Calvinism in the Anglican Communion

[Cappadocious]

That view would say that at that point those people would be annihilated in some way.

So... because they refuse to love God, God takes away their ability to refuse him by annihilating them, revoking their existence.

 

[MKJ]

So... because they refuse to love God, God takes away their ability to refuse him by annihilating them, revoking their existence.

I dont think people who believe that would put it that way, and it rather seems like you are deliberately trying to present it in the most stupid and unappealing way possible.

As far as I can tell, and I am not an expert on this, people who believe this interpret the lake of fire as essentially the destruction of everything that is not reconciled to God and made anew. And they would not say that God revokes their existence, but rather that they themselves choose non-existance in choosing, freely and with a clear vision, to separate themselves finally from God the source of life.

Your criticism seems a little ill-aimed, actually, given that you have been arguing that God is not the one inflicting punishment upon people in hell, but rather they are experiencing God according to their own disposition to him. The idea that people after the final judgement choose annihilation by choosing a particular relation to the source of life uses the same logic.

 

[Cappadocious]

The idea that people after the final judgement choose annihilation by choosing a particular relation to the source of life uses the same logic.

If the "damned" are humble enough to request annihilation from God, then they are on the path toward salvation, are they not?

If the damned do not want annihilation from God, and want to choose to keep existing as they are, to annihilate them would be to revoke their freedom.

The entire line of annihilationist thinking, as it's floating around the evangelical milieu at the moment, is based on a popular neoplatonic understanding of human life and the soul, that goes like this:

1. To exist, for a human, is to have a conscious mind-soul.
2. To cease to exist means to have an unconscious mind-soul.

Neoplatonic immortality: There is existence after dying/hell because the mind-soul continues to be concious.
Neoplatonic conditionalism/annihilationism: There is no existence after dying/hell because there ceases to be a conscious mind-soul.

The problem is, ancient near eastern peoples didn't really have that understanding of existence after death at all.

given that you have been arguing that God is not the one inflicting punishment upon people in hell, but rather they are experiencing God according to their own disposition to him.

Have I? I see no contradiction between the two.

 

[MKJ]

If the "damned" are humble enough to request annihilation from God, then they are on the path toward salvation, are they not?

If the damned do not want annihilation from God, and want to choose to keep existing as they are, to annihilate them would be to revoke their freedom.

The entire line of annihilationist thinking, as it's floating around the evangelical milieu at the moment, is based on a popular neoplatonic understanding of human life and the soul, that goes like this:

1. To exist, for a human, is to have a conscious mind-soul.
2. To cease to exist means to have an unconscious mind-soul.

Neoplatonic immortality: There is existence after dying/hell because the mind-soul continues to be concious.
Neoplatonic conditionalism/annihilationism: There is no existence after dying/hell because there ceases to be a conscious mind-soul.

The problem is, ancient near eastern peoples didn't really have that understanding of existence after death at all.


Have I? I see no contradiction between the two.

I never said there was a contradiction. Between the two what I really have no clue what you are talking about at this point.

To say that willing complete separation from God is asking for annihilation is silly, and more so to say that is a sign of humility. You might as well say that people who will things that are not of God and then suffer Hell as a consequence are asking to be in the eternal fire, and that this is a sign of recognizing their need for repentance.

I am not really sure what it is you are trying to argue for. You keep talking in little sound bites to contradict some small aspect of what is being said by whomever. It makes for a difficlt to understand discssion, and one which seems to have little point.

 

[Cappadocious]

I never said there was a contradiction. Between the two what

That the punishment is "inflicted" by God, and that it is caused by the disposition of the wicked. You said I was arguing against the former.

To say that willing complete separation from God is asking for annihilation is silly

Asking for separation is asking to continue to exist separately, not to be annihilated. Hence my disagreement with the neoplatonic understanding of annihilationism as it exists today. If one asked God for annihilation, that would be different than asking to exist out of communion with him.

 

[HereIStand]

Some time ago, I had a nice phone conversation with a gentleman serving with the Anglican Province of Christ the King, which leans Anglo-Catholic. During our conversation, we briefly touched on the topic of justification. He said that did not have a conflict with justification, but he also added that he was not a Calvinist. So, maybe Calvinism is more broadly defined within Anglicanism to mean Reformation theology in general (as the central focus of one's theology?), rather than views on predestination or the atonement.

 

[Albion]

Some time ago, I had a nice phone conversation with a gentleman serving with the Anglican Province of Christ the King, which leans Anglo-Catholic. During our conversation, we briefly touched on the topic of justification. He said that did not have a conflict with justification, but he also added that he was not a Calvinist. So, maybe Calvinism is more broadly defined within Anglicanism to mean Reformation theology in general (as the central focus of one's theology?), rather than views on predestination or the atonement.

I followed what you were saying up until the last sentence. Anglicans come in many varieties and, yes, the APCK is at the Anglo-Catholic end of things. But when he says that he's not a Calvinist, it seems to me that he means just that. It is common for Anglicans to believe in justification by faith but not to agree with all of Calvin's points, let alone his views on other subjects. There's no special definition of anything in that.

 

[kb5462]

I followed what you were saying up until the last sentence. Anglicans come in many varieties and, yes, the APCK is at the Anglo-Catholic end of things. But when he says that he's not a Calvinist, it seems to me that he means just that. It is common for Anglicans to believe in justification by faith but not to agree with all of Calvin's points, let alone his views on other subjects. There's no special definition of anything in that.

Well said. I am an Anglo-Catholic, and I believe (essentially) in justification by faith, but reject Calvinism.

