Calvinism Within Anglicanism

[mark46]

How acceptable are Calvinist views to you all?

Calvinism is deep-rooted within many Angican churches.

This was made clear to me in a recent post where J I Packer is acknowledged by one and all as one of the great Anglican theologians. I guess I just didn't believe Metropolitan Jonah when he spoke to ACNA and indicated that Calvinism was one of the major stubling blocks to any communion between Anglicans and the EO.

 

[ebia]

I guess any answer would depend (amongst other things) on exactly what one meant by Calvinism.

 

[mark46]

Shall we walk through the tulips?

We might start with limited atonement.

We might discuss Wesley vs. Whitefield regarding free will and prevenient grace.

We might discuss OSAS.

I guess any answer would depend (amongst other things) on exactly what one meant by Calvinism.

 

[aniello]

Calvin/Calvinism? May God forbid!

Calvin should posthumously be given a Noble prize for early work in Robotics.

Predestination demands double predestination.

TULIP is a noxious weed.

 

[Drax]

It's definitely an acknowledged piece of the Anglican puzzle. He was a brilliant man, and a lot of great Christians (like Packer and Whitefield...is Stott one too?) are in that tradition. I've met some very Calvinist Anglicans before, and I'm probably a little more "High Church" than they might like ; but I try not to bash him like some people do. Calvinists, Wesleyans, and Anglo-Catholics all have beliefs and members that are capable of giving the entire movement a bad name. I'd sooner blame sin for that than the theologians themselves!

 

[ebia]

Shall we walk through the tulips?

's up to you. What I meant was that some Anglicans might actually see themselves as Calvinist - Sydney, for example. Some others would see themselves as in the tradition of John Calvin, without taking on all of the baggage that is usually associated with "Calvinism", lots of which post-dates Calvin himself by varying amounts (eg Tom Wright) or necessarily agreeing with Calvin at all points. A good number of Anglicans would take on the 39 Articles, which owe a fair bit to Calvin at various points.

 

[mark46]

I think I understand a bit better now. I am a relatively new Anglican ( 2 years).

In some sense, I better understand why schism seems inevitable.

I have always thought of Anglicanism as the Church of the West before the Roman errors after 787. When I read Rowan Williams and even John Wesley, I see their deep foundations in the early fathers of the Church. Obviously much has been added to the Anglican Tradition since 787. I do belong to a very conservative Anglican parish with links to many local churches throughout the world. But we are not conservative in the sense of being Anglo-Catholic, just conservative Anglicans.

When I taught in the Baptist and Catholic churches, I had to come to terms with the 5 tulips. I particularly had to come to terms with SOS, predetermination and free will. In the end, I had no problem siding with Wesley. To this day, when I am praying about a theological issue, I will check Wessley (and most recently also EO). To me, much of Calvin did and does seem foreign to what I understand the orthodox faith to be.

's up to you. What I meant was that some Anglicans might actually see themselves as Calvinist - Sydney, for example. Some others would see themselves as in the tradition of John Calvin, without taking on all of the baggage that is usually associated with "Calvinism", lots of which post-dates Calvin himself by varying amounts (eg Tom Wright) or necessarily agreeing with Calvin at all points. A good number of Anglicans would take on the 39 Articles, which owe a fair bit to Calvin at various points.

 

[ebia]

I think I understand a bit better now. I am a relatively new Anglican ( 2 years).

In some sense, I better understand why schism seems inevitable.

On the whole, though, were not a church that draws the line in the sand about that sort of issue.

 

[ebia]

Sigh.

We might start by observing that there is no institution called "the Anglican Church" for which you to attach your criteria too, not that they appear to even correspond to the Canons of any particular national church in the Communion nor seem to align with the Book of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles nor Thomas Cranmer.

You can maintain that your view of things is what Anglicanism should look like, but you can't get away with trying to claim that's what it universally does or ever did look like.

Nor can you enforce non-existent rule of a non-existent body to try to exclude everyone with a different vision.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

[

Sigh.

