are all men going to enjoy Him forever?  No.  Some men will continue in their lost state, cast into outer darkness where there will be no knowledge of God other than His wrath in eternal torment, the smoke of which will rise forever; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth according to my King, not enjoyment.  I find this answer to refer only to the chief end of the elect - Christ’s sheep.  I do not find a Biblical answer for the unbelieving man here.  If I had this question and answer alone, of all the Westminster Catechism, and I were a Muslim (for example), I would heartily agree and be on my way, knowing nothing of my state and the potential chief end of my existence – to continue in unbelief, having no sacrifice for my sins and to be judged rightly and fairly so that God’s perfect justice might be manifest for eternity.

The chief end of the reprobate is to glorify God, indeed it is, but there will be no joy for them.  There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I far prefer the first Question of the Heidelberg Cathecism:

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

Protestant Alliance's Arminian Confusion

When I saw that an Arminian Methodist was to speak at the Annual Meeting of the Protestant Alliance in The Reformer magazine, I was shocked.  Upon examining Penn Free Methodist Church’s website, I saw that the speaker (Peter Simpson) was quite clearly a classic Arminian.  But how could a magazine entitled The Reformer invite a speaker whom the Reformers would have deemed a heretic?

I wrote to Dr. Scott-Pearson of the Protestant Alliance to state my concern and to call him to examine this matter.  From the response I received, it does not appear that the doctor understands what Arminianism actually is.  We cannot blame him as many do not.  Many Christians think that Arminianism is the exact opposite of Calvinism; they wrongly call the Pelagians or semi-Pelagians of today 'Arminians'.  Many do not realise that Arminianism is actually subtly similar to Calvinism (a term I dislike; I prefer the term ‘Gospel’).  Arminianism is only different in that it teaches that, although men are elected to salvation by God, Christ died for each individual that ever existed and one can cast off the work of the Holy Spirit at any time.  For a closer examination of the five points of Arminianism, please view this article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Articles_of_Remonstrance

So, let’s examine Simpson’s views and see if they match with the original Arminianism of the Remonstrance and, thus, whether Scott-Pearson is right or wrong.

Firstly, on Simpson’s website for Penn Free Methodist Church, they boast that ‘some of the preachers who first ministered to the congregation here had been personally appointed by John Wesley’.  I’m not sure why anyone would advertise this fact unless they were not aware of the fact that Wesley taught the false doctrine of Sinless Perfectionism.  This is not a good start for Scott-Pearson…

To establish that he is a classical Arminian, according to the articles of the Remonstrance, Simpson should believe that Christ loved and laid down His life for everyone:  ‘The need of the hour is for each individual to repent of sin, and to come to Jesus Christ, who, out of love for us, warned us…’  So, according to Simpson, Christ loved each individual.  I’d be wary of putting words into Christ’s mouth after He clearly says otherwise to the church at Laodicea:

Revelation 3:19  As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

If Christ loves everyone then He must have given Himself as a sacrifice for everyone, atoning for all sins.  After all, Paul said:

Ephesians 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it…

Simpson’s language is identical to that of one who holds to the Arminian doctrine of Universal Atonement.

The second doctrine to be established is that Simpson believes God’s grace is resistible:  ‘He does so by drawing men to himself, working upon their hearts and consciences by means of the Holy Spirit, and thereby giving to them the potential to believe.
'Remember that he is also able to cease drawing men, and to leave them in their unbelief. Therefore it is imperative that if you feel him drawing you, you respond whilst there is time...’
So, God only gives men the potential to believe, according to Simpson.  This logically implies that they can choose to resist the Spirit of God and stop themselves from being drawn by God.  Further to this, God can just start and stop drawing people at random so one had better exercise whatever potential they’ve been given before God changes His mind, according to Simpson.

I find the Lord Jesus debunks this nonsense most succinctly:

John 6:37, 39, 44  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

There is nothing here about giving man the potential to make a choice; the choice has been made by God in Christ from before the foundation of the world, according to Ephesians 1.  All of those chosen shall come and those drawn by the Father will be raised to eternal life at the last day, according to the Lord Jesus in verse 44 above.

