Anglicanism and the Lord's Day

The following is an extract from the Anglican Catechism as found in the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer (e.g. 1662, C of I 2004):

Question.You said, that your Godfathers and Godmothers did promise for you, that you should keep God's commandments. Tell me how many there be?
Answer. Ten.

Question. Which be they?
Answer.
...
IV. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt do no manner of work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, thy cattle, and the stranger that is within thy gates.For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.
...

The more Evangelical Articles of Religion of the Church of Ireland (a.k.a. the Irish Articles of 1615) written principally by the greatest Irish Anglican, Archbishop Ussher of Armagh, which were replaced with the more ambiguous and less godly 39 Articles of the Church of England by the High-Church Laudians in 1635, and under which English and Scottish Presbyterians served in the Anglican Church of Ireland without Episcopal ordination, state the following:

56. The first day of the week, which is the Lord's day, is wholly to be dedicated unto the service of God: and therefore we are bound therein to rest from our common and daily business, and to bestow that leisure upon holy exercises, both public and private.

Christ Forbids Calling Religious Leaders "Father"

It is sad to see in so-called Protestant churches like the Anglican church that in some quarters the fashion has been resurrected of referring to ‘clergymen’ as “Father”. Christ's prohibition against this is abundantly clear:

“The scribes and the Pharisees… love… to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven… But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” (Matt. 23)

Some argue from Paul's use of the term "father", e.g. 1 Cor.4:14-15, that this practice is allowed, but it is one thing for Paul to consider himself as a father to his spiritual children, and it is another to append the title as Christ condemned.

Paul never called himself, nor was referred to as “Father Paul”. If you love your spiritual children in a fatherly way, and they love you as a father, then that is all good, but Christ doesn’t want you or others to call you, “Father so-and-so”.

“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (John 14:21)

(See also here and here.)

Continued...

What's Wrong with the 39 Articles?

Well, the answer is: not a lot. I agree with almost everything in it verbatim. It is a good, Calvinistic, Evangelical creed, but I thought it would be useful to mention the few areas where I disagree with it:

3. Of the going down of Christ into Hell.
As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

I disagree with the mistaken interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 that believes that Christ went down into Hell.

6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
...And the other Books [the Apocrypha] (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following...

This statement could be understood in the same sense as the better statement in the WCF (which came out of a revision of the 39 Articles), but the implication and the danger is that this statement means that the Apocrypha can be read in Church like Scripture, even though it is seen as inferior to "Canonical" Scripture. This is what has happened in practice and is a logical outworking of Anglicanism's semi-reformed view of sola Scriptura.

Moreover, the 39 Articles don't claim that the Holy Scriptures are the infallible and inerrant Word of God.

7. Of the Old Testament.
...the Law given from God by Moses... nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth...

This is a more imbalanced (in my opinion) statement concerning the position of the Civil Law of Moses, compared to WCF 19:4: "To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require."

There is a general equity in the Civil Law that does make necessary requirements, and that equity is more than moral precepts, it is also equitable penology, for equity is about civil justice, not merely morality. Interestingly, the English Reformers Bishops Hooper and Latimer agree.

20. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies... yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written... it ought not to decree any thing against the same...

Here is the great difference between historical Presbyterianism/ Independancy (a.k.a. Puritanism/ Reformed) and Anglicanism: the Regulative Principle. We say you may only rule the Church as Scripture ordains, they say that you may create offices, etc., as you please. We say that you may only worship God as He has asked, they say that you may have any rites that you like as long as they are not forbidden. (Of course, most modern Presbyterian and Baptists are really Anglicans/Lutherans and they don't even know it!)

21. Of the Authority of General Councils.
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes...

This is Erastianism. In opposition to this, the Puritans stated in WCF 31:2, "...the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies."

34. Of the Traditions of the Church.
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word...

This repeats the error of Article 20 contra the Regulative Principle. Of course, this can be given a Reformed interpretation because it is against God's Word to add to or take from what He has ordained. However, this is not how it is interpreted, so we must understand it with the intent of the framers.

36. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.
The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons... whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book... we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

Bishops, priests and deacons, as conceived by the Anglican Church are unbiblical offices. Bishops/ overseers are the same as elders/ presbyters and there is parity between all elders, and deacons have a temporal caring and administrative role, not a ruling and teaching ministry.

37. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.
The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil...

The 1801 CoE amendment rightly removes the power of the Civil Magistrate over the Church, but the CoI still has the original 1571 rendering as above. Again, this is Erastian.


By the way, what every Irish Anglican should read is the far better Irish Articles of 1615, which were the confession of Irish Anglicanism, before the English Church imposed its will, and which had a profound influence on the WCF. (Good ol' Ussher! Pity he allowed his Erastianism to get in the way!)

Continued...

Irish Evangelical Anglican Site

For those who are interested in the state of the Church of Ireland, Reform Ireland is a really good way of finding out what is happening. The site has a biblically-balanced approach to commentary, which is to be commended.

Gene Robinson Publically Called to Repent

We give thanks to God that an ordinary Christian has had the courage to speak-up against the wicked heretic and pervert, Gene Robinson, at a public meeting. See here.

What the Ungodly Want from Preachers

A prophecy concerning Williams, Sentamu and Harper from Isaiah 30:9-11:

This is a rebellious people,
Lying children,
Children who will not hear the law of the LORD;
Who say to the seers, “Do not see,”
And to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us right things;
Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits.
Get out of the way,
Turn aside from the path,
Cause the Holy One of Israel
To cease from before us.”

English Archbishops Respond to GAFCON/ FoCA

Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, responds here to GAFCON/ FoCA, and John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, responds here. (I suppose the Archbishop of Armagh's statement about gay union may be part of his response.)

I guess Jesus' and John's response to the Pharisees ("brood of vipers"), and Paul's response to the Judaizers in Galatians ("anathema") and elsewhere, must seem a little "ungracious" to Sentamu. I suppose he should get Williams to counsel them in "appreciative conversation" and "interpretative charity" in such grey areas as justification. After all, why should such things divide us?

We may allow Gay Unions says Irish Anglican Head

It is sad to think how the Church of my maternal ancestors has declined so markedly. See here. The article shows the Archbishop's heretical hermeneutic.

I recently got a copy of the 2004 CoI Book of Common Prayer. When the CoI was separated from the CoE in 1878 it removed readings from the Apocrypha from the Lectionary. It is sad to see that in 2004 they have been added back in, along with an alternative lectionary from the Romanists (just to show that we're "all one"). Also, in the new marriage service, the vows by both parties seem to be the same, and the promise to obey and serve by the wife has been removed.

Conservative Anglican GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration

As some of you may know the latest episode in the long-overdue use of discipline in the Anglican Church has been the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem. The Church Council (which it effectively is) has issued its final statement in which they not only declare an Evangelical Anglican statement of faith, but declare the following, amongst others:

1. A form of independence from the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (which they say has always existed, although theory and practice are different): "While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury."

2. The formation of a new ecclesiastical organisation, "Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans" (now being referred to as "FoCA"), with a new Primates' Council (seemingly as an alternative to the current Primates' Meeting at Lambeth, etc.) within the Anglican communion.

3. Rejection of Liberal teaching as "heterodox" and a "false gospel".

4. Rejection of "the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed."

4. Encouragement of the ongoing excommuication of Liberals, including the formation of a new Anglican province in North America by the GAFCON Primates' Council.

5. Belief that the Anglican Church will continue to be "reformed around the biblical gospel and mandate to go into all the world and present Christ to the nations."

6. Continued rejection of homosexuality.


We rejoice that Evangelical Anglicans are at last beginning to seek reformation in their church through starting to use discipline and uniting around godly confessions such as this. May God bless this attempt by our dear brethren to glorify His name!

One hopes that this 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.)

The sad fact is that Anglicanism as a Traditionalist system that does not adhere to the Regulative Priniciple is disobedient to God and has the seeds of its own destruction within it. (Just as when so-called Presbyterians slide from Biblical Presbyterianism into Committeeism, etc.)

