XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
I would like to collect some thoughts from thoughtful Reformed folk concerning this article. Historically, Cramner, Ussher and Twisse were committed Anglicans. We have contemporaries like McGrath who also is Reformed and Anglican. Recently, I have noticed a trend with some individuals who identify with R&P churches of individuals being drawn away to Anglicanism under the assumption that the Anglican Church is Reformed. Most of these folks have valid concerns about the dumbing down of the worship service and was drawn to the rich liturigcal orientation of the Anglican service. Having said that most these folks also have strongly professed to be Reformed (Calvinists). Although the above Article is designed to address the sufficiency of the offering of Christ over against the repeated sacrifices offered in the Papist masses it appears to me that it purports a universal view of the atonement while seeking to prove the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. Am I wrong? If I am not wrong then how are people jumping fences like that with a clear and sober conscience? If I am wrong in noting this observation about Article 31 I would appreciate feedback.
Thanks
[Edited on 3-13-2005 by S-Seidler]
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
I would like to collect some thoughts from thoughtful Reformed folk concerning this article. Historically, Cramner, Ussher and Twisse were committed Anglicans. We have contemporaries like McGrath who also is Reformed and Anglican. Recently, I have noticed a trend with some individuals who identify with R&P churches of individuals being drawn away to Anglicanism under the assumption that the Anglican Church is Reformed. Most of these folks have valid concerns about the dumbing down of the worship service and was drawn to the rich liturigcal orientation of the Anglican service. Having said that most these folks also have strongly professed to be Reformed (Calvinists). Although the above Article is designed to address the sufficiency of the offering of Christ over against the repeated sacrifices offered in the Papist masses it appears to me that it purports a universal view of the atonement while seeking to prove the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. Am I wrong? If I am not wrong then how are people jumping fences like that with a clear and sober conscience? If I am wrong in noting this observation about Article 31 I would appreciate feedback.
Thanks
[Edited on 3-13-2005 by S-Seidler]
