Calvinism Within Anglicanism

[luckyfredsdad]

would you also agree that all baptized Christians are thus catholic?

This statement about a Catholic Bishop laying on hands is confusing, especially because it immediately follows your statement about baptism. Are you saying that a Bishop is required to make a baptism valid? If so, this is in contradiction to the rite of baptism in the BCP where any "minister" is allowed to perform baptism.

Anyone can baptise, but a bishop is preferable. What is necessary is the right form, water and words.

But something tells me what you really mean is that their entry into the catholic faith is not complete until confirmation (as the BCP says), which does require a bishop or a bishops blessing to make the process complete. Is this what you mean?

Yes, for Anglicans this is preferable!

If this is what you mean, there is another important item that you are making implicitly. You are essentially implying that one is not a part of the catholic or universal church unless one is a confirmed member of a church who has an episcopal polity and which has "valid" apostolic succession. By this definition, you're making ones "catholicity" dependent one's affiliation. Is this really what you mean?

This has been the Tradition within the Catholic Church since S.Cyprian's time and still exists.

I ask because if this is what you mean, you're essentially saying that a Lutheran (most Lutherans do not have apostolic succession nor do they consider it important, especially here in the US) or a member of a Reformed Church (which almost certainly does not adhere to an episcopal government), regardless of what they believe and confess, are not a part of the "catholic church." [/quote]

I've already been threatened and have received a caution because I told an Anglican who didn't hold the faith, that in my opinion he was not a valid anglican! Now you are asking me to answer this in a wider context? There are some sensitive souls about, any-road-up, I have to answer you as I consider it my duty as a Clerk In Holy Orders, I do not consider them as Catholics, or members of the Catholic Church!

[quoteAre you really saying that folks in either of these churches who can gladly say the Apostles, Nicean, and Athanisian creeds without hesitation and who can will happily agree to the doctrinal statements of the first four ecumenical councils along with the christological definitions in some of the later ones, are disqualified from the catholic faith because of their church government? This would seem strange to not allow one entry into the "catholic church," the universal body of Christ, simply because one adheres to an alternate form of church government. It also seems quite problematic because you have churches such as the TEC here in the US who is in full communion with the ECLA (Lutheran), which does not meet the requirements. If the TEC is in communion with the CoE, how does one reconcile this?[/quote]
After some 60 years in the C.of E, it became impossible to stay because they appeared not to believe anything that was likely


:

What you've just said is the essence of sola scriptura, although some folks might want you to qualify what you mean by "hold to...Tradition". I.e. what happens if Tradition is in conflict with Scripture?

I do not agree with Sola Scriptura, after all while the foundation for a dogma must exist in scripture and be part of Revelation, it has to be explained and understood, or translated by the bishops in council. My colleague f'rom yestreen put our case quite well and I can't argue with him.

When has Tradition ever been in conflict with Scripture? We are not talking about the Tradions of men, that are rightly criticised by Paul! We are talking about the Bishops in Council under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

 

[file13]

I tend to agree. Do Calvinists read/understand Paul's letter to the Galatians, I wonder...

I hate to repeat myself, but as I mentioned to aniello and because you seem to agree, I feel I should again point out that predestination is a biblical concept. The issue is how does one understand "predestination."

In other words, the comment that predestination always equals double predestination is not true if one holds to the "foreknowledge" view of predestination, which basically says that God looks forward in time and sees who will believe. This is the view of most of the Christian world. It is only in the "Augustanian" view (which is really what Calvin's view was a development of) that logically speaking, predestination must mean double predestination. Some would affirm the Augustinian view, yet deny the logical inference, but they do so in the face of logic and what some would point to as the existence of double predestination in Scripture, aka Romans 9.

As for Galatians, yes, Calvinists do read it and will happily point out where Paul says:

[15] But when he who had set me apart before I was born,[f1] and who called me by his grace, (Galatians 1:15 ESV)

[Footnotes]
=======================================================
[1] 1:15 Greek set me apart from my mother's womb

They would then point out in Romans 9 where Paul echos this, but qualifies an important point:

[9] For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” [10] And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, [11] though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— [12] she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” [13] As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9:9-13 ESV)

Not only does Paul again refer to God's choice prior to one's being born, he also feels the need to mention explicitly that this choosing was done prior to them doing anything good or bad.

So regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, Calvinists are clearly not ignorant of Scripture, nor would I add or Arminians, Lutherans, or those who have a view that's not quite any of these. The issue is all about how one understands and interprets predestination, not that it exists or that one side is not reading Scripture. If we have any faith in Christ and what He has revealed in Scripture, predestination clearly is something God does.

 

[file13]

Thanks for the clarification luckyfredsdad!

I've already been threatened and have received a caution because I told an Anglican who didn't hold the faith, that in my opinion he was not a valid anglican! Now you are asking me to answer this in a wider context? There are some sensitive souls about, any-road-up, I have to answer you as I consider it my duty as a Clerk In Holy Orders, I do not consider them as Catholics, or members of the Catholic Church!

My apologies for putting you on the spot. I'm new here wave and didn't know that others have already expressed that what you're saying here (regardelss of who's right) does not jive with the wider Anglican communion. This is what I was trying to determine myself and it's clear where you stand. So thanks for that and I'll leave it at that.

 

[mark46]

I thought that I would attempt a bit of a summary from my perspective.

1) The 5 solas are the primary confession of the Reformation. Almost all Anglicans accept them (of course, one cannot say "all" Anglican accept anything at all). As we have discussed, sola scriptura can be misunderstood and misapplied. You and I may or may not have any real disagreement on what sola scriptura should mean. I believe that ALL Christians should understand where they stand on each of the solas.

2) IMHO, the 39 Articles are accepted in full as a confession of of faith by relatively few Anglicans in 2011. I may be incorrect in this regard if ACNA really believes in the Articles as they state. IMHO, the Articles fulfilled their purpose in the 1500's and 1600's.

3) The 5 points of TULIP, which DEFINE what has been called Calvinism is not generally accepted by Anglicans, although there are may who accept some or all of the points. For me, and for many, the teachings of Calvin are heretical (or would be deemd so if the were a Council of the undivided Church to make such a determination, as was done with regard to heresies during the first third of the existence of the Church. For me, there are no teachings that have led more people away from the faith than the teachings of John Calvin.

I do? I'm sorry brother, but I'm simply bringing up the Articles to show that sola scriptura and Calvinism are a part of the tradition. That's all.



Then we have no argument. My comments were to the folks in this thread who deny this.

As for Wesley, good for you. I personally don't think that these specific details of sotierology are "essentials." Of course they absolutely will color one's view of God, but as long as we all affirm sola gratia -> sola fide -> soli Deo gloria, folks can argue all they like about the specifics for all I care.

BTW: there's only 1 tulip, not 5. (I'm being silly of course....)

 

[file13]

I thought that I would attempt a bit of a summary from ny perspective.

Fair enough.

2) IMHO, the 39 Articles are accepted in full as a confession of of faith by relative few Anglicans in 2011. I may be incorrect in this regard if ACNA really believes in the Articles as they state. IMHO, the Articles fulfilled their purpose in the 1500's and 1600's.

Gotcha. I absolutely agree with you that few Anglicans take them seriously in 2011. I was just mentioning that "officially" in the CoE, they were indeed considered to be the "English confession" (classical Anglican systematic theologies like Litton will confirm this) and even though they are ignored in practice, they do remain (at least on paper) something which the clergy of the CoE are still required to acknowledge as "agreeable to the Word of God." This isn't the case elsewhere in the communion (like here in the US), but officially, the Articles are still in effect in the CoE and thus, the clergy must affirm that Articles, including those which fall on the Calvinistic side of things.

BTW: Who knows what the ACNA thinks!? A friend of mine who's in seminary right now (he's in the REC, which is techincally a part of the ACNA) seems to think that the ACNA is ready to implode any day now. We shall see, but frankly, I think he might be right.

3) The 5 points of TULIP, which DEFINE what has been called Calvinism is not generally accepted by Anglicans, although there are may who accept some or all of the points. For me, and for many, the teachings of Calvin are heretical (or would be deemd so if the were a Council of the undivided Church to make such a determination, as was done with regard to heresies during the first third of the existence of the Church. For me, there are no teachings that have led more people away from the faith than the teachings of John Calvin.

