March 1, 2000 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) -- I received the following challenge to my article on "Anglicanism" which is located under the Denominations Today section of the End Times Apostasy Database at the Way of Life web site and which was also published in the Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity:

Hello Pastor Cloud: I’m always glad to see web pages of people who believe the bible is the Word of God. In looking at your denominations page I have a couple of queries:

1. You have some scathing assessments of various denominations (most of which is probably accurate -- I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your assertions of apostacy), however, there appears to be no assessment of your own denomination (or whatever you want to call your association of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches). There is also little or no biblical critique of wider Fundamentalism as a movement either, despite there being one for Evangelicalism. Is this because you believe there is nothing wrong at all with the faith and practice of Fundamentalists in general or Fundamental Baptists in particular? (Forgive me if you do have some self-critique but I missed seeing it.)

2. You ask people to point out if there are any factual errors. There is at least one in your assessment of Anglicanism. It is not correct to say that Con-Substantiation is Anglican Doctrine. Con-Substantiation is the technical term for the Lutheran position on the Lord’s Supper, and has never been the teaching of the Anglican Communion (Perhaps you meant Trans-substantiation, which is the Catholic position -- but Anglicans, even Anglo-Catholics, don’t believe in that either).

Most Evangelical Anglicans, although they would differ with you on Baptism, probably have beliefs about the Lord’s Supper indistinguishable from your own. Incidentally it is also not accurate that the official Anglican position on Baptism is that infants baptised are automatically regenerated and receive the Holy Spirit, even if some Anglicans might believe that.

I think your summary of Anglicanism is (apart from the above error) true but not sufficient, correct but not very comprehensive. You can give a false impression by what you leave out as much as by what you say. The Anglican denomination is far more complex than the 2D picture you paint. Anglican churches around the world actually range from the dead traditionalism and rabid liberalism you speak about, to biblical fundamental evangelicalism. In this respect your treatment of Methodism was much more well-rounded, acknowledging the diversity within that group, and that it does contain people who believe in the Bible as the Word of God, etc. Someone reading your summary of Anglicanism, on the other hand, would conclude that all Anglican churches are liberal, ecumenical, and ritualistic. This is not an accurate picture. There are Anglican churches, and even whole dioceses, which base their beliefs on the Word of God.

Sadly I do have to agree with you that most Anglican churches in the world are apostate, and especially on your continent! However, they are apostate not just from the bible itself, but from the founding beliefs of the denomination, which are, by and large, biblical. Theologically the Church of England was not founded by Henry VIII, but by reformers like Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, who died for their faith. The basis of (official) Anglican doctrine as recorded in the 1662

Prayerbook is Bible Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone, etc. Anglo-Catholicism is an aberration from true Anglicanism, as is the liberalism of North American Episcopalianism. There are still plenty of Anglican churches that believe in things like the plenary Inspiration of Scripture; Christ’s True Humanity and Deity; the virgin birth at his incarnation; the literal bodily Resurrection of Christ; the utter sinfulness and helplessness of human nature; salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ; heaven and hell; etc etc. Many Biblical Anglicans criticise the ungodly decisions and pronouncements of leaders within their denomination. For example, Australian clergy from the Dicoese of Sydney have publicly refuted the unbiblical theology of the recently elected Primate

(i.e. nominal head) of the Anglican Church in Australia, Archbishop Carnley, on issues such as the Resurrection, Homosexuality, and the Ordination of Women. Similarly, there are clergy in the Episcopal church in America who reject their bishops’ views on homosexual ordination, etc. And at the recent Lambeth conference of bishops last year, the African and Asian conservatives outvoted the North American and European liberals, and passed resolutions affirming the church’s traditional condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle, and dependence upon the Bible as the Word of God and all the traditional orthodox teachings of the church.

So Biblical Orthodoxy is not entirely dead in the Anglican denomination, even though it’s looking mighty sick in most parts of the world!

I hope this may give you a more accurate picture of the Anglican denomination. As one of my friends once said, "it’s like everything -- you can’t generalize!" That is certainly true of Anglicans -- they are not all ‘tarred by the one brush.’

Yours in Christ

_____________________

REPLY FROM BROTHER CLOUD:

Hello. Thanks for taking the time to write. I have criticized my "denomination" probably as much or more than I have criticized others. There is an entire section at my web site on "Compromising Fundamentalists" that contains some of those criticisms. I have written entire books criticizing my own "crowd," and as a result I can assure you that my name is not welcome in many parts of the fundamental Baptist movement. The latest book along those lines was "Repentance Is More Than a Sinner’s Prayer."

As for Anglicanism, I know the facts that you mention. I have spent time in England visiting Anglican churches. I have diligently researched Anglicanism from the 14th to the 19th centuries (I have obtained a large library on British church history at great expense) and have regularly read reports on modern Anglicanism for many years. I realize that my article is not comprehensive in any sense whatsoever and it could include many more favorable comments. I did not intend to be comprehensive, though. I was merely pointing out the wretched apostasy which has permeated this body of professing Christians. In my perspective, there is almost no biblical Christianity left today within Anglicanism. Judging it strictly from a New Testament standpoint, there never was very much. Furthermore, Anglicanism bitterly harassed and persecuted Bible-believing Christians for centuries. While it is true that there are protests among Anglicans against the vile modernism and unbelief and immorality that permeates the denomination, these protests do not change the picture. Anglican church members, priests, and bishops continue to deny the Word of God and live in the grossest forms of sin. The protests are but tinkling brass. The protest commanded by God is "come out from among them." I am not therefore going to try to dig up the little that is biblical within Anglicanism today. Those who want to obey the Bible need to come out of Anglicanism completely and join a church that is truly and fully Bible based.

In my reports on Presbyterians and Methodists and Lutherans I have mentioned some positive aspects specifically because there are those within those denominations who have obeyed the Bible and have completely separated from the modernism and apostasy. I do not find that within Anglicanism.

This, therefore, is my position, and I have no doubt that you disagree; but again, I appreciate your note.

[P.S. I will definitely accept your challenge about the Anglican Church not holding to "consubstantiation." I will research that and make any necessary change.]