Simpson therefore believes in the two distinguishing marks of a classic Arminian Remonstrant.  The Reformers who met together at the Synod of Dordt classified this as a heresy!

I find, then, the title of the magazine - The Reformer - to be a misnomer.  I do wonder how the Reformers would view Peter Simpson's doctrines; I wonder how the Earl of Shaftesbury (the founder of the Protestant Alliance) would feel about this lax attitude.  

It becomes apparent that Scott-Pearson does not know what Arminianism is when he writes statements like these:
‘We…are quite unable to concur that [Peter Simpson] holds to “classic Arminian beliefs”.’
I have shown that he does.  But, further to this, Scott-Pearson wrote that Peter Simpson has an 'excellent position with regard to the Gospel'.  The Protestant Alliance is 'required to embrace all shades of BIBLICAL Protestantism'!
According to the Reformed position, which Scott-Pearson claims to represent by the title of the Protestant Alliance’s magazine, there is little that is biblical or Reformed about Peter Simpson's Gospel.  In fact, it was condemned as a heresy.

Please join me in praying for Scott-Pearson and Simpson and for the Protestant Alliance as a whole; how they need discernment and consistency in their understanding and teaching.

Ian Paisley led in prayer by Papist!

On the 29th April 2012, Ian Paisley attended a Jubilee thanksgiving service in Ballymena, in 'St. Patrick's Church' - an episcopalian place of worship.  The congregation was vastly made up of Papists with ecumenical Protestants (so-called).
Not only was the giving of thanks a sham, as the Queen has not kept her oath to defend the Protestant Reformed faith of the United Kingdom, but Paisley was breaking his ordination oath to fight 'against modernistic apostasy'.

Paisley was led in prayer by a Papist, even praying for the dead!  Whatever you might think of Paisley, I would ask you to join me in praying for his repentance.  What a sore judgment his apostasy would be upon those who have sought to follow him rather than Christ.  May we never hold men in too high a regard.  And may we learn from his solemn mistake.

Ephesians 5:11  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Embarrassment for Carl Gallups' ministry (PPSimmons) - why can they not answer simple questions?

What started off as asking a few simple questions in the comments section of one of Carl Gallups' videos, on their PPSimmons youtube channel, turned into a very saddening and defensive display in which I never received a straight answer; even though I had been ensured I would receive an answer and that they wanted to answer me.  The following is the dialogue which took place upon my being asked to email the ministry and to discuss the points I had raised one-on-one.  I am sure you will agree that this is a rather immature way of conducting an objective discussion.  I personally consider this a poor witness and hope you will join me in praying for Carl Gallups and the man who handles these emails and I pray you will also consider asking them some similar questions in future.
My dialogue will be written in blue;
PPSimmons’ will be written in red.

Wed, 29 Aug 2012
As per request, İ am emailing to obtain a response to some comments İ left on the video entitled 'WHO İS İSRAEL?'
This was the dialogue -

- Romans 8.9 ...if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
And Abraham's seed is Christ and His body according to Galatians.
As for the prophecies misquoted in İsaiah and Ezekiel, these are spiritually fulfiied in Christ.
İ cannot agree with Gallups Jesuit-inspired futurist views. These have distorted Protestantism terribly.

5to22a 1 day ago

- Sir - this video has NOTHING to do with who belongs to Christ or not. You are right even the Jew needs Jesus or he is lost. Carl preaches this very clearly. The point is that the Bible says that ISRAEL (the nation) WILL BE God's sign to the world of his existence, and the soon return of Jesus in the last days. Carl took nothing out of context. Nothing is distorted. Carl has been teaching, studying, and preaching for 30 years. You are talking of something entirely different here.

ppsimmonsin reply to 5to22a 1 day ago

-  Can you show me a verse in the New Testament to indicate that İsrael will be restored as a nation state?
İf not, then the prophecies quoted from the OT must be interpreted spiritually as the context clearly indicates. Unless you think that Gentiles will be bringing sacrifices to the mount in the last days and keeping the Sabbath and new moons, all of which would be contrary to the New and eternal Covenant in Christ.