We might start by observing that there is no institution called "the Anglican Church" for which you to attach your criteria too, not that they appear to even correspond to the Canons of any particular national church in the Communion nor seem to align with the Book of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles nor Thomas Cranmer.

You surprise me! if we interpret Anglican as latin for English, Baeda referred to the Ecclesia Anglicana in his History of the English Church. In 1215, in the Magna Carta Document again this term defined the Church in England. All through the middle ages the Church in England, in correspondence with the Continental Churches chose the usage "Sainte Eglise, d'Angliterre", to define themselves to their correspondents? (History mag. 1960. Denis Hay) According to Hay, the term was translated to mean either the Church of England or the Church in England.

correspond to the canons of any particular national church in the Communion nor seem to align with the Book of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles nor Thomas Cranmer.

The Church in England at regular intervals , some time within a year or two, regularly affirmed its belief in the Councils of the Church, this went on from well before the Norman Conquest and well after in local synods. Thomas More pointed out to Lord Cromwell, that in More's opinion, the Pope was subserviant to the Councils. In 1536 & 42 the English Synod stated its belief that the Church in England accepted the First four Councils and as many others as was necessary! (7 Ecumenical Councils.) This was even accepted by Parliament in 1558/9. In 1571 Convocation again stated its case claiming that nothing should be taught except that it derived from the ancient bishops and teachers. ( Rough Trans.) Interestingly Cranmer and Hooper along with Ridley (?) all stated their acceptance of the Councils along with the Church's claim to catholicity!

of any particular national church in the Communion nor seem to align with the Book of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles nor Thomas Cranmer.

In view of the continued belief off the Church, well over a thousand years at the time of the Articles, it is as well to remember that according to "Anglican usage,' the Articles should be seen through the image, or perspective, of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. (Kidd, 39 Articles.)

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Without wishing to be rude or insensitive you are wrong! Anglicanism is simply catholicism with an English face, it is the distillation of catholicism deriving from two thousand years of belief in the Revelation of Christ ,Scripture and the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These latter, as I have been taught are a means of communication and input by the Holy Ghost within the structure of the Body of Christ here on earth.

If your Church doesn't believe in these things, then no matter what is on the Church Notice Board or whatever, it does not fill the criteria demanded by the Anglican Church for membership. It doesn't hold to the faith once revealed by Christ to the Saints, taught by Him to the apostles and passed on to the Ancient Catholic Fathers! In my opinion you are in an Anglican Sect!

We don't have mandatory beliefs in our church beyond what we say in the creed (or similar affirmation).

Each person is at their own stage in their Christian journey. It can take some time to come to a point of view on each matter of theology.

The criteria for formal membership is very simple - be baptised and either live in the parish or habitually worship for six months.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

To be perfectly honest, Bede was dodgy at best.

 

[ebia]

As I said, you are welcome to try argue that your image of Anglicanism is the historically best one. Ive been here long enough to know that such debates never go anywhere so I'm not going to engage with it except to say that if you don't think Cranmer took on a good deal of Calvin your reinventing history to suit yourself.

What you can't do is try to enforce it by non-existent rules of membership to a non-existent body. My parish is in good standing in an Australian diocese in full communion with the See of Canterbury, and therefore is Anglican whether you like it or not.

 

[file13]

Predestination demands double predestination.

What a strange comment. You do realize that predestination comes from Scripture, not Calvin right? The real debate (which I'm not trying to provoke) revolves around how one understands predestination--does it mean God looks into the future and sees who will believe or does it involve some sort of decree by God? I just wanted to point this out because I think your comment will come back to haunt you the next time you read Ephesians 1, Romans 8, and Act 4.

