The ACNA Catechism: Part Two

In my previous post I looked at the new ACNA Catechism which has been released for commenting upon before a final version is reached.  I considered  the fact that in many ways it is a truly great Christian resource ,yet in two significant areas is not 'Anglican.'  These are that it takes an Arminian view of election which is clearly contra the Articles, and it calls things other than the Lord's Supper and Baptism 'Sacraments.'  

"As Anglicans we believe that there are only two Sacraments, whilst other things may often be called such they are not and it is unhelpful and confusing to call them Sacraments."

When writing that post I uummd and aaahd over whether or not to include a section on the Homilies - after all I had previously pointed out that they give the most authoritative account of the theology and interpretation of the 39 Articles and BCP etc.  In the end, for the sake of brevity (at the best of times I am not well known in either writing or preaching to understand the concept of brevity!), I decided not to include reflection on the Homilies.  Having spoken to some people though I do feel comment needs to be made for, whilst I think they completely support what I said, they are in themselves a very important resource on the matter.  The Homily in question is the "Homily That Common Prayer and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue"  from the Second Book of Homilies.   There is one section which deals with meaning and number of Sacraments.  For the sake of simplicity, I will copy out this section below. 

 You can find the whole Homily at:     

http://www.footstoolpublications.com/Homilies/Bk2_TongueUnderstand9.pdf   

I would highly recommend you get yourself the actual Book of Homilies and read one a night to the growing and strengthening of your faith in truth.  You can buy it here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Homilies-Church-England/dp/1573833916/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393975347&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Book+of+Homilies

What do the Homilies say?

"Now with like or rather more brevity you shall hear how many Sacraments there be that were instituted by our Saviour Christ, and are to be continued and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as our Saviour Christ willed them to be received. And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a Sacrament, namely, for visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sin and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. For, although Absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin, yet by the express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign, I mean laying on of hands, is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in Absolution, as the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are; and therefore Absolution is no such Sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are. And, though the Ordering of Ministers hath his visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other Sacraments besides do.  Therefore neither it nor any other Sacrament else be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in a general acception the name of a Sacrament may be attributed to any thing whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven Sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like; not meaning thereby to repute them as Sacraments in the same signification that the two forenamed Sacraments are. And therefore St. Augustine weighing the true signification and exact meaning of the word, writing to Januarius, and also in the third book of Christian Doctrine, affirmeth that the Sacraments of the Christians, as they are “most excellent in signification”, so are they “most few in number”; and in both places maketh mention expressedly of two, the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. And, although there are retained by the order of the Church of England, besides these  two, certain other rites and ceremonies about the Institution of Ministers in the Church, Matrimony, Confirmation of children by examining them of their knowledge in the Articles of the Faith and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise for Visitation of the Sick; yet no man ought to take these for Sacraments in such signification and meaning as the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are, but either for godly states of life, necessary in Christ’s Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity by the ministry of the Church , or else judged to be such ordinances as may make for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ’s Church."

What does this mean?

In my previous post I said that the earliest commentary on the Articles (and if you look even at the slightly later ones you find the same thing) takes the uncompromising position that those things "commonly called" Sacraments - confirmation, penance/absolution, ordination, marriage, extreme unction/anointing - are simply not Sacraments and should not be called such.  I believe this is the position to hold and to call these other five things 'Sacraments' is confusing, unhelpful, and not strictly speaking true.   Does the Homily support this idea?  Let us have a look.   

The Homily from the start points out that, strictly speaking, concerning the exact meaning of the word there are only two Sacraments: 

"as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a Sacrament, namely, for visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sin and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord"

There can be no doubt that there are only two real Sacraments.  The Homily then goes on to explain why the other five things which are often called Sacraments are not actually Sacraments: namely they are not commanded or given visible order by the New Testament or there is no specific promise attached to them concerning God's conveying grace.

"The earliest commentary on the Articles takes the uncompromising position that those things "commonly called" Sacraments are simply not Sacraments and should not be called such."

The Homily then gets to the most important part for our topic:

Therefore neither it nor any other Sacrament else be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in a general acception the name of a Sacrament may be attributed to any thing whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven Sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like; not meaning thereby to repute them as Sacraments in the same signification that the two forenamed Sacraments are.

Only two things are truly Sacraments in the fullest and truest meaning of the word: Baptism and the Lord's Supper.  BUT it is generally accepted that a wider meaning of the word Sacrament is anything by which "an holy thing is signified."  This rather opens the playing field!  The Roman Catholic Church came to the number 7 for the Sacraments as official teaching during the Council of Lyon in 1274, this was reaffirmed at the Council of Florence  in 1438-1445.  The Council of Trent which lasted from 1545-1563 (not all in one sitting!) and gave the definitive response of the Roman Catholic Church to the Protestant Reformation likewise said that there were seven Sacraments.

This teaching differs from that held by the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Whilst the Eastern Orthodox, from whom the Roman Catholic Church split officially in 1054, accept that the 'seven sacraments' are indeed Sacraments (and many would say are the primary ones) they do not accept that number.  In the Eastern Orthodox Church what we call Sacraments are called Mysteries - things through which God mysteriously works - and there is no number given to them for God can work through many, many, many things.  Thus for the Orthodox the blessing and using of oil is a Mystery/Sacrament as is the liturgical washing of feet, or the blessing of nuts etc. When the Homily refers to the "ancient writers" it refers to the teaching still followed by the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Numbering the Sacraments at seven is not following the teaching of the apostles or the early church but rather the corrupt teaching of Rome which is at dissonance with the testimony of the early Fathers.  (To be fair the Roman Catholic Church can at times be slightly more nuanced about the number of Sacraments as it says the whole Church is a Sacrament, but in general the definitive number is seven just as in Anglicanism it is two.)  

"If we call these other things sacraments we need to qualify it EVERY TIME by saying that they are not really Sacraments in the truest sense."