5to22ain reply to ppsimmons 8 hours ago

- Write us at ppsimmons@liveDOTCOM. We don't have room here to answer you. But - we really would like to answer you on this - it is a good question that you have asked. God bless.

ppsimmonsin reply to 5to22a 9 minutes ago

İ do not feel that İ received a proper response to my message as İ quoted scriptures indicating who İsrael are according to the New Testament - the body of Christ.  İ was told that this is not really what the video is about, though the title indicates otherwise as well as the content of the video.  İ further would like a response to the fact that the seven-year future tribulation period was a doctrine developed by the Jesuits during the counter-Reformation to distort the Protestant interpretation of the Revelation.  This is the view espoused by Gallups and, sadly, by most of professing Protestants today.  İ would also like a response to the question which İ was told was a good question and which you would lile to respond to.

İ mean no offence and write only in love and desire to walk in the truth and to see brethren doing the same.

İn Christ,

Rik Storey

Dark Day Ministries

My video on İsrael - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWq7MrzdEpM

Wed, 29 Aug 2012

Hey Rik - Let's start with your assertion that we promote a future seven-year tribulation. We do not. In fact we take a lot of heat for it. We believe that nowhere does the Bible teach the pretrib message which seems to be completely fabricated based on a misinterpretation of Dan 9:27.
The fact that you falsely ascribed the future seven year trib to us means you don't really have a solid grip on what we really teach. If you wish to continue please send us one question (question only) at a time only after more thoroughly investigating our material.

Regards
PPSIMMONS

Wed, 29 Aug 2012

 Do you teach a futurist interpretation of the Revelation?  This includes any view which states that Daniel's 70th week is to be fulfilled in the last 7 years of time before the return of Christ.  The views are often broken down into the pre-tribulational, pre-wrath or midtribulational and finally the post-tribulational.  Do you teach any of these views?

İ refer you to your video below -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvmrL1hfaek&feature=plcp

Christian regards,
Rik 

Wed, 29 Aug 2012

 The Bible is crystal clear on many issues - one being that the sixth trumpet is imminent followed by the seventh trumpet rapture followed by the wrath prophecies. We have clearly shown how the first five trumpets have blown in stunning detail beginning with WW2. Are you a Preterist?  

Wed, 29 Aug 2012

No, not a Preterist (this was also devised by the Jesuits during the counter-Reformation).  İ hold to the Historicist view, which actually was the mainstream Protestant view until the past 100 years or so.  As stated previously, the Jesuits deliberately espoused the false doctrine of futurism which was taken up with great interest (foolishly so) by John Nelson Darby and Scofield of the Scofield Bible and has since enthralled Evangelicals to the extent that the Jesuits entirely succeeded in their plan.
So, does your ministry hold to a futurist view of the pre-wrath variety? 

Wed, 29 Aug 2012

This point is axiomatic. If you believe physical Israel has no right to the land and that all Endtime prophecy was fulfilled in or around 70ad you are a Preterist... In which case we need to deal with that. Have you watched our series on the trumpets? If you do you may have no choice but to jettison your eschatological wordview friend.  

Thu, 30 Aug 2012

İ am absolutely not a Preterist and have made Bible studies refuting the foundation of this belief - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaG60JuIzmA. 
As İ explained, this view was developed by the Jesuits to what it is today and İ personally do not believe all prophecy was fulfilled before 70AD.  As İ also explained, İ am an Historicist - this was at one time the mainstream Protestant view and İ am sure you can find plenty of information about it if you have never heard of it.  This is the view that the Revelation is fulfilled throughout Christian history rather than just in the 1st Century or at the very end of days.
As wikipedia points out, there are four main views of the Revelation -

Historicist, which sees in Revelation a broad view of history;

Preterist, in which Revelation mostly refers to the events of the apostolic era (1st century), or--at the latest--the fall of the Roman Empire;

Futurist, which believes that Revelation describes future events; and

Idealist, or Symbolic, which holds that Revelation does not refer to actual people or events, but is an allegory of the spiritual path and the ongoing struggle between good and evil.

Now that this has been established, could you answer my question.  Do you hold to the futurist view of the Revelation?  İ have yet to get to the question for which you said you would love to give me an answer, so to answer this first one would be beneficial to us both.

