ACNA and the Sacraments?

[RadixLecti]

Hey guys. It's been a while since I've posted, but I still follow the board from time to time. My question is for people involved with ACNA:

What do you say that the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist "do"? In other words, would you say that they actually play a role in causing our salvation and sanctification, or would you say that they have some other purpose?

 

[Albion]

Hey guys. It's been a while since I've posted, but I still follow the board from time to time. My question is for people involved with ACNA:

What do you say that the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist "do"? In other words, would you say that they actually play a role in causing our salvation and sanctification, or would you say that they have some other purpose?

Just curious, but I can't imagine why anyone would ask such a question. Do you suspect that ACNA has taken a doctrinal turn somewhere?

 

[RadixLecti]

Just curious, but I can't imagine why anyone would ask such a question. Do you suspect that ACNA has taken a doctrinal turn somewhere?

I'm involved with ACNA, and I'm trying to get a handle on what people from ACNA from accross the country believe about the sacraments. I know what the historic doctrines are, however I'm curious about how this is seen by many in ACNA since so many people are moving into the denomination from evangelical and pentecostal backgrounds. I'm curious as to how this might be influencing people's theological views on the subject.

 

[Albion]

I'm involved with ACNA, and I'm trying to get a handle on what people from ACNA from accross the country believe about the sacraments. I know what the historic doctrines are, however I'm curious about how this is seen by many in ACNA since so many people are moving into the denomination from evangelical and pentecostal backgrounds. I'm curious as to how this might be influencing people's theological views on the subject.

Interesting. I had no idea that what you said above was true or why it would be happening. But on second thought, ACNA is charismatic, isnt it? Thanks.

 

[RadixLecti]

Interesting. I had no idea that what you said above was true or why it would be happening. But on second thought, ACNA is charismatic, isnt it? Thanks.

There are definitely a good number of parishes that have a charismatic element, as well as many parishes that have little to no charismatic influence. Furthermore, I would say that among those parishes that do have a charismatic leaning orientation, there is a very wide range of beleifs and practices on that subject.

 

[LuxMundi]

Remind me who the ACNA is; are they the group associated with AMiA?

 

[Albion]

Remind me who the ACNA is; are they the group associated with AMiA?

It would be better to ask if AMiA is associated with ACNA. Yes, they are mission partners and may get together more closely in the future. All of that is up in the air at the moment. ACNA is many times larger than AMiA and is a church made up of several formerly independent churches (such as the Reformed Episcopal Church--the US parallel to the Free Church of England), many formerly independent parishes, and four dioceses that left The Episcopal Church. ACNA claims to represent or serve over 100,000 Anglicans. Radix can give you more info, but since he's not online at the moment, I thought I'd start you off with this.

 

[RadixLecti]

It would be better to ask if AMiA is associated with ACNA. Yes, they are mission partners and may get together more closely in the future. All of that is up in the air at the moment. ACNA is many times larger than AMiA and is a church made up of several formerly independent churches (such as the Reformed Episcopal Church--the US parallel to the Free Church of England), many formerly independent parishes, and four dioceses that left The Episcopal Church. ACNA claims to represent or serve over 100,000 Anglicans. Radix can give you more info, but since he's not online at the moment, I thought I'd start you off with this.

ACNA

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) was formed from many different Anglican entities in 2009, who had for a variety of reasons determined that they could no longer remain within the US Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

Some groups left because they felt that their community's desire to follow the historic interpretation of Scripture was inhibited by their association with the established church, while others felt comfortable with newer approaches to Scripture in some categories, but retained an opposition to homosexuality in particular.

The initial makeup of the ACNA included four dioceses from the Episcopal Church, a separate denomination called the "Reformed Episcopal Church," a number of churches (but not all) from a continuing Anglo-Catholic church called the "Anglican Province in America," and several hundred parishes that had broken from the Episcopal church and affiliated with overseas Anglican jurisdictions.

Theologically, ACNA is fairly diverse. A fairly significant percentage of congregations identify with Anglo-Catholicism while many others lean that direction but do not self-identify with that term. There are many others that identify with Reformed Anglican and Evangelical Anglican thought. The Charismatic movement is also fairly strong within ACNA, but is not universally embraced.