So if we use the word sacrament in this much wider and broader sense, then these other five things can indeed be called sacraments - but not Sacraments in the same way or meaning or 'signification' of the Lord's Supper and Baptism.  

The problem with the ACNA Catechism as it stands is that it doesn't say this.  What it says is that there are two Sacraments of the Gospel, and five other things which we can call sacraments and which God conveys grace through.  Hence it asks concerning each of the other five "What grace does God give you in...."  No where in the Homily does it speak of God using these things to convey grace in the same way as the Lord's Supper or Baptism.  No where does the Homily limit this wider meaning to only five things, indeed it widens it to include oil and feet washing - yet these are not mentioned as Sacraments in the ACNA Catechism and as things that God uses to give us grace.  

The Homily ends by making clear why these five things commonly called Sacraments have been retained in some form in the Anglican Church:

"although there are retained by the order of the Church of England, besides these  two, certain other rites and ceremonies about the Institution of Ministers in the Church, Matrimony, Confirmation of children by examining them of their knowledge in the Articles of the Faith and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise for Visitation of the Sick; yet no man ought to take these for Sacraments in such signification and meaning as the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are, but either for godly states of life, necessary in Christ’s Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity by the ministry of the Church , or else judged to be such ordinances as may make for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ’s Church."

What does this tell us?  It tells us (again) that no one should take these things as being Sacraments in the same way that Baptism or the Lord's Supper are.  Given the number of times this point is repeated in this short section of the Homilies we have been looking at I get the impression that the author is at pains to make this point!  Instead these things are either

-  Godly states of life which people go through and it is good to proclaim and pray for publicly

or

- things which are useful for instruction in the faith, comfort of mind and soul, and the building up or edification of the whole Church of Christ.

So what are we to make of this?

The Homilies affirm the two things that the Articles do - that there are only two real Sacraments in the full and true meaning of the word, and that there are other things which are often, commonly, or generally called Sacraments but which are strictly speaking not.  

What the Homilies add to this is important:  if we use the wider meaning of the word sacrament - something which signifies something holy - then not only should these five commonly called things be called sacraments but so should lots of other things like the blessing of oil or the washing of feet etc.  

The problem today is, and in the current version of the ACNA Catechism, this wider meaning is not explained to the people in the pews and because of how we act and what we say great confusion arises.

If we call these other things sacraments we need to qualify it EVERY TIME by saying that they are not really Sacraments in the truest sense.  In reality this just does not happen.  Indeed the confusion can be seen even in what Ritualists wear.  Whilst, in my humble opinion, no real, historical Anglican should ever wear a stole in the first place, if one does it should be only for the Sacraments: these are only two in number. Yet many Ritualists wear their stoles for weddings, and ordination, and absolution, and anointing, because they are also 'sacraments.'  This practice only brings confusion and shows that despite what they may say (but likely don't) they don't really believe there is any difference in practice between these things and the Lord's Supper or Baptism.  

Today same sex relationships which are recognised by law are "commonly called" marriage.  But they are not Marriage in the true and Biblical sense of the word.  If ministers were to go around calling these relationships 'Marriage' just because under a wider meaning of the word commonly accepted they could be it would cause havoc and confusion.  Whilst this is an extreme example the exact same thing applies to the Sacraments.  As Anglicans we believe that there are only two Sacraments, whilst other things may often be called such they are not and it is unhelpful and confusing to call them Sacraments.

It remains my prayer that the ACNA Catechism will drop reference to these other things as sacraments all together for doing such is not only eminently Anglican but saves everybody the time and effort of rooting out misunderstandings and error in the Church created either unintentional or, regretfully, intentionally.  

The ACNA Catechism - An Anglican Resource?

"The Episcopal Church has abandoned Scripture and no longer sees it as infallible at all"

Recently ACNA  (Anglican Church in North America - an orthodox breakaway from the Episcopal Church which has serious issues with what would historically have simply been labeled as heresy, unbiblical practices,  and apostate beliefs) have released the first draft of their Catechism for the training and teaching of the church about true doctrine.  You can download it here http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/catechism .  By many it has been praised, and many 'big names' have given it their stamp of approval.  But is this epic 345 question long session really a solid and game changing resource?  More importantly, is it actually 'Anglican'?

Now for many people the answer to the question of 'what is Anglican' is kind of like asking how many decimal places π has - an impossible thing to answer.  I, however, think the answer is quite simple, if unpopular.  The canons of the Church of England, the 'Mother Church', ask this question: what is the "doctrine of the Church of England"?  The answer given in Canon A5 is this

"The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal."

To put this is plain English, the doctrine of the Church of England is that of Scripture, and the doctrines of the early church are accepted as authoritative only to the extent that they are agreeable to the Scriptures.  But what does this look like?  What is the right theology that is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and which of the many teachings of the early church are agreeable to Scripture?  The answer from an Anglican point of view is crystal clear and no-nonsense:  This correct theology and doctrine is found in the Historical Formularies the Church of England: The 39 Articles, the 1662 BCP (not 1549!) and the Ordinal.  Basically everything you find in the modern printings of the 1662 BCP.   Canons A2, A3 and A4 affirm that the doctrines of the 39 Articles are agreeable to the Scriptures and any real Anglican can assent to them in good conscience, likewise the doctrines of the BCP and Ordinal are agreeable to the Scriptures and not repugnant to them and are thus authoritative.

What makes a theology Anglican?  It's agreement with the 39 Articles, the BCP, and the Ordinal.  It really is that simple.

As a real Anglican I obviously think that these Historical Formularies are the correct interpretation of Scripture, thus when looking at the ACNA Catechism I am not going to proof text it from Scripture, I am going to proof text it against the 39 Articles and the BCP because what these say sums up the teaching of Scripture.  In the following if I capitalise the word article and give a number, e.g. "Article 10", I am referring to the 39 Articles.