Sun, 2 Sep 2012

Dear sir,

İt has been a few days since İ heard from you and so İ would like to restate my questions, trusting that you are not simply ignoring me:
 İ have yet to receive an answer from you for my first question - Do you hold to the pre-wrath rapture version of the futurist interpretation of the Revelation?

The question which you said you would love to respond to is this one - Can you show me a verse in the New Testament to indicate that İsrael will be restored as a nation state?

Also, as İ stated initially, İ do not feel you gave a proper response as to how İsrael after the flesh can have any part with God when Paul says they are 'none of His' (Romans 8.9) and how they can still be considered Abraham's seed when Paul says, by God's Spirit, that Abraham's seed is Christ and the body of believers in Christ (Galatians 3).  Could you respond to this point also?  İ do not feel that simply declaring 'İsrael has a right to the land' is handling my point at all, though, in terms of physical land, İ feel the Lord Jesus Christ answers this succinctly -
John 4.21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

İ trust you were speaking in earnest before God Almighty when you said you wanted to respond to me.
Thank you for your time.
Christian regards,
Rik

Sun, 2 Sep 2012

 Please watch this five-part teaching series produced by our ministry. If you don't agree simply move on. There is nothing to be gained by arguing with us about this. We have not submitted to you in any way and we are not changing our mind on this. We are not going to agree on Israel if we don't agree on this basic eschatalogical reality.

Sun, 2 Sep 2012

İ wasn't asking you to submit to the teaching of scripture as İ understand it, though of course that would give me great delight.  İ was simply asking you to define your belief.
Also, if you do not want to state your interpretation of the Revelation etc., you can still respond to my initial question posted in the comments section of the youtube video.

You did say, 'we really would like to answer you on this'.  İ would like that too.
The question was - Can you show me a verse in the New Testament to indicate that İsrael will be restored as a nation state?

Christian regards, as always,
Rik 

Mon, 3 Sep 2012

There are 66 books in the Bible. Please watch our newest video on the topic of Israel 

Tue, 4 Sep 2012

There are indeed 66 books, but the New and eternal Covenant is not according to the old and Christ tells us that the old covenant speaks of Him.
I have watched the video and feel that the view presented is not a logically consistent one.  Ezekiel 36:24ff. is presented as evidence that God will restore the nation of Israel.  Yet, if we are to interpret these passages in this way then we must also interpret Jeremiah 31 as speaking of ethnic Jews in the very last days and not of the New Covenant established by Christ, as we are told it is Hebrews 8.  One must also interpret Joel 2 as speaking of Israel after the flesh in the very last days and not of the event of Pentecost to establish the true Israel of God - the New Testament church, as we are told it is by Peter in Acts 2.
This interpretation does not sit well in light of the New Testament.

Am I to take it then that your response to my question is 'No'?
Can you show me a verse in the New Testament to indicate that İsrael will be restored as a nation state?

Seeking the truth as it is in Jesus,
Rik 

Tue, 4 Sep 2012

Have you seen our "Proving the Existence of God" video? Please look at it. The problem you have is that Israel is back in the land. And we are facing the imminent fulfillment of the Sixth Trumpet prophecy (which you also seem to disagree with). There may be too much disagreement here to reconcile - a bridge too far if you will. We are dealing with the realities on the ground as we speak - existential realities which show prophecy playing out in stunning detail. We do not have any room to entertain other interpretations because ours fits perfectly. Please watch our "Proving the Existence of God" video.  

Thu, 6 Sep 2012

Sorry I did not respond sooner.

I think that basing your beliefs based primarily on what you see occurring around you in the physical world is not safe.  I think one should base one's eschatological views on the Word of God alone.  Not just prophetic or end times doctrine, but all of one's understanding and wisdom must come from the Word of God alone.

Sun Moon, creator of the Unification Church (so-called) and one who declared himself to be the return of Christ, died recently at the age of 92.  I pray that many souls will see that this man was a false Christ and will be drawn by the Father to the true Christ and salvation.  But how is one to determine whether this man was the return of our Lord or not?  Surely it is by the Word of God.

In like manner, simply because I see ethnic Jews, whom Paul says are not really Jews at all in Romans 2:28-29, returning to a plot of land which the Lord Jesus Christ says is of no importance in John 4:21-23, this does not cause me to abandon what the Word of God says.

