Article XVII

[Targaryen]

For those of you that do not have your BCP's handy, this is what the article says:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he 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. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
[/FONT]

Do we as the Communion still feel this adequately describes our view of predestination and election, do we no longer hold to these principles. Are we more Arminian in interpretation of this article then Calvinist?

 

[Liberasit]

I don't have a problem with this article. It continues to be relevant today.

 

[graceandpeace]

I think it's telling that the Episcopal Church (USA) placed the Articles in the "historical documents" section of the BCP.

Personally, I am not a Calvinist & I was strongly Wesley-Arminian prior to my faith meltdown that lead me to start seeking again. I think I am still Arminian, but more softly. I think there are different, almost opposite statements in Scripture on the matter - perhaps it's better to just think of salvation as somewhat a mystery.

 

[Albion]

It's the longest and probably the most controversial of the Articles, but I don't see why any Anglican should have a problem with it.

 

[Targaryen]

The question is not whether we have problems with the article, the question is does this article speak in a general way about our views of this concept nowadays? And if it doesn't why is that?

I think it's telling that the Episcopal Church (USA) placed the Articles in the "historical documents" section of the BCP.

Personally, I am not a Calvinist & I was strongly Wesley-Arminian prior to my faith meltdown that lead me to start seeking again. I think I am still Arminian, but more softly. I think there are different, almost opposite statements in Scripture on the matter - perhaps it's better to just think of salvation as somewhat a mystery.

Hmmm does this mean we should re-examine the 39 Articles again or this one in general?

 

[Albion]

The question is not whether we have problems with the article, the question is does this article speak in a general way about our views of this concept nowadays?

If someone says that he or she has no problem with the Article, you have everything you need in order to conclude that they feel that it speaks to our views.

...unless you're trying to engineer a different answer, that is.

 

[Targaryen]

If someone says that he or she has no problem with the Article, you have everything you need in order to conclude that they feel that it speaks to our views.

...unless you're trying to engineer a different answer, that is.

If you have no problems, fine. Doesn't state anything much beyond that, which is kind off why I started the thread, not just for yes answers or no answers without exploration of why.

But if you want to deal only in yes or no answers, maybe this thread isn't for you.

 

[Liberasit]

I don't see any reason to relegate this article, or any others. I think we should be challenged to try to understand what the reformers had in mind (rather than write them off as wrong).

To me, there is compelling scripture to support this article, but also some that make this notion uncomfortable.

Bottom line is the God is the creator and author of the universe. It's totally up to our sovereign Lord as to who receives his grace or not. It's his to give or take away.

It's also very clear based on our human experience that some people will never "get" God, despite our obedience to the Lord's command to tell others.

We also have to remember that the bible tells us everything we need to know, not everything we want to know.

 

[Albion]

If it's not too late for this, I feel that we need to have more information about what the OP is asking.

We read:

Do we as the Communion still feel this adequately describes our view of predestination and election, do we no longer hold to these principles. Are we more Arminian in interpretation of this article then Calvinist?

But we don't have much to go on when it comes to how the writer of the OP himself understands that Article. And because he won't accept a simple statement from anyone saying they find the Article to be OK just as it is, it's hard to see how there can be any discussion if his role is merely that of saying "no" to the opinions of others.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

I would suggest reading A commentary on the thirty-nine articles : forming an introduction to the theology of the Church of England by TP Boultbee and A theological introduction to the Thirty-nine articles of the Church of England by EJ Bicknell.

Bicknell addresses the XXII article thusly:

The Christian, like the Jew of old, is elect, or, to put it in modern English, selected, not because God arbitrarily saves one man and passes over or condemns another, but because God's plan is to save men through men.

...

Either a nation or individual may at this moment not be elect for two reasons. (a) Their opportunity may not have come. As the article says, God's spirit works in due season. (b) Their opportunity may have come and been rejected (cp. Acts 13:46). In Scripture the 'reprobate' are not those doomed to eternal damnation by some arbitrary decree of God, but those that disobey the light that is given to them (Ro 1:28, 2 Cor 13:5).

...

We are chosen according to God's purpose, not to any merely earthly destiny. But whether we attain it or not depends upon ourselves. Such election is God's method of leading us to salvation, but it needs to be made sure by our own efforts to live up to it (2 Pt 1:10; cp. 1 Col 3:12).

Both Boultbee and Bicknell write in a way which I today would feel comfortable reading as being both Evangelical and Catholic, as their interpretations are scripturally sound and Catholic in the sense that that they conform to the faith, order and tradition of the Church, East and West.

I think it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the Articles must either be Calvinist or Arminian and that if we view them now as Calvinist they ought to be re-written. The Articles cannot be re-written; we have no more authority to re-write the Articles than we do to re-write the Nicene Creed or suspend the Lambeth Quadrilateral (*cough*).

 

[Targaryen]

If it's not too late for this, I feel that we need to have more information about what the OP is asking.

We read:

Do we as the Communion still feel this adequately describes our view of predestination and election, do we no longer hold to these principles. Are we more Arminian in interpretation of this article then Calvinist?

But we don't have much to go on when it comes to how the writer of the OP himself understands that Article. And because he won't accept a simple statement from anyone saying they find the Article to be OK just as it is, it's hard to see how there can be any discussion if his role is merely that of saying "no" to the opinions of others.