AMiA

The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) was formed from a group of churches that left the Episcopal Church to affiliate with the Anglican Province of Rwanda. In general AMiA allows for more modern interpretations of Scripture in some areas (however there is controversy within the organization over this issue), but is uniformly opposed to homosexuality.

AMIA is almost entirely low-church in polity and practice, and theologically Evangelical (but that ranges between Wesleyan and Reformed Evangelicalism). The leadership of AMiA is also officially Charismatic.

Initially AMiA joined the ACNA when it was founded, however it later separated to become a "ministry partner" of the ACNA because of their leadership's concern that they were becoming more of an "institution than a movement" and that they didn't want to lose their "Rwandan DNA." They returned to sole oversight from Rwanda, but shortly thereafter split from Rwanda after the Archbishop and the Rwandan house of bishops attempted to exercise ecclesiastical authority over some of the leaders in AMiA.

Two bishops, and many congregations, remained with Rwanda. Those remaining with Rwanda continue to be "ministry partners" of the ACNA. As I understand it, the larger part of AMiA that left Rwanda is no longer considered a "ministry partner" of the ACNA. (But that may change in the future)

 

[LuxMundi]

Thanks both!

 

[file13]

Hey guys. It's been a while since I've posted, but I still follow the board from time to time. My question is for people involved with ACNA:

What do you say that the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist "do"? In other words, would you say that they actually play a role in causing our salvation and sanctification, or would you say that they have some other purpose?

According to their site:

We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.​

This is consistent with the Declaration which proceeds the 39 Articles in the CoE BCP where it says the church is to interpret the articles in the following manner:

And that no man hereafter shall either print, or preach, to draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof: and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense.​

So, if the ACAN is consistent with their own claims and adhere to the 39 Articles in their literal and grammatical sense in the spirit of the CoE BCP, then in order to be consistent with their claims, they should hold to a moderate reformed view of salvation and the reformed view of the Eucharist. Thus, according to the reformed view (which Cranmer held), no we're not justified by taking communion (nor by baptism), but by the atoning work of Jesus Christ which we receive by grace through faith alone. We are, however, called as daughters and sons of God to keep His commandments if we love Him, and thus, will, unless we are physically are unable to, participate in His sacraments as a part of our sanctification and as an expression of a faithful child who obediently heeds our Father's commands. I.e. we're not saved by the sacraments, but if we're saved, we will partake of them because we love Jesus. Or to put it another way, we work because we're saved, not in order to be saved.

But like all things Anglican, your local mileage will surely vary, and so I don't think there's a definitive answer to your question. I would, however, say that the ACNA is not being consistent with their own claims and that they're probably doing so for the sake of unity at this time until they can decide on other things (like woman priests). Is that a good thing is another question which I'm not jumping into....

Anyways, hope this helps.

 

[RadixLecti]

According to their site:

We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.​

This is consistent with the Declaration which proceeds the 39 Articles in the CoE BCP where it says the church is to interpret the articles in the following manner:

And that no man hereafter shall either print, or preach, to draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof: and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense.​

So, if the ACAN is consistent with their own claims and adhere to the 39 Articles in their literal and grammatical sense in the spirit of the CoE BCP, then in order to be consistent with their claims, they should hold to a moderate reformed view of salvation and the reformed view of the Eucharist. Thus, according to the reformed view (which Cranmer held), no we're not justified by taking communion (nor by baptism), but by the atoning work of Jesus Christ which we receive by grace through faith alone. We are, however, called as daughters and sons of God to keep His commandments if we love Him, and thus, will, unless we are physically are unable to, participate in His sacraments as a part of our sanctification and as an expression of a faithful child who obediently heeds our Father's commands. I.e. we're not saved by the sacraments, but if we're saved, we will partake of them because we love Jesus. Or to put it another way, we work because we're saved, not in order to be saved.

But like all things Anglican, your local mileage will surely vary, and so I don't think there's a definitive answer to your question. I would, however, say that the ACNA is not being consistent with their own claims and that they're probably doing so for the sake of unity at this time until they can decide on other things (like woman priests). Is that a good thing is another question which I'm not jumping into....