"What makes a theology Anglican?  It's agreement with the 39 Articles, the BCP, and the Ordinal.  It really is that simple."

The Positive

I think that there is much which is positive and truly great about the ACNA Catechism, and so I will begin there.

The Catechism starts with Jesus.  How great this is cannot be overemphasised.  Christianity is all about Jesus, He is Lord, God, and Saviour, all the Scriptures are about Him and all of time revolves around Him.  Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.  The first section of the Catechism is called "beginning with Christ."  Fantastic!

Many of the answers given in this first section are top notch stuff.  They are short, sound, and helpful.  For example: 

8. How does God save you?

God saves me by grace, which is his undeserved love given to me in and through Jesus. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)


10. Is there any other way of salvation?

No. The Apostle Peter said of Jesus, “There is salvation in no one else” (Acts 4:12). Jesus is the only one who can save me and reconcile me to God. (1 Timothy 2:5)

Here we see two very important doctrines affirmed which are central to the Gospel and the true Protestant and Reformed religion. Namely we have salvation by grace alone - and grace understood as the undeserved gift of God to us. We also have, and this is becoming increasingly important to recognise, the orthodox teaching of the church on salvation - only Jesus can bring salvation, only belief in Him can grant entry to heaven. Praise God for this stand for the Biblical Gospel!

Another very good answer in this section is given to this following question:

16. What does God grant in saving you?

God grants me reconciliation with him (2 Corinthians 5:17-19), forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:13-14), adoption into his family (Galatians 4:4-7), citizenship in his Kingdom (Ephesians 2:19-21, Philippians 3:20), union with him in Christ (Romans 6:3-5), new life in the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4-5), and the promise of eternal life (John 3:16; 1 John 5:12). 

This is a great answer, it takes in not just a limited and blinkered view of salvation but the whole testimony of the Scriptures, it is broad but Biblically so.  A lively presentation of the Gospel and the preaching of it week in and week out should involve all of these things.  

Secondly, it is worth noting the number of Scriptural proof-texts offered in the Catechism.  The authors are clearly aware of the need to ground their beliefs in God's revealed Word.  This is commendable and sets out the only good way to do theology - namely with the support of Scripture.

The questions dealing with Holy Scripture (26-37) are strong especially towards the end when it looks to the paramount importance of reading and learning and growing through the Scriptures as a Christian.  The central place given to Scripture in discipleship is something which cannot be emphasised enough and the answers to 35 and 36 are very strong in modelling this.  This is even further expanded in 224-229 which are likewise great in modelling Biblical study and Scriptural based Christianity.

Part Two of the Catechism is "Believing in God" and begins by looking at the Apostles Creed as the most simple and essential of the creeds given its early nature and use in baptism preparation by the early church.

The Answer to question 23 is solid; why do we recognise  the creeds as authoritative?  Because they are grounded in Scripture and bear witness to the teaching of the Word.  This is the answer of Article 8 and is both true and Anglican.  As a Church we do not reject Tradition just because it is Tradition, we weigh it against the Scriptures and if it is true and useful we accept it, if it is untrue or potentially abused we discard it.

"Many of the answers given are top notch stuff.  They are short, sound, and helpful"

In dealing with the teaching of the Apostles Creed the Catechism is to be commended, it sticks to orthodox teaching on the deity of Christ and His death, it affirms the Virgin Birth, and a bodily resurrection of Jesus.  An example of this is the teaching on Christ's death which says:

"Though humanly a miscarriage of justice, his execution fulfilled God’s plan that Jesus would bear my sins and die the death that I deserve, so that I could be saved from sin and eternal condemnation and reconciled to God." ACNA Catechism 60.

Good stuff, keeps it simple and accessible but proclaims the substitutionary nature of the atonement from which many are these days shying away from - to their shame. The substitutionary nature of the atonement is inherently Anglican. The Collect for the 4th Sunday in Lent shows that we deserve death and damnation and God by His grace forgives us: 

"Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds do worthily deserve to be punished, by the comfort of thy grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

This doctrine of substitutionary atonement is even more apparent in the Homilies, especially the Homily Of The Salvation Of All Mankind and also the Homily for Good Friday. Remember that though not strictly part of the Historic Formularies, we are told in no uncertain terms in Article 35 that the doctrine the Homilies contain is "godly and wholesome doctrine" and indeed they are to be read in churches as authoritative teaching from the Church. Following the Historic Formularies there is no resource more important in defining what is truly Anglican than the Homilies. Indeed Article 11 creates the principle that the Homilies are the truest commentary upon the Articles and how we should understand them. Importing an understanding upon the Articles which is completely rejected in the Homilies is simply historically untenable - much to the distress of Ritualists. 

Questions 68-70 deal with the Ascension and it is good to see some sound teaching and application on this often overlooked aspect of Jesus' saving work. Too often has the Ascension and Session of Christ been ignored or over-spiritualised. Much of our assurance and hope is founded on the present ministry of Christ before the throne of God and to see it so clearly portrayed is indeed heartening.

To conclude the good points about the ACNA Catechism I would want to say two things. Firstly, anything I have not mentioned here and will not mention in a moment is not mentioned because it is neither outstanding nor terrible, neither Anglican nor un-Anglican. Much of the Catechism is just good, simple, basic, Christian teaching which it is hard to find issues with. Secondly, I think the biggest strength in this Catechism is that it makes a conscious effort not only to ground itself in Scripture but to actually apply it to our daily lives and ask the question "what does this look like in real life?" The Catechism is not just a Question and Answer session on bland points of theology but an interactive and passionate plea for Christian living.

"Importing an understanding upon the Articles which is completely rejected in the Homilies is simply historically untenable - much to the distress of Ritualists. "

From the above it will hopefully be apparent that I believe there are many strengths to the ACNA Catechism. There are, however, two major issues with it concerning whether or not it is 'Anglican' and a few side issues too. Let us deal with these major issues first.