I've been doing my own research on this article which is why i've not really said anyhing in regards to the question I asked cause simply I didn't know if I stood on the full Calvinist side given my own baptism and early Christian instruction in the United church of Canada, which is a pretty much Calvinism meets Wesley Arminianism. But in the end I think I line up more in line with Calvin's views least on Predestination and Election.

However that does not mean I don't think the question of the article should be a simple "there's nothing wrong with it leave it alone" when it's far more interesting and far more telling to see if there is a general consensus of how we view the article or not.

I'm not sure if we as the communion could sit down nowadays and discuss soteriology like this if we'd be really in one sense of the understanding laid out in the Article or not. Molinism is just as much a soteriological concept that hasn't been discussed within our doorstep much. It's things like that that led my to ask the questions in the OP.

But of course, when I challenge the non-in depth answers, it's the easy scapegoat to say "well he's not answering."Maybe we can get to the questions I raised now?

 

[PaladinValer]

Despite what most people think, the Article is as mud and that was its intent.

While it may look Calvinistic up front, there are a few areas that would make most Calvinists squirm, particularly the final sentence, which directly contradicts anything truly Calvinist.

The Article is as clear as mud; anyone who says "it backs Arminianism up" or "it backs Calvinism" up needs to be reeducated in theology and English.

 

[Shane R]

Slightly off-topic but I find it interesting how the views within church bodies of their traditional documents evolve. For instance, the ELCA has relegated the Book of Concord to a position of being historically interesting to the study of Lutheranism but not necessarily the Bible distilled as the conservative synods see it. The Church of the Nazarene and Wesleyan Church periodically review their manuals and issue changes or addendums.

The Anglican communion seems almost to invert the order of who protests most. In my experience, admittedly not broad, it seems that some very conservative continuing bodies have the least use for the articles. I wonder how many lay Anglicans are capable of an educated conversation on the articles. It seems they are not given much attention.

 

[PaladinValer]

Slightly off-topic but I find it interesting how the views within church bodies of their traditional documents evolve. For instance, the ELCA has relegated the Book of Concord to a position of being historically interesting to the study of Lutheranism but not necessarily the Bible distilled as the conservative synods see it. The Church of the Nazarene and Wesleyan Church periodically review their manuals and issue changes or addendums.

The Anglican communion seems almost to invert the order of who protests most. In my experience, admittedly not broad, it seems that some very conservative continuing bodies have the least use for the articles. I wonder how many lay Anglicans are capable of an educated conversation on the articles. It seems they are not given much attention.

I will admit to once being negative about the Articles, but continued study made me change my mind.

And I believe your point about the capability to truly converse about them is right on target. In the States here, that is going to be more rare, although there are plenty still who can, and I think they are slowly but surely coming back into view.

 

[graceandpeace]

I don't want to throw the thread off-topic, but is there anywhere I can read this article in today's English? Because honestly the older English is difficult for a sleep-deprived mom to read.

 

[PaladinValer]

I don't want to throw the thread off-topic, but is there anywhere I can read this article in today's English? Because honestly the older English is difficult for a sleep-deprived mom to read.

Sadly, I don't think such exists.

 

[Albion]

Despite what most people think, the Article is as mud and that was its intent.

While it may look Calvinistic up front, there are a few areas that would make most Calvinists squirm, particularly the final sentence, which directly contradicts anything truly Calvinist.

The Article is as clear as mud; anyone who says "it backs Arminianism up" or "it backs Calvinism" up needs to be reeducated in theology and English.

I don't think we should say it's as mud for taking a careful middle-road approach to the issue. Anyone who reads it carefully, weighing what actually is being said, and not just relying upon the title to predict the contents, will see the truth of what you said about it at the end of your post. It's neither an affirmation of Calvinistic Predestination nor an affirmation of its opposite. As with so many other issues, the extremes are rejected while acknowledging that each of them has something to say that's correct.

We often say, with pride, that Anglicanism is the "Middle Way." Here's a great example of that point. We shouldn't be treating this article as a mistake or as something we've outgrown.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

I don't want to throw the thread off-topic, but is there anywhere I can read this article in today's English? Because honestly the older English is difficult for a sleep-deprived mom to read.

Not re-written into modern English, but JI Packer's exposition on the 39 Articles examines each one for archaic words that might be difficult to understand. Boultbee's book which I cited early begins each section by examining the language and reads the Articles in both the original English and Latin to unpack the linguistic nuance.

 

[PaladinValer]

I don't think we should say it's as mud for taking a careful middle-road approach to the issue. Anyone who reads it carefully, weighing what actually is being said, and not just relying upon the title to predict the contents, will see the truth of what you said about it at the end of your post. It's neither an affirmation of Calvinistic Predestination nor an affirmation of its opposite. As with so many other issues, the extremes are rejected while acknowledging that each of them has something to say that's correct.

While that isn't an unreasonable interpretation, the thing is, many of the Articles were deliberately written to be as muddy as possible so that the CoE could truly be the church for all. It was all a part of Elizabeth I's very clever way to unite her people.

We often say, with pride, that Anglicanism is the "Middle Way." Here's a great example of that point. We shouldn't be treating this article as a mistake or as something we've outgrown.

Oh the Article wasn't a mistake, although it does need to be reevaluated.

 

[Liberasit]

I don't want to throw the thread off-topic, but is there anywhere I can read this article in today's English? Because honestly the older English is difficult for a sleep-deprived mom to read.

Here you go...