Anyways, hope this helps.

I was hoping to get the perspective of some of the people in ACNA about what they personally believed the sacraments were.

You are right to say that Cranmer believed in the doctrines of the Reformation, however not all of his views lined up perfectly with the Calvinist perspective. If you read his homilies in some places he seems to have some thoughts that are similar to those held in Lutheranism. Many have noticed the obvious similarities between the Lutheran Augsburg Confession and the 39 Articles.

One problem that I've noticed when talking with Lutherans and Presbyterians about Anglican beleifs is that they try to interpret the 39 Articles like a confessional statement. It is written in somewhat (but not entirely) vague language in order to allow for a range of beliefs, most of which could be said to be in line with either Calvinism or Lutheranism. So in other words the Articles allow for conflicting doctrinal interpretations on a few points. Also if you re-read point 7 from the ACNA's doctrinal statement, you will notice that it is very hard to define specifically what it means.

All of this is compounded by the fact that the 39 articles are not the only source of doctrine affirmed by ACNA.

The basic sources of doctrine for Anglicans are:
1. The 39 Articles
2. The Books of Homilies (since they are incorporated into the Articles)
3. The Ordinal
4. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer

The Articles were written in 1571, but the BCP was written in 1662, in otherwords some time had passed in between, and the two weren't written by the same people or with the same mindset. In order to understand the statements of the 1662 BCP you can't read it only with the thoughts of Cranmer in mind, but also people like Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrews, William Laud etc. The BCP was written after the Anglican concept of the Via Media had begun to take shape.

Here's what the 1662 BCP says about Baptism:
Question. What is the outward visible sign or form in Baptism?
Answer. Water: wherein the person is baptized In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace?
Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.

Historically some have seen this as Baptismal regeneration, while others have not. There isn't a consensus. On the other hand, there were fairly unified understandings of other Reformation doctrines like the 5 Solas and the distinction between Law and Grace.

 

[Albion]

I was hoping to get the perspective of some of the people in ACNA about what they personally believed the sacraments were.

You are right to say that Cranmer believed in the doctrines of the Reformation, however not all of his views lined up perfectly with the Calvinist perspective. If you read his homilies in some places he seems to have some thoughts that are similar to those held in Lutheranism. Many have noticed the obvious similarities between the Lutheran Augsburg Confession and the 39 Articles.

One problem that I've noticed when talking with Lutherans and Presbyterians about Anglican beleifs is that they try to interpret the 39 Articles like a confessional statement. It is written in somewhat (but not entirely) vague language in order to allow for a range of beliefs, most of which could be said to be in line with either Calvinism or Lutheranism. So in other words the Articles allow for conflicting doctrinal interpretations on a few points. Also if you re-read point 7 from the ACNA's doctrinal statement, you will notice that it is very hard to define specifically what it means.

All of this is compounded by the fact that the 39 articles are not the only source of doctrine affirmed by ACNA.

The basic sources of doctrine for Anglicans are:
1. The 39 Articles
2. The Books of Homilies (since they are incorporated into the Articles)
3. The Ordinal
4. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer

The Articles were written in 1571, but the BCP was written in 1662, in otherwords some time had passed in between, and the two weren't written by the same people or with the same mindset. In order to understand the statements of the 1662 BCP you can't read it only with the thoughts of Cranmer in mind, but also people like Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrews, William Laud etc. The BCP was written after the Anglican concept of the Via Media had begun to take shape.

Here's what the 1662 BCP says about Baptism:
Question. What is the outward visible sign or form in Baptism?
Answer. Water: wherein the person is baptized In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace?
Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.

Historically some have seen this as Baptismal regeneration, while others have not. There isn't a consensus. On the other hand, there were fairly unified understandings of other Reformation doctrines like the 5 Solas and the distinction between Law and Grace.

I liked the idea of your thread, Radix, but I had the feeling at the start that you may be our only ACNA guy. From what I've heard, I have the impression that the diversity in ACNA, and its leadership style, is similar to that of TEC with certain obvious exceptions. Of course, that's a comment about the church's reputation, not what you were asking for.

 

[file13]

I was hoping to get the perspective of some of the people in ACNA about what they personally believed the sacraments were.