Your 'existential realities' and 'realities on the ground' are only significant if they concur with the Word of God; not vice versa.  I further do not find your interpretation to fit perfectly.  If it were to fit perfectly then I would have expected better and more convincing responses with quotes from scripture on your part, especially to the questions I have presented.  The truth is powerful and easy to defend.

Yet, your interpretation whereby the physical land of Israel is of great importance and Israel after the flesh is of great importance seems to go against the plain teaching of the New Testament and therefore of the Holy Spirit.  Is it your belief that there will be some earthly kingdom of the Messiah established amongst the Jews, centering on Jerusalem, as the fleshly Jews of Christ's time believed?

If so, this belief further conflicts with Christ's teaching:

Luke 17:20-21  And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
How do you base your reality?  Upon what is occurring around you, which can be deceptive and which are warned against trusting in by the Lord Jesus, or upon God's Word?

Thu, 6 Sep 2012

Listen Rik, we agreed to answer your question, not get into lengthy never-ending debates with you. Romans 11 clearly states that the blindness of Israel is only temporary - until the fullness of the gentiles has come in... then God's attention will turn back to Israel, probably following the seventh-trumpet rapture when a remnant will be saved in Israel. Romans 11 makes this clear distinction. Physical Israel is back in the land - fulfilling prophecy - and God will save a remnant of those souls per Romans 11... 12 thousand from each tribe (Rev 7). 

Thu, 6 Sep 2012 

I quite agree that Romans 11 may very well be teaching this and, being an Amillennialist, I also believe that Satan will be (or has been) loosed to deceive the Gentile nations once more, [perhaps] leaving the Jews as those who will predominantly be saved.  This is an interpretation I cannot absolutely invalidate at all.
However, my question was regarding Jews returning to the land of Israel.  Is there any New Testament precedent to suggest this will occur?  That is my question.  So far you have done everything but actually say, 'No.'

Rik

Thu, 6 Sep 2012

Not just the Jews but ALL of Israel will be saved - 12 thousand from each tribe - not just Judah (Jews) ala Rev 7. It's a little troubling that you insist on harvesting your doctrine exclusively from the NT since... "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

2 Timothy 3:16

So Paul himself is saying - the entirety of the "Word" is required for a complete comprehension of doctrine. 

PLEASE watch this PPSIMMONS teaching on the EXTREME importance of Israel returning to the land. Bless you...

Sat, 8 Sep 2012

I don't recall having insisted that one harvest their doctrine exclusively from the New Testament.  I do recall having shown that I believe the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the New, as the Lord Jesus said it was written of Him (John 5:39); and of course Peter states quite clearly that the Old Testament was written for us, to be interpreted according to the New Covenant and by the Spirit of Christ (1Peter 1:10-12).

So, with this in mind, when we read in the New Testament that Christ says to the chief priests etc. this -
Matthew 21:43  Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
- what are we to make of it?  Would you argue that the New Testament should be interpreted in light of the Old and not vice versa?
If not, then what we are told in the New Testament is that Jews after the flesh are not the real Jews, Abraham's seed is Christ and His body, Jerusalem is of no importance as God desires a people to worship Him in His Spirit according to the eternal and better Covenant in Christ and, therefore, the true Israel of God is not Israel after the flesh but another nation, bringing forth fruit in Christ.
All this requires that we interpret Jeremiah 31, Joel 2 and, yes, Ezekiel 36 in light of the New Testament.

Sincerely awaiting your response with all brotherly love in Jesus,
Rik

And I am still waiting.  This is deeply saddening and I feel it expresses the problem with the vast majority of Protestants today.  How many supposed Protestant Bible-teachers today die to themselves and objectively try to discern the truth?  Rather, like worldly, fleshly politicians, they become defensive if you suggest that something they believe could be wrong.  How is a man supposed to be humble and teachable before God if he feels he knows it all.  This is the spirit I all too often encounter in those who claim to follow Christ.  Very few Bible quotes, very little knowledge of Christian history and lots of plugging their latest book.

I must fight this wickedness in myself; indeed, we must all die to ourselves and objectively seek to arrive at the truth together.

Might we speak the truth in love to one another and desire to see the whole body walking uprightly before God, according to His Word.