An 'Anglican' Catechism?

The first alarm bells rang early on in the document, when considering salvation in Question 2 it looks to the 'human condition' with these words:

2. What is the human condition?

The universal human condition is that, though made for fellowship with our Creator, we have been cut off from him by self-centred rebellion against him, leading to guilt, shame, and fear of death and judgement. This is the state of sin. (Genesis 3; Romans 3:23)

The problem is that this reads potentially as meaning that our being cut off from God is purely by our "self-centred rebellion against Him".   But we are clearly told in Article 9 that the human condition of sin and separation from God "standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man..."  

Sin is not just 'self-centred rebellion against God' - it is the cause of that self-centredness, namely our corrupt and depraved nature: this is the 'human condition.'  Whilst Answer 47 recognises that we have inherited a "fallen and corrupt nature, and I too sin and fall short of God's glory" this is a far cry from the fullness of the doctrine of Total Depravity as shown in Articles 9-11 in that it does not name this fallen and corrupt nature as itself sin.  Question 106 concerning the inward and spiritual grace received through baptism is much better in affirming "I am born a sinner by nature, separated from God" but this comes too late and is arguably still too little.   When starting out with Jesus and Gospel it is vital to get the 'bad news' and the reality of our plight crystal clear.  There is no good drawn from dressing up our nature and sins as not as bad as they are, no help for the Gospel in even allowing the possibility that, as the mantra of modern society chimes, we are all good people at heart.  

"The Arminian tone of the ACNA Catechism is simply inconsistent with true Anglicanism."

You could still read the above Question and Answer as not being against the Articles but its deficiency is made clear in  Question 14.  Question 14 looks at how a person may repent and place faith in Jesus Christ.  It's very first word sets  the Arminian and non-Anglican tone.  

14. How may a person repent and place faith in Jesus Christ?

Anyone may repent and place their faith in Jesus Christ at any time. One way to do this is by sincerely saying a prayer similar to the Prayer of Repentance and Faith given above. (John 15:16; Acts 16:31-34; Romans 10:9; Hebrews 12:12)

  Really?  Anyone at any time?  I was under the impression from both Scripture and the Articles that because we are Totally Depraved not just by deeds but by nature that 

"The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have good will, and working with us when we have that good will."  Article 10.  

Clearly, contra the Catechism, we cannot just turn to God and "at any time" because we need God's grace to 'prevent' us - that is 'enable us' to do so.  

Arminians, especially of the Wesleyan kind, generally argue that God gives everybody 'Prevenient Grace' thus enabling  'anybody at any time' to turn to Him in faith.  But Article 17 is quite clear that before the foundations of the world, before time itself and creation, God 

"hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour."  

The important phrase here is "those whom He hath chosen.... out of mankind" - that is, not everybody but only the elect.  Only these people may turn to Christ, and even they only when God graciously and for no good works of their own opens their hearts to His Word.  The Historical Formularies of the Church of England are unashamedly Reformed - uncompromisingly Calvinist (not in the 5 point Dort sense but the historical sense).  To claim that true and historical Anglicanism is not Reformed concerning election is nothing but an insidious lie.  There are good reasons why Wesley rejected the Articles and removed the ones about election when he rewrote them for his churches abroad - he was an Arminian.  There are good reasons why Whitfield and Toplady and Ryle all railed against their opponents not just with Scripture but by wielding the Articles - because they plainly supported their position and claim to be the true heirs of Anglicanism.

The Arminian tone of the ACNA Catechism is simply inconsistent with true Anglicanism.  Even its emphasis on 'praying the prayer' and its 'asking Jesus into your heart' mentality is painful to read from a historical perspective.  Whilst it is not wrong to call people to commit their life to Christ and 'pray the prayer', without the Biblical doctrine of Assurance found only in the Reformed Tradition this revivalist spirituality is a recipe for disaster and cycles of fear and doubt in the life of the believer.

Secondly, we turn to the teaching on the Sacraments in the Catechism.  All I can say is "Oh dear."  It seems that the revisionist enterprise of the Tractarians has won the war in the USA so completely that on some issues people cannot see where Roman Catholicism ends and Anglicanism begins.

Questions 102-115 which are on the Lord's Supper and Baptism are fine, they largely just repeat the teaching of the 39 Articles and BCP Catechism.  But in 116 comes the *facepalm* moment:

116. Are there other sacraments?

Other rites and institutions commonly called sacraments include confirmation, absolution, ordination, marriage, and anointing of the sick. These are sometimes called the sacraments of the Church. 

When the 25th Article speaks of  "Those five commonly called Sacraments" it is NOT endorsing these things as Sacraments or suggesting it is fine to call them such.  There are only two things which can truly be called Sacraments - that is signs and symbols which God uses to convey Spiritual grace - and they are Baptism and the Lord's Supper.  Why are these other five not Sacraments - and thus should not be called such?  The Article is pretty clear on this.  These other five are things which have arisen out of the corrupt teaching of the apostles and are stages of life allowed in Scripture, more importantly they were not instituted by God as a form and ritual to be followed by which He will convey grace.

The ignoring or subverting of the Articles is seen in Question 117 which asks how these five differ from the two Sacraments of the Gospel.  

117. How do these differ from the sacraments of the Gospel?
They are not commanded by Christ as necessary for salvation, but arise from the practice of the apostles and the early Church, or are states of life blessed by God from creation. God clearly uses them as means of grace.

Do you see the difference?  117 here says that these arise from the practise of the apostles and the early church - done, finished, fin.  But this is not what the Articles say.  The Articles say that they arise  from the corrupt following of the Apostles.  The inclusion of the word 'corrupt' is very significant.  