But regarding Met. Jonah of the OCA, I'm a former OCA Christian and I'm a bit perplexed why Anglicans care what Met. Jonah has to say about Anglicanism? After all, unity with Orthodoxy means to Orthodox Christians that you become Orthodox Christians. They might allow you a quick catechizing period and possibly even to worship with some sort of "Western Rite" (though only the Antiochians and ROCOR currently have Western Rites), but otherwise "unity" to the Orthodox simply means "join us." Any serious "dialogue" with Anglicans is always done with the hope that they might poach some sheep and by Met. Jonah's own admission, they're quite good at that (as he said in a sermon once). I don't say this to be rude or overly critical of Orthodoxy, but the bottom line is that they will demand Anglicans to accept all Orthodox doctrine before allowing communion with them, which basically means that you become Eastern Orthodox or maybe, Western Rite Orthodox. Of course if one wants to become Orthodox, that's another story. But I just don't understand what Anglicans think they'll achieve with dialogue with the Orthodox or why anyone would care what the Orthodox think of Anglicans. It's pretty much a become Orthodox or not scenario as far as the Orthodox are concerned.

As for Calvinism (and we haven't settled into a church so please take my comments as coming from a Protestant who thinks Anglicanism has much to offer), the Episcopal and Anglican churches we've been to seem fine with both "Presbyterians with Prayerbooks" as they are with "Catholics with Prayerbooks" or even "Liberals with Bibles." Although most we've been to are more on the Anglo-Catholic side, as others have mentioned, there are a great many historical Anglicans who hold to Reformed theology and the fact that Cranmer invited Calvin to England is probably a good indicator that the Lutheran and Reformed Churches were considered to be brothers in arms.

Personally, I find the 39 Articles to lean towards the Reformed side of things and as long as Anglicans treat them as some sort of standard, I really don't see how one could exclude Reformed theology from Anglicanism.

In any case, hope this helps!

 

[mark46]

Obviously, orthodoxy does not matter if Anglicanism has no distinctives at all, just the local church affirming the Creed.

Your view about Orthodoxy is different than mine.
YouTube - A Journey to the Ancient Church (part 1 of 4)
Peter E. Gillquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peter Gillquist is the current leader of missions of the Antiochian Orthodox Church USA. He and 6 other leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ spent a couple of decades seaching, formed a seprate church body, and eventually brought most of those in his churches to Orthodoxy when the Patriarch welcomed them with open arms.

Saint Tinkhon came close to concecrating an Anglican bishop to be a bsihop in the Orthodox Church. Their worship would used the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

These two examples are of Western churches being accepted as Orthodox.

There is only one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. I think it fine to believe that there are branches of the one true Church. I believe that to be true.

However, I believe that it is an accident of history that Archbishop of Cantebury is not the Patriarch of the Anglican Orthodox Church. If Rome would reject supremacy of Peter in favor of primacy of Peter, and sit down in Council, the Patriarch of Rome might be accepted by many.
================================

The Orthodox option is an interesting one for Anglican churches. ACNA may in end choose to accept the authority of OCA. They probably will not any time soon. Others may choose to follow many of the Crusade for Christ in their path toward the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Or ACNA and other outsiders may decide to accept second class membership within the Anglican Communion, or the Communion might divide into parts.

Orthodoxy is one option within the universal Church. It is certainly not the only one. However, I do take a different view from yours. While I agree that Met. Jonah (and the other metropolitans) want to add numbers to their existing churches, there may an opportunity for whole church to come into orthodoxy and keep much of their American heritage, as Peter Gillcrest has done. Peter Gillcrest is not a priest in a Greek Church or a Russian Church, a Roman Church or even an English Church. He is a priest in an American Church which is part of the universal church.

.
But regarding Met. Jonah of the OCA, I'm a former OCA Christian and I'm a bit perplexed why Anglicans care what Met. Jonah has to say about Anglicanism? After all, unity with Orthodoxy means to Orthodox Christians that you become Orthodox Christians. They might allow you a quick catechizing period and possibly even to worship with some sort of "Western Rite" (though only the Antiochians and ROCOR currently have Western Rites), but otherwise "unity" to the Orthodox simply means "join us." Any serious "dialogue" with Anglicans is always done with the hope that they might poach some sheep and by Met. Jonah's own admission, they're quite good at that (as he said in a sermon once). I don't say this to be rude or overly critical of Orthodoxy, but the bottom line is that they will demand Anglicans to accept all Orthodox doctrine before allowing communion with them, which basically means that you become Eastern Orthodox or maybe, Western Rite Orthodox. Of course if one wants to become Orthodox, that's another story. But I just don't understand what Anglicans think they'll achieve with dialogue with the Orthodox or why anyone would care what the Orthodox think of Anglicans. It's pretty much a become Orthodox or not scenario as far as the Orthodox are concerned.