God grant that He may enlighten us all as to our defects and sins, and in particular that He might be merciful to our Anglican brethren so this might be a Third Reformation for the Anglican Church leading them back to the attainments of the Second Puritan) Reformation (esp. the Westminster Confession of Faith) and beyond, so that they may adopt a Biblical Church government, doctrine, worship, evangelism, etc.

God grant that our Anglican brethren may see that their previous tolerance of and communion with heretics, and lack of discipline has led to the whole homosexual fracas, and that they may repent completely of it by rejecting Anglo-Catholics, etc., as heretics also.

God grant that 'Evangelical' Anglicans may see that the ordination of women and Ecumenism, etc., are as much departures from Holy Scripture as homosexuality. God grant that they may also reject Arminianism and Charismaticism.

God grant reformation to the Reformed Churches throughout the World as well, so that we might be more Biblical (holy) in all aspects of our living and ecclesiastical organisation.

God grant that Evangelicals within unorthodox, so-called Presbyterian, Reformed and Baptist denominations may also separate themselves from Liberals and heretics, and commit themselves to true, Biblical communion.

For full details see here and here.

Continued...

American Evangelicals Consolidate Their Request for Separation from the Apostate Majority of the ECUSA

A single request for alternate primatial oversight consolidating the requests of the dioceses of Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Central Florida, South Carolina, Dallas, Pittsburgh and Springfield has been forwarded to the Archbishop of Canterbury. They wish for the Archbishop’s assistance in “disassociation from an ‘innovating’ ECUSA” and for “spiritual cover” for the seven dioceses “through re-assignment of the tasks” to Archbishop Williams that under canon law and custom fall to the Presiding Bishop.

On another front in the trouble in the ECUSA, a case has been proffered by the bishops of California, San Diego, Los Angeles and Northern California against the evangelical Bishop of San Joaquin, John-David Schofield.

Click on here for more.

Biblical Infallibility and Belief in Scripture for Salvation (and Rowan Williams Again!)

This post is really an offshoot of a discussion in the comments section of another post.

What do We Mean when We Say that Scripture is Infallible?

Infallible comes from the Latin “fallere”, to deceive or lead astray. Therefore at its root it means “does not lie or mislead” and points to absolute truthfulness and reliability.

Although infalliblity and inerrancy are exceptionally close in meaning, as I see it, infallibility has the nuance of absolute truthfulness and reliability, so as not to mislead; whereas, inerrancy has the nuance of being without mistakes.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy defines “infallible” and “inerrant” as follows:

Article XI.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII.
WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

In the exposition, the Committee went on to make these further definitions:

“lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

“Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.”

There is a very fine distinction between the two terms!

The Anglican ‘patriarch’ J.I. Packer uses these definitions in his article, “Infallibility and Inerrancy of the Bible” in the “IVP New Dictionary of Theology”:

“Infallibility signifies the full trustworthiness of a guide that is not deceived and does not deceive. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) spoke of the Bible's ‘infallible truth’, the Belgic Confession (1561) called it an ‘infallible’ rule and Wyclif (1380) named it the ‘infallible rule of truth’.”

“Inerrancy signifies the total truthfulness of a source of information that conatins no mistakes; the word is 19th-century, but the belief it expresses is as old as Christianity… Augustine declared, ‘I believe most firmly that none of these [canonical] authors has erred in any respect of writing.’”

Contrary to John's belief expressed in his blog post, these terms have been on the go for a long time! They weren't a reaction to 19th-century Liberalism. Even if they were, it wouldn't be a problem. A lot of theology and theological terms are carved-out in the midst of controversy, e.g. the Catholic Creeds and the term “Trinity”.

Are the Use of the Terms “Infallible” and “Inerrant” Legitimate when Applied to Scripture?

Words mean what they conventionally mean, or what we try to communicate through their usage. Ultimately, Evangelicals mean by these terms that the Bible is absolutely truthful and without error in conveying ideas as they are conventionally understood.