To say that "God clearly uses them as a means of grace" is to seriously overstep the allowance of the Articles' teaching.  Nowhere do the Articles or the BCP Catechism say these things convey grace as do the Sacraments of the Gospel.  Now in the services we may pray for God's grace, as we do in marriage, but it is not a vehicle of grace in the same way as the Sacraments of the Gospel for they "have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." Article 25.  What is a Sacrament?  It is an outward visible sign and ceremony ordained and appointed by God which we are ordered to continue by which He has chosen in His mercy to work His grace through.  These other things are simply not this.

"on some issues people cannot see where Roman Catholicism ends and Anglicanism begins."

This is made abundantly clear in the first commentary on the Articles which was written by Thomas Rogers in 1587 (or at least the part dealing with the final 20 Articles was, the first 19 were published some time before).  Written so close to the time of the writing of Articles it gives a very important guide on how they were intended to be understood.  In his commentary on Article 25 Rogers bluntly and unapologetically calls the other five "no sacrament".  Rogers lists under 'the errors of adversaries to this truth' Papists who claim that there are seven sacraments.  

Concerning confirmation Rogers says "the sentence and judgement of the true church is,  that rightly used, as it was in the primitive church, it is no sacrament;  but a part of Christian discipline, profitable for the whole Church of God."  Whilst the ACNA Catechism considers the inward grace imparted by confirmation to be "In confirmation, God strengthens the work of the Holy Spirit in me for his daily increase in my Christian life and ministry" Rogers tells us that it is an error of the Papists to believe that "confirmation is a sacrament whereby the grace the was given in baptism is confirmed and made strong by the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost."

Concerning Penance or Absolution, Rogers says "The blasphemies are outrageous, and the errors many and monstrous, comprised in this popish doctrine of penance.  For neither can the manner of this their sacrament, nor the form, nor the minister, nor the effect, be drawn from the word of God.  They say penance is a sacrament, yet they can show no element it hath to make it a sacrament."  The BCP clearly allows the ministry of private confession.  In the ministry to the sick, in extreme cases where assurance of forgiveness cannot be given even by plain and comfortable words of the Scriptures, it even allows the minister in this pastorally extreme situation to use the words 'I absolve you."  Furthermore, in the first exhortation to receive the Lord's Supper in the BCP service it is written:

"if there be any of you, who by this means [the knowing of God's assurances through is death and the Scriptures] cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God's Word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with the ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and disobedience."

The issue is not so much with the idea that God calls ministers to administer absolution, we are told in the 'absolution' of the BCP Morning and Evening Prayer that ministers are both called and instructed to do such by Christ, but the issue is the fact that it is not a sacrament for it was not ordained of Christ to be such.

Likewise, nowhere does the BCP call Ordination a sacrament, nor does it ever call Marriage such.  As Rogers rails against the idea that Ordination is a sacrament "What element hath it? What form? What promise? What institution from Christ?" or as he says about marriage "Marriage... was never commanded by God to be taken for a sacrament.  Again, it hath neither outward element, nor prescribed form, nor promise of salvation, as a sacrament should, and baptism and the Lord's supper have." 

I will leave it to you to discover Rogers' choice words concerning the idea that anointing with oil or 'unction' is a sacrament.  You can find his book free online at   http://prydain.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the_catholic_doctrine_of_the_church_of_e.pdf 

and go to page 263 in the book itself.  

Suffice it to say that these things, whilst commonly called Sacraments, are simply not, and thus should not be called such.  Whilst much of what the Catechism says concerning the hopes of our prayers during these things is spot on, that does not make them Sacraments.  In accepting such Popish teaching the Catechism sells out to the Ritualists and capitulates to the Tractarian agenda, siding with Romish Tradition over the Historic Formularies of Anglicanism.

"Whilst much of what the Catechism says concerning the hopes of our prayers during these things is spot on, that does not make them Sacraments"

Other niggling issues

So far we have seen many good points to the ACNA Catechism, and two areas in which it is distinctly un-Anglican.  I will finish by making a few observations on other issues in the Catechism, some relating to Anglicanism and some simply to Biblical theology.

Firstly, Whilst what 110-115 say concerning the Lord's Supper is carefully worded and correct Anglican teaching, given the broader nature of this catechism compared to that of the BCP I am surprised it does not staunchly defend the position laid out clearly in the Articles - namely the Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper as opposed to that of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. In leaving open the 'real presence' the Catechism does a disservice to the heritage of faith handed down to us in the Historic Formularies.


Secondly, it over-spiritualises the end times in the Lord's prayer. Whilst indeed the Kingdom is something here and now among us and which grows with the fulfilling of the Great Commission, the Biblical picture is not just that at the end of time Jesus hands it back the Father (179) but that Christ comes as a warrior to smash and crush the opposition and to instigate His earthly reign over a literal Kingdom. As one may gather from what I just said, I hold to a historic pre-millennial position. I do not think the questions of post-mill, a-mill, and pre-mill are something we should divide over, but whilst the Catechism leaves open the possibility of taking a post or a-mill position it is far too prescriptive in seemingly writing against a pre-mill one. In doing so it steps beyond the teaching of Scripture.


Thirdly, the view of why Christians should say morning and evening prayer is also very shallow in number 248. We do not just follow these prayers because it is a sacrifice that pleases God or so we are aware that our "time is sanctified to God." The exhortation to repentance at the start of the BCP services of Morning and Evening prayer make clear why we say the offices and do so ideally as a gathered fellowship "to render thanks for the great benefits we have received at His hands, to set forth His most worthy praise, and to hear His most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul..." We say the offices to praise and thank God, to ask of Him things through prayer, and to learn from and be edified by the reading of the Scriptures. Indeed, the whole bent of this part of the Catechism with its 'rule of life' and what not is pregnant with Tractarian theology and practice. I fail to see how 251-254 is traditional Anglican teaching and is drawn from the Historical Formularies. Whilst the teaching is not unhelpful by any means, I am not convinced its presence in the the Catechism for an organisation such as ACNA is helpful.