 

[HereIStand]

I followed what you were saying up until the last sentence. Anglicans come in many varieties and, yes, the APCK is at the Anglo-Catholic end of things. But when he says that he's not a Calvinist, it seems to me that he means just that. It is common for Anglicans to believe in justification by faith but not to agree with all of Calvin's points, let alone his views on other subjects. There's no special definition of anything in that.

Perhaps not. In any other context, I can't recall hearing a person defined as a Calvinist in relation to holding a Protestant belief on justification. Despite other theological differences, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Wesleyans share a belief in justification, and theological agreement (or disagreement) with Calvinism is not part of the discussion.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Um, No.

I am not sure where you would get that from what i said.

That view would say that at that point those people would be annihilated in some way.

What you are discribing here is "Annihilationism". I don't think that that is Calvinist. It is doctrine that is held, I believe, by the Adventists, Christidelphians, and Herbert Armstrong's Church of God; and according to this article, it is held by some Anglicans: Annihilationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I'm a bit surprised by that.

 

[Albion]

What you are discribing here is "Annihilationism". I don't think that that is Calvinist. It is doctrine that is held, I believe, by the Adventists, Christidelphians, and Herbert Armstrong's Church of God; and according to this article, it is held by some Anglicans: Annihilationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I'm a bit surprised by that.

It might be that the several clergymen named in the article were allowing for the possibility more than they were adopting it themselves. In any case, I can't say that I've ever met an Anglican who professed a belief in annihilationism.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It might be that the several clergymen named in the article were allowing for the possibility more than they were adopting it themselves. In any case, I can't say that I've ever met an Anglican who professed a belief in annihilationism.

Me either; I have seen nothing that even hinted at it in the BoCP or the 39 Articles.

 

[Albion]

Me either; I have seen nothing that even hinted at it in the BoCP or the 39 Articles.

Definitely not there, but I was also thinking of any other communication that's come my way at any time --some individual's comment, a journal article, church bulletin, webpage, a sermon, etc. Still nothing.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Definitely not there, but I was also thinking of any other communication that's come my way at any time --some individual's comment, a journal article, church bulletin, webpage, a sermon, etc. Still nothing.

Confessional Lutherans had to deal with the "Crypto-Calvinist Controversy" (still do for that matter); could it be that there are "Crypto-Annihilationists within Anglicanism?

 

[MKJ]

What you are discribing here is "Annihilationism". I don't think that that is Calvinist. It is doctrine that is held, I believe, by the Adventists, Christidelphians, and Herbert Armstrong's Church of God; and according to this article, it is held by some Anglicans: Annihilationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I'm a bit surprised by that.

Me too. I am not sure that I have ever met any Anglicans with that view.

I agree it is not Calvinist in origin.

 

[MKJ]

That the punishment is "inflicted" by God, and that it is caused by the disposition of the wicked. You said I was arguing against the former.

This is what Crandaddy seems to be saying - that the two do not contradict. If you agree, I dont know why you are arguing over it with him.

Asking for separation is asking to continue to exist separately, not to be annihilated. Hence my disagreement with the neoplatonic understanding of annihilationism as it exists today. If one asked God for annihilation, that would be different than asking to exist out of communion with him.

I dont hold the POV we are discussing, but I still think what you are saying falls into the problem I pointed out. Asking to exist separately from the source of life would seem, logically, to be asking to give up life. That would be a logical consequence. people who ask to exist outside of communion with God are not asking to experience eternal torment either, they want to exist in a more comfortable way but apart from God. But that is not really possible, so they suffer.

I do not see how this idea can be considered to be neoplatonic in origin. The Christian groups which espouse it are not ones that are influenced by neoplatonism. In any case, given that Christianity itself is pretty thoroughly neoplatonic, I dont think that is a very useful measure of whether it is bad or not.

 

[Fotis Greece]

The Anglican Church is mainly Arminian in doctrine and that is because of the influence of the Caroline Divines. The Calvinist elements of the early Reformation were absorbed by the Puritans.

 

[A Rhys]

Two things to consider. 1: The majority of English Puritans in the 17th century were non-separating; that is, they remained members of the Church of England. The Puritans were, of course, thoroughly Calvinist.

2. The 39 Articles, particular 10 (Of Free Will) and 27 (Of Predestination and Election). The Articles are, at the very least, a document which allows for Calvinist thought within Anglicanism and perhaps, some might argue, a Calvinist document.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Anglican Church is mainly Arminian in doctrine and that is because of the influence of the Caroline Divines. The Calvinist elements of the early Reformation were absorbed by the Puritans.

While its generally true that Anglicanism, on the whole, embraced Arminianism, Calvinist influence continued in Anglicanism to the present day. Generally it was not the full-blown Calvinism found in Scottland, but an attenuated Amyraldianism (being distinguished by an emphasis that Christ died for all, and not merely for the elect).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

While its generally true that Anglicanism, on the whole, embraced Arminianism, Calvinist influence continued in Anglicanism to the present day. Generally it was not the full-blown Calvinism found in Scottland, but an attenuated Amyraldianism (being distinguished by an emphasis that Christ died for all, and not merely for the elect).

Two things to consider. 1: The majority of English Puritans in the 17th century were non-separating; that is, they remained members of the Church of England. The Puritans were, of course, thoroughly Calvinist.

2. The 39 Articles, particular 10 (Of Free Will) and 27 (Of Predestination and Election). The Articles are, at the very least, a document which allows for Calvinist thought within Anglicanism and perhaps, some might argue, a Calvinist document.

I agree with you guys; if one reads the 39 with a 'Lutheran' mindset, one reads a Lutheran document; however if one reads these with a 'Calvinist' mindset, they are Calvinist.