John (a.k.a. “Custard”) says in his blog post criticising the terms “infallible” and “inerrant”, “Jesus illustrated his teaching by telling a lot of stories, many of which weren't actually true.” Jesus wasn’t necessarily describing an actual event that has a presence in the space-time continuum, but was He lying? No. Did He speak the truth? Yes.

Similarly, John refers to Psalm 19 speaking about the sun being a mighty man coming from a tent. He recognises this as poetry. Was the Psalm trying to convey that the sun actually was an athlete and lived in a tent in the sky? No. So was it being truthful? Yes.

So both accounts were truthful and didn’t make mistakes. Could they be relied upon to convey the message that they were meant to convey? Yes. Would any sensible person be misled and go away thinking, “The sun is a mighty man in the sky, and there were these actual virgins that ran out of oil, etc.”? No. Did Jesus or the Psalmist make a mistake? No. Their words were infallible and inerrant.

To reject the terms “infallibility” and “inerrancy” because Scripture contains stories that aren’t presented as history (i.e. parables) and uses personification to describe the sun is pedantic. Language conveys what we mean it to convey. If Christians use these terms in a known way that is received by convention, then we should accept that, and not muddy the waters.

John suggests the terms "infallible" and "inerrant" be replaced with "perfection". Surely this is a more ambiguous term? The Liberals would be glad to say that Scripture is "perfect". "It mightn't be true historically or scientifically, but is perfect for teaching us moral truth and guiding on us in our pilgrimage through this world as we struggle with God's silence as he speaks to us in the likeness of a spastic child." (A la RW's blasphemy!)

The term "perfection" doesn't protect the truth about Scripture from the attacks of the unbelievers. A Liberal can say that the Bible is "perfect", but ask him to say "infallible" and "inerrant" and he chokes at the words. An Evangelical shouldn't because no one means by these words that we have to affirm that the sun is an actual mighty man in the sky or that the parables detail actual historic events.

Belief in Scripture and Salvation

In my opinion, there must be a belief in Scripture as the Word of God and as absolutely true at a basic level for someone to be saved. This is not to say that they need to have formulated an exhaustive doctrine of Scripture. This is what I understand by what the ICBI were trying to say in Article XIX of the Chicago Statement:

WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith…

WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation.

There is a world of difference between pedanticism over the terms “infallibility” and “inerrancy”, and RW’s (Rowan Williams’) blatant rejection of the Bible as the Word of God, and as true and without mistake.

Also there is a big difference between Luther’s doubt about whether James was canonical and RW’s belief, because Luther’s problem arose out of his belief in every word in the rest of Scripture and that God can’t contradict Himself. RW rejects the Bible wholesale!

There is also a difference between someone who comes to faith from an evolutionist background grappling with Genesis 1 and 2, and RW’s belief.

Someone like this may need to consider this text: “Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure...” (2 Pet. 1:10) But RW needs to hear, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him..." (Heb. 11:6), and “Let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: ‘That You may be justified in Your words, and may overcome when You are judged.’” (Rom. 3:4)

The thief on the Cross didn’t fall out of the sky! He knew the OT Scriptures and a lot about Jesus, and what He taught and did. He mightn’t have understood then what Jesus was doing on the Cross, but he did know that he needed free forgiveness from God through Christ. He would also have believed God was truthful and didn’t mislead, which is the key question in this discussion about the Bible.

How do we know about Jesus? From the Bible. Does God tell us the truth about Jesus? Yes. Would someone who turns to Christ for salvation believe all this? Yes. Would he believe that the Bible is God’s Word? Yes. Would he believe that God is absolutely truthful? Yes.

RW wouldn't, as quoted in Garry Williams' discussion of RW's theology (the italised quotes are from GW's critique, with quotes from RW in single quotation marks):

'What of this can be confidently affirmed to be true of the “Jesus of history” is unclear, and actually immaterial for our present purposes.'