I understand and you're correct, I am (sadly) no longer a part of the Anglican communion.

You are right to say that Cranmer believed in the doctrines of the Reformation, however not all of his views lined up perfectly with the Calvinist perspective....

Of course. I never claimed they did. I simply pointed out that regrading the doctrines you brought up, the views in the 39 Articles regarding them are clearly of the reformed view if read in their "literal and grammatical sense."

One problem that I've noticed when talking with Lutherans and Presbyterians about Anglican beleifs is that they try to interpret the 39 Articles like a confessional statement.

Historically, they were and still are a doctrinal statement for the CoE and priests swear to uphold them during their ordinations. However, you're correct that the CoE and most of the Anglican world does not view them as such in practice. However, according to the ACNA website, they are apparently considered a normative doctrinal statement. This is all I was pointing out.

...Also if you re-read point 7 from the ACNA's doctrinal statement, you will notice that it is very hard to define specifically what it means.

The Articles were written in 1571, but the BCP was written in 1662, in otherwords some time had passed in between...

Unfortunately brother, history does not agree with your claims. The 39 Articles were proclaimed in 1562 (read His Majesties Declaration). Also, these articles were based on the earlier 42 Articles of 1552.

As for the BCP:

The 1549 Book of Common Prayer
The 1552 Book of Common Prayer
The 1559 Book of Common Prayer

But again, I'm not telling you how to interpret Anglicanism. I'm going off of what the ACNA claims to believe.

Historically some have seen this as Baptismal regeneration, while others have not. There isn't a consensus. On the other hand, there were fairly unified understandings of other Reformation doctrines like the 5 Solas and the distinction between Law and Grace.

Ok. So why not ask what do the Articles say about baptism when read in their literal and grammatical sense if the rite is unclear? Do we find regeneration clearly stated there?

In any case, I'm not trying to cause controversy or tell Anglicans what to believe. I'm just mentioning what one would expect to find regarding the sacraments if the ACNA did treat the Articles as expressing "the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief" as their site claims.

 

[Albion]

In any case, I'm not trying to cause controversy or tell Anglicans what to believe. I'm just mentioning what one would expect to find regarding the sacraments if the ACNA did treat the Articles as expressing "the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief" as their site claims.

Well, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? The statement says what you reported, but what does the membership actually believe and what does the church expect? I know that it is widely said that the ACNA more or less threw everything historically Anglican onto the page but didn't expect a uniformity of belief and didn't get one. Being orthodox on paper was sufficient for the ACNA's purposes. But still, the answer to Radix's question as to the actual beliefs of members is one that would be interesting to know.

 

[file13]

But still, the answer to Radix's question as to the actual beliefs of members is one that would be interesting to know.

I would to. But that's kind what I'm getting it. I don't think you're going to find any consensus here if the ACNA is itself inconsistent. I.e. I don't think you can expect to get any authoritative answer to the question at this time (if ever). Just opinions.

I'm a fan of the ACNA and the Continuing Anglican Movement and wish them all the best. But I think our brother might be asking for something which there's just no good answer to.

 

[Albion]

I would to. But that's kind what I'm getting it. I don't think you're going to find any consensus here if the ACNA is itself inconsistent. I.e. I don't think you can expect to get any authoritative answer to the question at this time (if ever). Just opinions.

Well, I think that that was all that Radix was after--the sampling, not seeing if there was a consensus or if it the results squared with the church's official statements. The biggest problem is the scarcity of ACNA members active on CF.

 

[RadixLecti]

Unfortunately brother, history does not agree with your claims. The 39 Articles were proclaimed in 1562 (read His Majesties Declaration). Also, these articles were based on the earlier 42 Articles of 1552.

You are misunderstanding my statements. First of all, I'm not saying that the 39 Articles don't have a Calvinist influence. Second, the Articles went through several revisions, the version mentioned on the theology section of the ACNA - the one that you quoted to me - specifically says "1571".

Third, there has been more than one version of the Book of Common Prayer. The version that is considered authoritative for the CofE and is also specifically mentioned on the ACNA theology page that you quoted, specifically says the 1662 version of the Book of Common Prayer.