Fourthly, number 324 says that  for Christians the tithe is 10% and this is a minimum. Really? Where are Christians told to tithe in this legalistic way? We are certainly called to give generously and as the Article 38 says "every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to this ability." but this is a far cry from imposing a legalistic 10%. Is this of pre or post tax deductions? What if you cannot afford 10%? Making such a blanket statement, unsupported by Scripture concerning the New Covenant, is unwise.


Finally, whilst much of what the Catechism says on Scripture is great - it is God inspired, it is vital that we read and learn and memorise it - I was left disappointed that the Catechism failed to say that Scripture is infallible and cannot teach untruth. The infallibility of Scripture is a central doctrine of the Reformation, so much so that it was hardly worth even mentioning it at the time because it was simple assumed by all sides and parties. But to lack clear mention of it in our modern age, especially in light of the fact that ACNA has arisen because The Episcopal Church has abandoned Scripture and no longer sees it as infallible at all, is to my mind a serious mistake.

"In leaving open the 'real presence' the Catechism does a disservice to the heritage of faith handed down to us in the Historic Formularies."

I want to close this topic by again affirming that there are many great things about the ACNA Catechism, and it has many strengths which will be vital to keeping ACNA healthy. But, regretfully, because of its Arminian leanings and its Tractarian understanding of the Sacraments, it cannot truly be called 'Anglican.'  It is my prayer that ACNA will address these issues when they release the final edition of what is largely a superb Catechism.

BCP Commentary 1 - Repentance at daily prayers

I love the [1662] Book of Common Prayer (BCP).  When I was at university our college Principle, Richard Turnbull, used to tell us that the two most important books in the world were the Bible and the BCP - that we should always carry one of each around with us.  At the time I was not even an ordinand, though I was hoping to be; I found this BCP adoration absurd.  What is so good about a book that is hundreds of years old?  A book which is at times hard to understand?  A book which is almost never used in the Church of England today?  What is so good about the BCP?  

Just 

about 

everything.  

Since getting ordained as a Deacon in the Church of England in 2012 my views on the matter changed dramatically.  During my ordination I took oaths that I would agree with and uphold Anglican doctrine - which the canons tell us are seen primarily in Scripture, the historic creeds, and these as understood by... the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and the 39 Articles (now all included in the little book we called the BCP).  My first year in parish ministry was a whirlwind of deep theological reflection brought about by the oaths I took that day - did I really hold to the theology of the 39 Articles?  Did I think the  doctrine of the BCP was not only correct for the 16th  century but actually the true interpretation of the Scriptures?  

As someone who years before came within half an inch of joining the Eastern Orthodox Church and who throughout his time at university regularly attended Pusey House, it is fair to say that I have become a changed man.  This change is not just in how I think and what I believe, but in what I do and how I perceive what should be done in church.

I could not agree more with the words of Jonathan Fletcher, once Rector of St. Ebbes Church in Oxford when he said   

"I was introduced to the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles, and I was convinced that the theology of the Church of England was the best presentation of the Protestant Reformation"

( http://vimeo.com/19128608 )

If that isn't enough to get your juices flowing with passion to go and read the BCP then let me bring out the big guns - TIMOTHY KELLER.   Tim Keller is a GIANT of modern day evangelicalism.  His ministry has defined a generation in New York City and his preaching, his teaching, his pastoring has reached countless thousands.  If you have not read any of his books then open up amazon and go buy them all right now

...............( If you are too lazy to go to amazon yourself here is a link for you: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=Timothy%20Keller&search-alias=books-uk&sort=relevancerank )

In an interview on sermon preparation Keller was asked what material he used in his own private devotional time to help him continue growing spiritually.  This was his answer:

"I use a version of M'Cheyne's reading calendar, reading the Bible in its entirety every year.  I follow the traditional daily office, and I read and pray all the psalms every month.  I use older versions of the Book of Common Prayer for many of my prayers."

Timothy Keller in Sermon Preparation ed. Craig Brian Larson (Hendrickson, Peabody, 2012)

By 'older versions' Keller almost certainly means the 1662 and this shows his rejection of the more modern versions fobbed off as the BCP by The Episcopal Church.

If the BCP is used even by giants like Tim Keller in their private devotion times, when they have access to a wealth of Presbyterian resources from their own tradition, then it is something every evangelical should take the time to look at.

In this post, and in many more following, I intend to walk you through some of the most important doctrines and beliefs we find in the BCP - I want to get behind the rustic archaic language and really get down to the marrow and the bones of the book.  The BCP has changed my life and my relationship with God, I hope it will for you to.

"The BCP starts in the perfect place for a book concerning 

how to pray and live the Christian life - with Biblical repentance 

and the teachings of grace alone through faith alone in Christ 

alone."

Start with the Bible

So let's begin with the confessional start to the BCP services for Morning and Evening Prayer.  Cranmer ditched the numerous offices called the 'hours' which were used by monks and wanted to bring right doctrine and right belief back into the churches of England in a language they could understand.  He did it like a PRO.

The services start off in the best places possible - with Scripture, lots and lots and lots of Scripture.  When beginning the service there are eleven different scriptures one can read from to set the tone.  All of these are on the theme of repentance and God's forgiveness.  They make clear just how serious sin is "Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified" (Psalm 143.2) but also the overwhelming power of God's mercy "Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil." (Joel 2.13)

The Exhortation

Following these Scriptures comes the first exhortation - here the minister sets the scene for the entire service and lays out vital Biblical truths.

"Dearly beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us, in sundry places, to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloak them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy. And although we ought, at all times, humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart, and humble voice, unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying after me;"

What can we learn from this?

1) As a church we are brothers and sisters in Christ, we are one body, we admonish one another in love.  This service can be taken by an ordained minister or a lay person and in either case they address the people simply as beloved brethren - as brothers and sisters whom we love and who God loves.  

