I'll just throw in a few of my thoughts. I've not read everyone's post in depth.
1. The best way that I've heard Anglicans described is that we are "Reformed Catholics". Many people consider us Protestants, but many Anglicans will deny that label (including me) because I think that unfairly stereotypes the fullness of Anglicanism (whether that stereotype is true or not is to be debated).
2. On Sola Scriptura, I think any honest discussion must define what we consider to be "Sola Scriptura". I think most of the time, we are refering often to individual interpretation of Scripture alone, without heed to ecumenical councils or any other sources. This is really "Solo Scriptura" more than sola scriptura. I think it can be argued that sola scriptura truly has been the rule of faith since the early church, with Rome breaking from that tradition, as well as many of the modern Protestant denominations.
3. I think we have to be careful in saying that only Baptism and Holy Eucharist are sacraments. Even the 39 Articles refer to the other rites as sacraments, just not "Sacraments of the Gospel". Anglicanism since the 16th century has not defined explicitly its sacramental theology, and as such, we are left with again with Hooker's explanation of a sacrament, which is certainly open ended. Do we require form and matter as indicators of the sacrament as well? Then certainly Unction is a sacrament. It's not a clear area.
When we talk about being Protestant in regard to being Anglican, we should really define our terms, The Anglican Church has never as far as I know used the term protestant in its basic documents to define the organisation or that bodies beliefs. Unlike for instance Rome which has done so.
Further, if we are going to discuss Anglicanism, or the belief of the Church we should remember that at its greatest extent, Anglicanism has never been more than twenty six diocese' of the Catholic Church. It has also to be discussed in relation to the basics, "Revelation, Scripture and the Councils". These are the Catholic fundamentals that have been held for nigh on two millenium! They constitute Holy Tradition and the people who reject them are not Anglicans, but Neo Anglicans, a new breed!
Don't forget that the Anglican Church has likewise never used "Holy Tradition" in any of its basic documents, either, making those who want to insert it into our belief system the real "Neo-Anglicans." And yes, they ARE a new breed whose history extends back only little more than a single century.
Don't forget that the Anglican Church has likewise never used "Holy Tradition" in any of its basic documents, either, making those who want to insert it into our belief system the real "Neo-Anglicans." And yes, they ARE a new breed whose history extends back only little more than a single century.
What about Richard Hooker's "three-legged stool" where tradition is one of the legs? The idea comes from his 5 volume The Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity.
Don't forget that the Anglican Church has likewise never used "Holy Tradition" in any of its basic documents, either, making those who want to insert it into our belief system the real "Neo-Anglicans." And yes, they ARE a new breed whose history extends back only little more than a single century.
To add to that, the Anglican church has officially said that 'Holy Tradition' can err, and that councils can and have erred. The only thing that historic Anglicanism sees as without error is the Bible--and only then in all matters resolving to Salvation. See the 39 Articles. No matter whether you accept them as not, for at least 3 centuries, they were the defining points of Anglican doctrine and dogma and it is impossible to ignore them and actually be historically accurate.
__________________
No condemnation now I dread; Jesus, and all in Him, is mine; Alive in Him, my living Head, and clothed in righteousness divine, Bold I approach the eternal throne, and claim the crown, through Christ my own. Charles Wesley
What about Richard Hooker's "three-legged stool" where tradition is one of the legs? The idea comes from his 5 volume The Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity.
*sighs* Once again this old chestnut comes up....
Richard Hooker did not say any such thing. Here's what he said:
'What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever'
Firstly he gives massive credence to Scripture. If you had a stool with three legs and one leg is the structural one, it'd collapse. He doesn't suggest any equality. Secondly, he doesn't use the word tradition. A better and more accurate way of putting it into modern language would be: 'Scripture, Reason, Canon Law.'
__________________
No condemnation now I dread; Jesus, and all in Him, is mine; Alive in Him, my living Head, and clothed in righteousness divine, Bold I approach the eternal throne, and claim the crown, through Christ my own. Charles Wesley
To add to that, the Anglican church has officially said that 'Holy Tradition' can err, and that councils can and have erred. The only thing that historic Anglicanism sees as without error is the Bible--and only then in all matters resolving to Salvation. See the 39 Articles. No matter whether you accept them as not, for at least 3 centuries, they were the defining points of Anglican doctrine and dogma and it is impossible to ignore them and actually be historically accurate.
Nowhere in Anglicanism is the claim made that the Bible is without error, for the simple reason that this is not proven in Scripture, and is therefore not a belief which is required of anyone.
Infallibility of Scripture is far more modern than this, and is a product of modern Evangelicalism, not Anglicanism. Some low Anglicans may choose to adopt this belief, but it is certainly not mainstream.
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
What is regarded as authoritative (not necessarily the same as infallible, however) in Anglicanism is the same as in Catholicism; a council of Bishops meeting to discuss and decide any particular aspect of doctrine. Such doctrine must be in accordance with what Scripture says, of course, but after that the council has authority to decide interpretation and guidance for the church.
Last edited by Catherineanne; 19th October 2009 at 06:11 PM.
Since after hundreds of years no-one agrees on whether or not Anglicanism is Protestant or not - it is definitely Protestant.
What do you mean no-one agrees?
Protestant churches are those which were born out of protests against the excesses and abuses of the Roman Catholic Church. As such, Anglicanism is most certainly Protestant. Ironically enough, so is today's Roman Catholic Church, although dear Benedict is trying his hardest to reverse this modernism.
However, as an apostolic church, and with an unbroken succession from Peter, alongside both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the Anglican communion is also Catholic, by which is denoted 'Universal'.
Any Christian of any denomination is welcome to commune in any Anglican church. Anglicans may not communicate in either a Roman or Orthodox church. Which means that Anglicanism is in fact the most Catholic of the apostolic churches, and is incidentally the reason why I could never be any other denomination; all are welcome at the Feast of the Lamb, and all Christians are welcome to commune in my church, if they choose to do so.
What about Richard Hooker's "three-legged stool" where tradition is one of the legs? The idea comes from his 5 volume The Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity.
As Sir Timothy noted, that's a misreading--or misrepresentation--of Hooker. That aside, there is a HUGE difference between "Holy Tradition" (which was what was mentioned and to which I replied) and "tradition" (even if we capitalize it).
Nowhere in Anglicanism is the claim made that the Bible is without error, for the simple reason that this is not proven in Scripture, and is therefore not a belief which is required of anyone.
Suppose, for the sake of debate, we concede this point to you? Officially speaking--which is what we were discussing--Scripture still contains all that is necessary for salvation and what the church may require of anyone to accept, not Holy Tradition, not theoretically infallible church leaders or councils of them, not Reason, not anything else.
So it still is the case that any party in the church that has attempted (according to a previous post claiming) to have made "Holy Tradition" the Anglican standard is the innovator (or "Neo-Anglican").
Linear Mode