Here's my point: the 39 Articles are not the only standard that Anglican clergy make vows to uphold. The 1662 BCP (as well as the other standards that I mentioned previously) is also included among the doctrinal standards that the clergy affirm, both in the CofE and the ACNA. Because the 1662 and the 39 Articles have different nuances in their theologies, there is a range of doctrine that could be said to be in keeping with them, which depends on how much you emphasize one over the other etc.

I'm not saying that historic Anglican doctrine can mean anything that anyone wants it to mean, and I'm also not saying that it can mean Roman Catholicism without a Pope. They do preclude certain theologies, such as "syngergism." The doctrinal standards of Anglicanism were written to exclude Catholicism as well as Anabaptism, however they were intentionally drafted to bring the middle together.

 

[RadixLecti]

Well, I think that that was all that Radix was after--the sampling, not seeing if there was a consensus or if it the results squared with the church's official statements. The biggest problem is the scarcity of ACNA members active on CF.

That's correct. I'm just curious about what different people throughout ACNA might say. I know that it's not any sort of scientific sample. Since it looks like there aren't many around here from ACNA, I'll go ahead and tip my hand and explain what's on my mind.

One of the things that I've noticed in ACNA (probably due to the evangelical influence) is that most people hold to "decision theology" for lack of a better term. In other words, they will say "I'm saved because I made a decision for Christ." The belief seems to be that what caused salvation is the "profession of faith" that they made.

Historically Anglicans have believed that someone is saved because God's grace caused him to have faith in Christ. The "means of grace" - the way that God extends his grace to people is the "Word and Sacraments". Those are the things that cause people to come to faith and be saved.

Historically Anglicanism (and Calvinism and Lutheranism) teaches "monergism" - the idea that God caused us to be saved at every step of the process. However, it seems that many evangelicals (but definitely not all) believe in synergism - the idea that we are saved because we participate with God in order to be saved.

 

[Albion]

That's correct. I'm just curious about what different people throughout ACNA might say. I know that it's not any sort of scientific sample. Since it looks like there aren't many around here from ACNA, I'll go ahead and tip my hand and explain what's on my mind.

One of the things that I've noticed in ACNA (probably due to the evangelical influence) is that most people hold to "decision theology" for lack of a better term. In other words, they will say "I'm saved because I made a decision for Christ." The belief seems to be that what caused salvation is the "profession of faith" that they made.

Historically Anglicans have believed that someone is saved because God's grace caused him to have faith in Christ. The "means of grace" - the way that God extends his grace to people is the "Word and Sacraments". Those are the things that cause people to come to faith and be saved.

Historically Anglicanism (and Calvinism and Lutheranism) teaches "monergism" - the idea that God caused us to be saved at every step of the process. However, it seems that many evangelicals (but definitely not all) believe in synergism - the idea that we are saved because we participate with God in order to be saved.

You know, I don't have a clue as to what people would say to that, but I'm somewhat surprised. I say that because the ACNA has a reputation--I think--for being somewhere between a hierarchy-dominated Anglo-Catholic church and the Charismatic Episcopal Church. This may in reality be totally wrong, and your point would seem to suggest it, but that's why I was curious to see if you'd get any replies from actual ACNA members.

 

[RadixLecti]

So why not ask what do the Articles say about baptism when read in their literal and grammatical sense if the rite is unclear? Do we find regeneration clearly stated there?

Ok, I've re-read your post, and I think I see where things got confused. The 39 Articles are not the only authoritative source of doctrine for Anglicans (and for ACNA).

The standards come from:
1. The 39 Articles (and the incorporated homilies)
2. The 1662 BCP (and the incorporated ordinal)

I don't think that there is any official statement (by ACNA) that says determining doctrine from the statements made in one (the Articles) is any more authentic than determining doctrine based on the statements made in the other (the BCP).

Also,(and I'm not saying this is the case) you would think that the teachings of the 1662 prayerbook would affect your interpretation of the Articles, since the final authoritative prayerbook was written more recently, and was the last time that an official statement was made about what constitutes Anglican doctrine. (possibly with the notable exception of the Lambeth Quadrilateral)

Sorry for the confusion, I think we were just reasoning with different premises.