2) Scripture compels us to confess our sins and wickedness.  Not only are we sinners but we are 'manifold' sinners, that is we sin ALOT in various ways.  Not only are we sinners but we are wicked as well.  The word 'wicked' seems harsh, to our nice 21st century minds it seems unfair - Hitler was 'wicked' the lady who put a cat in a bin and walked away was 'wicked' but are we good upstanding people 'wicked'?  Yes.  We are all sinners and this makes us all wicked - no amount of window dressing can get around that fact.  

3) We by nature try to hide our sins.  We are masters at hiding our sins, at cloaking them so people cannot see them, we disguise them and paint them as good things or virtues.  This is pride and arrogance.  How foolish it is to try and justify our sins before an Almighty God who sees right through every lie we tell and who knows our own hearts and reasons for sinning better than we do ourselves!

"Not only are we sinners but we are 'manifold' sinners, that is we sin ALOT in various ways."

4) Instead of pride we need humility, we need to be humble, we need to be lowly, we need to be people with hearts that are contrite, hearts that long for obedience, hearts that yearn for forgiveness.  If we want to be forgiven of our sins we need to really desire for them to be forgiven.  Being penitent doesn't just mean feeling sorry but means actively rejecting our old sins and turning away from them and consciously marching toward Christ and holiness.

5) Sometimes our sins are so great and we have committed them so many times that we find it impossible to believe that God would ever forgive us - again.  But we are assured in this exhortation that genuine repentance always leads to forgiveness because God's goodness and mercy are infinite - His love and His mercy never end, they go on forever and ever and ever and beyond.  No matter how deep down our sins are in our souls the arm of the Lord is not too short to save.

6) We should confess our sins with humility at all times and in all places.  Martin Luther when he nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg had this  as his first point:

"Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said 'Repent', willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance."

Luther started the Reformation, he changed the world, by starting with repentance.  Luther was right, Cranmer knew it, and we must own it.  We are sinners, we sin all the time; just imagine if every thought you had was permanently tattooed on your face - you would lose all your friends in no time!  We are all so full of pride and arrogance and idolatry, we worship everything that gives us pleasure.  As John Calvin said "The human heart is a factory for making idols."  He was spot on.  We should be constantly bringing our sins to the foot of the Cross.  The holiest people are not those who find they repent less and less but those who find themselves repenting more and more as the Holy Spirit reveals to them all the different sins they commit every hour of every day.  The difference is these holy people immediately show humble obedience to the call of the Spirit and lay down their sin at the foot of the Cross, they hand it over to Jesus knowing that they cannot deal with it themselves.

7) Not only should we confess in private to God - all the time - but we should do so publicly in church.  As James 5.15 makes  clear:

"Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed."

Public confession makes us face up to the seriousness of our sin, helps us to see that we are not alone in our warfare against sin, the flesh, and the Devil.  It encourages us through a mutual commitment to turn away from sin and a direct call of our sins forgiven under Christ.

"No matter how deep down our sins are in our souls the arm of the Lord is not too short to save."

8)  What is church about?  Why do we meet on a Sunday?  The BCP says we meet together to "render thanks for the great benefits we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul."  To our modern ears and sensibilities it is striking how the word 'worship' is missing.  Praise and worship are not the same thing - I can praise Simon Ponsonby for being a fantastic preacher but that doesn't mean I worship him.  I can praise God for His goodness in healing me of sickness but that is different from saying I worship Him - though I should hope I would do that too if He did!  Today, especially in the more charismatic evangelical circles, of which I am a part, it is often seen that the worship music is the most important part of the service.  It is not.  Worship is important, we should sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual song, but it is not the main reason we gather.  

We gather to thank God for all He has generously given us, to praise Him because of who He is - the only one worthy of praise.  We gather to listen to the Bible and hear it explained, and to ask for things.  These days it is often seen as a faux-pas to say that prayer is 'asking for things' but actually most Biblical prayer is exactly that.  When looking at the whole of Scripture and at this text in the BCP it is true to say that the main, but not only reason, we meet together is to edify one another, to build up one another, to have fellowship, and to share in the wonders of the faith together.  Just look at Paul's treatment of what should be going on in services in 1 Corinthians 12-14 - the word edify or something similar crops up countless times.  Church is not about YOU it is about God and His body on earth - the Church.

9) We pray for what we need, for what is needed not for what is unnecessary.  We pray not just for what our bodies need but for what our souls need.  There is no point looking after your soul if your body withers in the process, there is no point looking after your body if you don't let the Great Physician heal your soul.

10) When we confess and bring our sins before the throne of the heavenly grace we need a pure heart and a humble voice.  God hears the humble but ignores the proud.

The Confession

Having made clear why we are here and what we must do to get right with God the people say this meaty confession:

"Almighty and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou them that are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen."

I love this confession, it models Biblical confession like no other.

1) The God we confess to is ALL powerful and is more merciful than anyone else. He is also our loving Father, a Father who will always rejoice when His children return back to Him from their sinful ways.

2) Let us just put it straight out there, no beating around the bush, we have got it wrong, we are in error, we have willingly walked away from our Good Shepherd and got lost in the darkness and thorny bushes of the Evil One.  

3) Why have we got so lost?  What caused our sin?  No time here for shifting blame like in the Garden - we are the reason, end of story.  We have sinned and abandoned God because we just love the desires of our sinful human hearts too much and believe all its lies about it being OK.  There is no room for self justification of any kind in Biblical repentance.

"When the BCP says that there is no health in us it means that we are completely and utterly DEAD in our sins, we are game over"

4)  How have we sinned?  How do we know what sin is?  Well God's Holy Laws reveal to us His heart, His standards, His ways and we ignore them and break them like criminals who just can't resist committing crime.  We sin firstly, and most of the time, not by the things we actively go and do but by the things we fail to do, all the things we really should have done if we truly loved God but don't.  These are called sins of omission.  But we also actively do what is wrong, these are sins of co-mission.  Together this makes clear that sin is not just 'stuff' but actually where the 'stuff' comes from - we are sinners by nature.

