The GAFCON Statement, including the Jerusalem Declaration, has been released, and can be read online here.
Login and comment below about what you think of it, and what it means for the Church of Ireland.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, June 29th, 2008 at 8:40 am and is filed under GAFCON.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
One hopes that GAFCON is a purely Evangelical movement, but questions arise such as :
a) What is an Evangelical?
b) What will GAFCON adherents mean by the Evangelical-sounding phrases in the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration?
c) Why is there a lack of statements excluding salvation by works or sacramentalism? (Although how an Anglo-Catholic could adhere to the Jerusalem Declaration is hard to see, but anyone familiar with Anglo-Catholics and “Evangelical” Romanists have seen this done before.) They may argue that the 1662 BCP excludes Sacramentalism, but does it really? The 1662 BCP is an ambiguous document at several points, and is in serious need of revision even to align it with Evangelical Anglicanism.
d) Are Evangelical Anglicans also separating from Anglo-Catholic Traditionalists/ Conservatives, who also preach another gospel? (E.g. Jensen’s statement about “the sleeping giant that is evangelical Anglicanism and orthodox Anglicanism”, i.e. not Evangelical Anglicanism, or Evangelical and Orthodox Anglicanism, but “evangelical Anglicanism” and “orthodox Anglicanism” as if one can be Orthodox but not Evangelical. Also, Stephen Noll’s definition of Anglican Orthodoxy in which he states that it consists of both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.)
e) The history of some leading participants, e.g. Packer, is one of treating other heretics (Romanists) as Christians.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
One hopes that GAFCON is a purely Evangelical movement, but questions arise such as :
a) What is an Evangelical?
b) What will GAFCON adherents mean by the Evangelical-sounding phrases in the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration?
c) Why is there a lack of statements excluding salvation by works or sacramentalism? (Although how an Anglo-Catholic could adhere to the Jerusalem Declaration is hard to see, but anyone familiar with Anglo-Catholics and “Evangelical” Romanists have seen this done before.) They may argue that the 1662 BCP excludes Sacramentalism, but does it really? The 1662 BCP is an ambiguous document at several points, and is in serious need of revision even to align it with Evangelical Anglicanism.
d) Are Evangelical Anglicans also separating from Anglo-Catholic Traditionalists/ Conservatives, who also preach another gospel? (E.g. Jensen’s statement about “the sleeping giant that is evangelical Anglicanism and orthodox Anglicanism”, i.e. not Evangelical Anglicanism, or Evangelical and Orthodox Anglicanism, but “evangelical Anglicanism” and “orthodox Anglicanism” as if one can be Orthodox but not Evangelical. Also, Stephen Noll’s definition of Anglican Orthodoxy in which he states that it consists of both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.)
e) The history of some leading participants, e.g. Packer, is one of treating other heretics (Romanists) as Christians.