The description which Williams gives of John the Divine and his Book of Revelation is the plainest example here. The book contains two scripts, one with a clear and ‘haunting authority’, but the other ‘tightly written, pen driving into cheap paper, page after page of paranoid fantasy and malice, like the letters clergymen so frequently get from the wretched and disturbed’. It is true that for Williams even this script contributes to our hearing the Word of God, but it does so by its stark contrast with the other script: ‘Perhaps, as we read the Revelation of John, we should let its ugly and diseased elements speak to us in this way. The very disorder, the madness and vengefulness, of certain passages can help us to hear more clearly the depth and authority of others.’ Or again, ‘The rantings of John the Divine about his theological rivals are part of the by-product of the very vision of the Living One that shows these ravings for what they are, by showing the radical and unconfined purpose of God in Jesus Christ.’

With people like John, ‘We aren’t called to believe and endorse all they say, only to ask ourselves what we are taught here about the strangeness and sometimes the terror of the Word of God to fragile minds.’

‘[T]he revelation of God comes to us in the middle of weakness and fallibility’

[T]he parable of the unjust steward is ‘a story which St Luke does not seem to have understood particularly well’, and hence ‘In the letters to Timothy and Titus we can see how Paul’s own insight was bundled together by a later generation with a lot of anxiety about being respectable and having a good reputation.’

‘[I]f the New Testament is less a set of theological conclusions than a set of generative models for how to do Christian thinking, our own consideration of how we should speak of the unity of doctrinal language must be shaped by the methods displayed in these writings.’

Of course, these are just a few quotes on his view of Scripture. There is lots more such as the following blasphemous view of God:

‘This is the solitude of truth, the solitude, finally, of God: God as a spastic child who can communicate nothing but his presence and his inarticulate wanting.’

Read more...

Church of Nigeria Stands Fast Against Williams' Compromise

Our brethren in the Church of Nigeria have responded to Rowan Williams' typical appeal for compromise over the heresy of the majority of the ECUSA by stating that his "two-tier membership of ‘Constituent Churches’ and ‘Churches in Association’ is brilliant as the heartbeat of a leader who wants to preserve the unity of the Church by accommodating every shred of opinion no matter how unbiblical, all because we want to make everyone feel at home."

They go on to say, "A cancerous lump in the body should be excised if it has defied every known cure. To attempt to condition the whole body to accommodate it will lead to the avoidable death of the patient." This must be taken in the light of the Nigerians attempt to encourage a new American Anglican church for the Evangelical remnant. See the article on the BBC website here, which includes a link to the official statement by the Nigerian Anglican Church.

Amen and amen, brethren.

The Command to Separate from Professed Unbelievers and the Immoral in the Church

Spot the Difference: Balaam Williams and Jezebel Schori - Peas in a Pod

"I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites. I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked." (Psalm 26:4,5)

The current furore over the appointment of a woman who is supportive of homosexuality and calls Jesus "our mother" to be Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA has led to many within the Episcopalian churches questioning their communion with, and subordination to, such heretics. Amazingly, the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, South Carolina and San Joaquin, CA, have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who holds similar opinions to Schori, to assign them an alternative leader. (See here.) Why do they have a problem with being under Schori's authority, when they don't mind being under Rowan William's authority? What is the difference?

For many generations, evangelical believers and pastors have remained in communion with professed unbelievers who are heretics and/or supportive of, or engaged in, grossly immoral conduct. Is this in obedience to the will of God? What does the Bible teach? It is my opinion that Evangelical Anglicans and others are in clear disobedience of God's commands in this regard. But will they listen and be subject to Christ's sole headship of the Church, or continue to stop up their ears?

If We are Not to Have Company with Disobedient Believers, How Much More Professed Heretics?

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us… And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." (2 Thess. 3:6,14-15)

Some may say that these heretics are professed "brethren", but even if they were, we should cut-off communion with them until they repent, if we are obedient to these Scriptures.

