We’ve crossed the Rub

[charles.seargent]

So I need an opinion. I just posted some of my summer reading list on another Anglican bulletin board and got silence. I have been heading in a very low church direction. Snake belly low. Rather than repeat the whole list as way of example I plan on reading Calvin’s Institutes devotionally. I also, on top of the 39 articles I also accept the confessions of the PCUSA as part of my theology.

Have I crossed the Rubicon and become a Presbyterian? I know I will always be welcome in my local TEC churches but should I consider making an official switch?

CFLawrence

 

[Albion]

Maybe, but I have found in the past that its easy to get really interested in some other branch of Christianity...and most of them do have something to bring to the table...but I would say to go slow and not make any decisive moves in the near future.

It could be that what seemed so eye-opening at the start loses something after you collect even more information. That is not uncommon. Also, there are some Anglicans who are very Calvinistic and do not feel any need to change churches because of it.

 

[charles.seargent]

Maybe, but I have found in the past that its easy to get really interested in some other branch of Christianity...and most of them do have something to bring to the table...but I would say to go slow and not make any decisive moves in the near future.



It could be that what seemed so eye-opening at the start loses something after you collect even more information. That is not uncommon. Also, there are some Anglicans who are very Calvinistic and do not feel any need to change churches because of it.

Albion, I agree with your line of thinking entirely and am going to stick with TEC. I do find it ironic however that I get silence at the mention of Calvin and most likely had I said I was reading Tract XC or National Apostasy somebody would have jumped on it.

 

[PloverWing]

As Albion observed, Reformed theology can fit under the broad umbrella of Anglicanism. I think the largest differences are in the areas of worship and church government. Do you have a strong preference for a less liturgical, more sermon-oriented style of worship, and less frequent celebration of the Eucharist? And, do you have a strong preference for the Presbyterian form of church government rather than a structure that involves bishops? Those are the largest differences that I see between the Presbyterians and the Reformed wing of Anglicanism.

 

[charles.seargent]

As Albion observed, Reformed theology can fit under the broad umbrella of Anglicanism. I think the largest differences are in the areas of worship and church government. Do you have a strong preference for a less liturgical, more sermon-oriented style of worship, and less frequent celebration of the Eucharist? And, do you have a strong preference for the Presbyterian form of church government rather than a structure that involves bishops? Those are the largest differences that I see between the Presbyterians and the Reformed wing of Anglicanism.

I am much more comfortable with apostolic succession and weekly Eucharistic liturgy. I firmly believe in the real presence and although the sermons preached at my TEC churches are shorter they tend to be quite meaty.

For me personally I no longer use the BCP for daily prayer, I use an ESV bible and I practice two-way prayer as taught by the Oxford Groups and early Alcoholics Anonymous. If anyone is interested in two way prayer just ask and I’ll see if I can point the way

 

[charles.seargent]

www.twowayprayer.org

 

[PloverWing]

I am much more comfortable with apostolic succession and weekly Eucharistic liturgy. I firmly believe in the real presence and although the sermons preached at my TEC churches are shorter they tend to be quite meaty.

In that case, it sounds like you're one of the many Anglicans/Episcopalians with Reformed theology.

 

[charles.seargent]

In that case, it sounds like you're one of the many Anglicans/Episcopalians with Reformed theology.

I’m glad to hear I’m not alone. I feel like a novelty.

 

[Shropshire Anglican]

So I need an opinion. I just posted some of my summer reading list on another Anglican bulletin board and got silence. I have been heading in a very low church direction. Snake belly low. Rather than repeat the whole list as way of example I plan on reading Calvin’s Institutes devotionally. I also, on top of the 39 articles I also accept the confessions of the PCUSA as part of my theology.

Have I crossed the Rubicon and become a Presbyterian? I know I will always be welcome in my local TEC churches but should I consider making an official switch?

CFLawrence

No. Many Anglicans hold to reformed theology. No need to jump ship.

 

[Albion]

I am much more comfortable with apostolic succession and weekly Eucharistic liturgy. I firmly believe in the real presence and although the sermons preached at my TEC churches are shorter they tend to be quite meaty.

Charles, others have already said it, but I have no doubt that Evangelical Anglicanism is your natural niche...and there is a place there for you, so it is not as though all of us are talking about this in a purely theoretical way.

 

[everbecoming2007]

So I need an opinion. I just posted some of my summer reading list on another Anglican bulletin board and got silence. I have been heading in a very low church direction. Snake belly low. Rather than repeat the whole list as way of example I plan on reading Calvin’s Institutes devotionally. I also, on top of the 39 articles I also accept the confessions of the PCUSA as part of my theology.

Have I crossed the Rubicon and become a Presbyterian? I know I will always be welcome in my local TEC churches but should I consider making an official switch?

CFLawrence

Would you consider the thirty-nine articles to be a sufficient Calvinistic statement? Do you believe they are amenable to non-Calvinist interpretations?

 

[Shropshire Anglican]

Would you consider the thirty-nine articles to be a sufficient Calvinistic statement? Do you believe they are amenable to non-Calvinist interpretations?

They were originally written by Thomas Cranmer who was a reformer. A couple of later edits under Elizabeth I were mostly cosmetic. Reformed teachers I know of believe them to be consistent with Calvinism.

 

[Albion]

I feel that they show a certain acknowledgment of Calvinistic principles, but I cannot think of any case in which the Articles just take those principles at face value. This is why the Articles are usually said to represent a compromise between the extremes.

 

[Arcangl86]

They were originally written by Thomas Cranmer who was a reformer. A couple of later edits under Elizabeth I were mostly cosmetic. Reformed teachers I know of believe them to be consistent with Calvinism.

Cranmer was a reformer, but he was also influenced by the Evangelicals in Germany, though that link isn't as well known as his link with the continent Reformed.

 

[charles.seargent]

Would you consider the thirty-nine articles to be a sufficient Calvinistic statement? Do you believe they are amenable to non-Calvinist interpretations?

I am not as learned as those who already answered but I don’t believe they are sufficiently Calvinistic so I supplement them with the Westminster Standards, which are Anglican in origin. That is my own personal theology.

 

[A Shield of Turquoise]

A lot of people look askance at Newman's Tract 90 but I think, in light of the historic developments of interpretation and practice in the Church of England, his interpretation is as legitimate as any. Which is to say I don't think the 39 articles are especially useful as a specifically Reformed confession.

 

[Albion]

A lot of people look askance at Newman's Tract 90 but I think, in light of the historic developments of interpretation and practice in the Church of England, his interpretation is as legitimate as any. Which is to say I don't think the 39 articles are especially useful as a specifically Reformed confession.

The question might be asked, "Are the Articles supposed to be a ’specifically Reformed confession?’"

Well, no, they aren't...and weren't when written.

 

[Arcangl86]

The Articles were meant to lay out the theology of the Church of England. If they meant to lay out a Reformed religion, they probably just would have adopted the Three Standards of Unity.

 

[A Shield of Turquoise]

Three forms of unity didn’t exist yet. D’oh! And yeah, the framers of the articles were Reformed in their outlook. Reformed doesn’t necessarily mean strict Calvinist. They would have been horrified by what Newman did. Not that it matters.

 

[Arcangl86]

Three forms of unity didn’t exist yet. D’oh! And yeah, the framers of the articles were Reformed in their outlook. Reformed doesn’t necessarily mean strict Calvinist. They would have been horrified by what Newman did. Not that it matters.

The Canons of Dort didn't, but the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confessions did. The Belgic Confession was written in 1561 and the Heidelberg Catechism was written in 1562, which was the same year before the 39 Articles were drafted and they weren't made mandatory until 1571.