 

[file13]

Oh yes, I'm quite familiar with Peter Gillquist (I have the book which this video is based on). If someone is interested in becoming Orthodox, that's their decision, and you seem to be flirting with the concept. But I was simply trying to emphasize that no matter how highly you regard the Orthodox and consider yourself part of the universal Church (branch theory, which the Orthodox reject outright), the Orthodox simply cannot in good conscience reciprocate. In the "Mind of the Church," the only real "True Church" is the Orthodox Church and if you're an Anglican, Catholic, or Protestant, you're not a part of it, which is why you're not in communion with them, which literally means you can't take communion with them. Like Catholics, there's only one option when it comes to unity. Join them. Otherwise you'll have to come to terms with the fact that you can only really be friendly with them, but never share in the body of Christ with them, because you're not in the body of Christ, His Church, with them as far as they are concerned.

In other words, they only way to be in union with the Orthodox is to abandon Anglicanism. There sadly are no other options in this regard. I don't think most Anglicans would find this an acceptable option.

 

[mark46]

I agree with all that you say. Neither Orthodox or RCC will accept any but their own. Most Anglicans maintain an open invitation to the Table to all Christians.

God has brought me to my local Anglican church for a reason. He will show me more in His time.

However, I cannot accept that I belong to one of 20,000 denominations and groups of folks who get together each week and follow Jesus. There is one Church. Most EO, RCC, Anglicans and Lutherans all understand this. For me, to be orthodox is to affirm and follow the teachings of the Church, which have been agreed to by the undivided Church. What is most difficult is to understand how the Holy Spirit has spoken to the Church in these divided times since 787.

Should we all decide on our own what to believe about what was unstated through 787? Should we interpret scripture on our own? Are we our own Tradition? Or must we discern which Traditions of each of the Churches are meaningful, which Church ahs it right on various issues.

Orthodox do some things very wrong. For example, they certainly don't understand gender issues very well at all. With regard to dogma, they seem to have much more right and consistent than others, certainly much more so than Protestants and Catholics. As we have been demonstrating here, Anglicans are a very big tent. We are right and wrong and in the middle on many issues.

The RCC has it right. All churches have been given a measure of the Truth, some more than others. They believe that only they have the full deposit of faith, an error that they have maintained for a thousand years. For me, no one has that full deposit of faith.

Brother George, my mentor and a Baptist pastor, taught me long ago that I should find a local church that is doing God's work and dig in and work. I have found such a church. Brother George also taught me the importance of continuing to pray, to study scripture and study the discplines of the church.

.In other words, they only way to be in union with the Orthodox is to abandon Anglicanism. There sadly are no other options in this regard. I don't think most Anglicans would find this an acceptable option.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

The difference between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, especially as the latter is claimed on this board, is that Orthodoxy claims to be the Church! This is all right by me, but I am struck by the fact that Rome makes a similar claim, so we have the ridiculous position of two Churches claiming to be the One, Holy <Catholic and Apostolic Church in itself. Whereas the Anglican Church,or the Church in England claims to be no more than a Communion of Catholic Believers. Further for modern Canterbury Anglicans they do not appear to have strong traditional beliefs at all but settle for what strikes them at a particular moment1

 

[ebia]

What would it mean to claim to be "a communion of catholic believers"?

Historically, of course, the CofE claimed as much exclusivity as anyone else, but only within its geographical sphere.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

The difference between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, especially as the latter is claimed on this board, is that Orthodoxy claims to be the Church! This is all right by me, but I am struck by the fact that Rome makes a similar claim, so we have the ridiculous position of two Churches claiming to be the One, Holy <Catholic and Apostolic Church in itself. Whereas the Anglican Church,or the Church in England claims to be no more than a Communion of Catholic Believers. Further for modern Canterbury Anglicans they do not appear to have strong traditional beliefs at all but settle for what strikes them at a particular moment1

examples, please