We are not to Keep Company with Sexually Immoral "Brethren"

"I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner - —not even to eat with such a person… Therefore '‘put away from yourselves the evil person.'’"
(1 Cor. 5:9-12)

We are to Reject Schismatic Heretics after They Reject Admonition

"Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11)

The word "heresy" comes from the Greek "αιρεσις", which refers to choosing, i.e. choosing to go another way from the orthodox faith. These are those who divide from the true faith. Let us admonish them once and twice, but if they remain impenitent, we are commanded to reject them. Did Paul mean that we could remain in communion with them, although we "reject" them? In the context of other passages, it is clear that he did not mean this: by rejection he meant excommunicating them.

Christ'’s Words to the Seven Churches of Revelation on Communion with Heretics

The Church of Pergamos was condemned for allowing sexually immoral heretics in their midst and told by Christ to repent (Rev. 2:14-16). "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam'” and 'you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans'”. How different is the Anglican Church and the PCUSA to this?

Also the Church of Thyatira was condemned because they "allow[ed] that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and beguile my servants to commit sexual immorality…" (Rev. 2:20-24) They should not allow a false teacher or one who committed sexual immorality, and encouraged others to do so, to continue to be in their church.

In contrast, despite its own defects, the Ephesian Church was praised because they "hate[d] the deeds of the Nicolaitans" (Rev. 2:6).

Some may argue that as long as they oppose such people within their communion in some way, then they have fulfilled Christ'’s command, but is this enough? They were not to "have them there" in their midst and they were not to "allow" them to continue their practices and teach their heresy in their churches (or be in communion with them?). They were responsible to eject them. If they could not eject them, should they remain in communion with them? Should they not separate themselves? We sin if we allow such in our midst.

The Heretical Church is a Synagogue of Satan and No Church of Christ (Rev. 2:9; 3:9)

Also in the Letters to the Seven Churches, Christ calls assemblies of the OT church "synagogues of Satan", when they denied God'’s truth in Christ. Although they were born into the olive tree, they were now cut-off as being unbelievers, and the same would happen to any Gentiles who professed to be Christians, but who apostasised (Rom. 11:11-29). How can we remain in communion with a "synagogue of Satan"?

We are not to Show Hospitality to Heretics

"Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." (2 John 9-11)

If we are condemned for receiving heretics into our houses and greeting them, how much worse is it to remain in communion with them and how worse it is not to seek to get them disciplined? Do we not "share in [their] evil deeds"? These were not those who were involved in immoral conduct, but those who "[did] not abide in the doctrine of Christ".

We are to Avoid Heretics and Schismatics

"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:17,18)

If we are to avoid those who cause divisions and offences, then how can we remain in communion with them?

Those Who Remain Impenitent and Will Not Listen to the Church are to be Treated as Heathens

"[I]f he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." (Matt. 18:15-20)

Those who profess to be believers and are members of the visible Church must not be allowed to continue in sin. They are to be confronted and eventually disciplined by the Church. (If a church cannot discipline, is it a church? It cannot carry-out one of its institutional functions. This is why discipline is one of the traditional marks of a true church.) If they remain impenitent, they are to be treated as heathens. Can we remain in communion with heretics? Can we say they are brethren and say they are part of the Church? No, we must treat them as if they were no Christians at all, as if they were not part of the Church. We sin if we do not treat them as such.

We are to Come Out from Amongst Professed Unbelievers Rather than Commune with Them

"“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: '‘I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God and they shall be my people.'’

"Therefore '’Come out from among them and be separate,' says the Lord. '’Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.' '‘I will be a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters,'’ says the LORD Almighty." (2 Cor. 6:14-18)

Fundamentally, we are of Christ and unbelievers are of Belial, so what fellowship do we have? How therefore can we be in communion with those with whom we have no real fellowship? How can we be unequally yoked and frustrated in our Christian living and witness? The unchurched see these heretics as "the Church". We should publically separate from them to make a clear distinction.

God'’s clear command to us is to separate ourselves from professed unbelievers (i.e. those who we know reject the Truth), false teachers and those who practice ungodliness in the Church. If we do not, we disobey our gracious Father and our loving Saviour.

"He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me." (John 14:21)