Anglicans and Rome

For the life of me, I cannot understand why any Anglican/Episcopalian would accept the invitation of the Bishop of Rome to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Granted, the Catholic Church of today is not the church of the days of Henry VIII. Yet, Roman Catholic teaching on important articles of faith are at variance with the teachings of the 39 Articles and the English Reformers.

Those from the Anglican community who are open to the Bishop of Rome's invitation seem to do so for two reasons: Roman Catholic moral teaching which has not given in to the moral relativism found in the Episcopal Church; and to be seen to be ecumenical. However, they are overlooking fundamental differences between the two churches regarding the basics of salvation. The 39 Articles and the English reformers, e.g., Archbishop Cranmer, teach a decidedly Protestant and Reformed view of justification by faith. The Catholic Church continues to hold to unreformed views of justification.

The 39 Articles position on justification is clear:

XI. Of the Justification of Man.We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

Compare this to the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992:

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:[40] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.[41]

1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.

While there are similarities between the two statements, but the Catholic statement puts more emphasis on human merit and action to the point of collaboration with God. The Catholic view of justification combines justification into one, rather than keeping them separate as reformation theology does.

For this and other reasons, Anglicans should be wary about returning to Rome. Rome has not reformed itself enough to warrant the return of anyone from Canterbury.

A Conservative Bible??

It is not enough to make god in our image. News on the Internet today heralds the planning of a "conservative" Bible, i.e., a Bible that reflects the language and concepts of political and economic conservatives. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project claims that the Bible as translated now is too liberal. By liberal they mean:

• a framework of liberal bias. This includes the presence of John 8:53ff (the woman taken in adultery), the inclusion of verses not found in the best manuscripts, socialism (as evidenced by terms like comrade) and questioning the use of "shrewdly" in regard to the dishonest manager in the Gospels.
• not emasculated, a reference to the unisex of the NIV and other translations.
• not dumbing down the language of Scripture in translations. They complain that the NIV is written for a 7th grade reading level. This begs the question of how difficult the language of Scripture should be. Since the NT was written in koine Greek, which was the common language of the people, it seems right to translate the NT into a language which its readers can understand. Martin Luther recognized this when he produced a Bible in German for common people to read.
• using language that hides addictions. Their example here is "casting lots" instead of gambling. However, the Roman soldiers were not gambling when they cast lots for Jesus' clothing. Casting lots was a common practice in the ancient world and in the Bible.
• not understanding the free market language of Jesus' parables. Jesus's parables were not economic lessons, but lessons about the kingdom of God.
• being wordy.
• not translating Word (logos) in John 1:1 by the word truth.

This project only makes sense as another way in which people reject the revelation of God. Rather than being challenged and transformed by God's inerrant and infallible Word, this project seeks to judge God's Word to fit their own categories. No doubt this kind of bible will have its appeal, but it will not be the Word of God. Just because liberals do this kind of translation does not justify its practice by political and economic conservatives.