5) Between all of our omission and co-mission we are so full of sin that there "is no health in us"  I love this phrase.  It cuts right to the heart of the matter.  Imagine you are playing a computer game, your character has 'health' usually represented by a bar of some kind.  Every time you get hit or do something wrong you lose a bar of health.  When you have no health left you are dead - game over.  When the BCP says that there is no health in us it means that we are completely and utterly DEAD in our sins, we are game over, no coming back without a miracle from a healer (Colossians 2.13) That healer is called Jesus.

6)  Given our status as 'dead meat walking' we are rightly asking God to show mercy and pity on us.  If we are coming to Him with a right and humble heart we will be miserable about our sin.  If your sin does not make you miserable then you are not really repenting.

7)  Mercy is not something someone deserves - if it were it would be a right.  We have no rights before God, He would be 100% just if He just damned us all to Hell for our sins.  There is no legal argument we could make, no loop-hole to get us out of jail for free.  The only hope we have is the mercy of the judge.

8) Thankfully God has made countless promises in the Scriptures to forgive all those who come to Him with genuine repentance and faith.  In confession we beg God to restore us back to full health and spare us from our much deserved sentence in Hell because of the promises He has made to us.

9)  Just confessing the past is not enough, true repentance means changing your future as well. Thus we end with a plea that God would allow us and help us to live a righteous life that is godly from now on.  We can't even dream of doing this by our own abilities and feeble strength - but we can if we ask God to change us from the inside out, new heart, new Spirit, new desires.

10) Why would God do all of this?  To bring glory to His mighty Name.  Everything we do should be to the glory of God and thus we end our confession by lifting it all up, especially His mercy, as a sign of His mighty greatness and infinite glory.

Absolution

Cranmer ditched the old 'I absolve' you formula the Roman Catholic Priests used to say  except for in the most serious circumstances - but more on that in a later post.  He preferred to let the Scriptures do the talking instead.  He didn't want people to be reliant on a minister to feel forgiven, he wanted them to know that reality in their daily walk and every day life - that they could confess to Jesus on their own and know and feel His forgiveness.  Along these lines this is the Prayer Book absolution in Morning and Evening Prayer:

"Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live; and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins : He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord."

1)  God has no problem with sending people to Hell, He is just and holy and doing so is completely in-keeping with His character.  But He does not desire it, God would rather people turned from their wickness and live.  We cannot blame our sins on God, it is our hard hearts that are to blame.

2)  God has given His ministers (notice the word 'priest' is not used here) the power to tell people, and told them to tell people, that their sins are forgiven.  Does this mean a minister can absolve people and just tell them they are forgiven?  No.  

3) Whilst the minister is commanded to drive home to the repentant that God forgives their sin, they cannot actually forgive it - only God can forgive sins (hence one reason why Jesus must have been God).  To be forgiven we actually need to be penitent, to desire forgiveness and desire to change our ways.  We must actually repent.

"Repentance doesn't mean squat unless the person who is truly repenting also 'unfeignedly believes his holy Gospel'"

4)  But simple repentance is not enough.  Muslims repent to Allah, Hindus repent, even some atheists repent of their wrongdoing and wish to change the direction of their lives.  But none of these people are actually forgiven.  The reason why is that repentance doesn't mean squat unless the person who is truly repenting also 'unfeignedly believes his holy Gospel'  Unfeignedly believing the holy Gospel means totally, sincerely, without pretence or hidden motives, completely believing that Jesus Christ is Lord, God, and Saviour and died on the Cross to forgive us our sins.  Without real faith nothing is worthwhile, especially repentance.  Without real faith repentance would be like if the prodigal son was running home to his father but ended up going to hug a Roman Soldier and getting beaten up instead.

5) So we need to truly repent and really believe the Gospel.  The problem is that by nature that is just not what we do.  We don't naturally repent of our sins - naturally we relish in them and love them and want to be bathed in them till we drown.  If we want to truly repent and be forgiven we are going to have to have someone from outside change our hearts and give us that true repentance.  That person is God the Holy Spirit.

6)  In this prayer we pray that the Holy Spirit would enter into our lives and make us truly repent of our past sins and realise our unworthiness.  We also pray that the Holy Spirit would change us from the inside out, that He would give us new desires, new ways of seeing the world that match up to how God does, new hopes, new dreams, new strengths, new gifts.  We pray that the Holy Spirit would change our motives so that all we do would be to the glory of God and thus be pleasing to Him.  Anything we do which might seem 'good' in the eyes of the world is not 'good' in God's eyes unless it is done to glorify Him - in His eyes it is like a filthy used tampon (Isaiah 64.6) or a sticky steaming pile of dog turd (Philippians 3.8).  Trying to please God and gain His favour by doing 'good things' and being a 'good girl/boy' is like walking up to God with a big box wrapped up as a gift, giving it to Him, and Him finding inside the things I just mentioned.  This is why other religions can't lead to heaven.  This is the teaching of the 39 Articles of Religion:

"WORKS done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin." Article 13

Don't treat the Almighty God like a great divine Santa in the sky

-  He isn't.

7)   The prayer ends by asking that we may, with this new heart and new desires, finally come to the eternal Kingdom, finally when we die make it to heaven.  How do we get to heaven?  "Through Jesus Christ our Lord"  The only way to the Father is through faith in the Son (John 14.6) and forgiveness at His cross and a redemption price paid in His blood.

So then...

So far we have only mined the deep riches of the opening prayers before the real services of Morning and Evening Prayer actually start - and look at how full of gems and gold these three passages were!  The BCP starts in the best place possible for a book concerning how to pray and live the Christian life - with Biblical repentance and the teachings of grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

I hope you will continue to read more posts from this series on the BCP!