Again, fair enough. I personally think that folks on either side of the debate go too far in accusing each other of heresy, but that's just me. I am also a bit surprised by the statement that folks are led away from the faith by Calvin. I'm never met any former Christian that left because of Calvinism. Again, maybe it's just me.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I've already been threatened and have received a caution because I told an Anglican who didn't hold the faith, that in my opinion he was not a valid anglican! Now you are asking me to answer this in a wider context? There are some sensitive souls about, any-road-up, I have to answer you as I consider it my duty as a Clerk In Holy Orders, I do not consider them as Catholics, or members of the Catholic Church!

I don't think it is very Anglican to tell someone who lives in England and believes themselves to be Anglican that they are not. It is our duty and our joy to minister to everyone, whatever point they are on their Christian journey.

After some 60 years in the C.of E, it became impossible to stay because they appeared not to believe anything that was likely to offend the postman even. So I left and put myself under a Continuing Church Bishop!



I do not believe in Sola Scriptura as I understand it as scripture has to be understood through the prism of the Bishops in Council! I believe my colleague explained things quite well yestreen!

 

[Naomi4Christ]

We recently discussed the first half of the articles here on STR and I was quite disappointed not to have a bun fight. We all broke out in agreement. Howzat?

Must finish off the series....

Fair enough.



Gotcha. I absolutely agree with you that few Anglicans take them seriously in 2011. I was just mentioning that "officially" in the CoE, they were indeed considered to be the "English confession" (classical Anglican systematic theologies like Litton will confirm this) and even though they are ignored in practice, they do remain (at least on paper) something which the clergy of the CoE are still required to acknowledge as "agreeable to the Word of God." This isn't the case elsewhere in the communion (like here in the US), but officially, the Articles are still in effect in the CoE and thus, the clergy must affirm that Articles, including those which fall on the Calvinistic side of things.

BTW: Who knows what the ACNA thinks!? A friend of mine who's in seminary right now (he's in the REC, which is techincally a part of the ACNA) seems to think that the ACNA is ready to implode any day now. We shall see, but frankly, I think he might be right.



Again, fair enough. I personally think that folks on either side of the debate go too far in accusing each other of heresy, but that's just me. I am also a bit surprised by the statement that folks are led away from the faith by Calvin. I'm never met any former Christian that left because of Calvinism. Again, maybe it's just me.

 

[mark46]

ACNA was formed primarily as a reaction to TEC. It was terrible that there were no choices for US Episcopalians, other than leaving the Communion. In some sense, ACNA brought together many Anglican groups into a province and then sought and received recognition within much of the Communion. All this is to the good.

Your friend. ACNA cannot stand as it; No set of protesters can. In the end, ACNA will evolve or die. They must be about more than rejecting the ordination of active homosexuals to the priesthood. Don't get me wrong, there is more that unites the various components of ACNA. However, when one goes deeper in self definition(as they must), some churches and church groups will drop out. This is as it should be.

Personally, I applaud Bishop Duncon and all that he has done.

.BTW: Who knows what the ACNA thinks!? A friend of mine who's in seminary right now (he's in the REC, which is techincally a part of the ACNA) seems to think that the ACNA is ready to implode any day now. We shall see, but frankly, I think he might be right.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I don't understand why anyone needs to leave. what about the concept of fighting from within. We co-exist pretty well in England (don't believe the ordinariate stories that occasionally make the news. The ac wing is vanishingly small and the defectors are a mere blip, hungry for publicity)

Bash your heads together and just get on. You don't need to agree. this is what I tell my year 7 pupils.

 

[file13]

We recently discussed the first half of the articles here on STR and I was quite disappointed not to have a bun fight. We all broke out in agreement. Howzat?

Must finish off the series....

Well that's refreshing to here. Maybe it's just here in the US (or at least my neck of the woods) where they're not taken seriously. The whole thing just strikes me as bizarre because if you don't hold them as a standard, then you don't have a standard at all. The creeds, besides being something that all orthodox Christians would likely affirm even if they don't like the term "creed," only really cover trinitarian and christological issues, and so you really do need some sort of "statement of faith" to fill in the rest of the details...unless of course your goal is utter chaos, *cough cough*, I mean "diversity."

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I don't think it is very Anglican to tell someone who lives in England and believes themselves to be Anglican that they are not. It is our duty and our joy to minister to everyone, whatever point they are on their Christian journey.

You are entitled to your beliefs I have no objections to that, I do not however think it is too much to expect of people who claim to be Anglicans, to believe what Anglicanism holds as faith! Anglicanism, is simply the teaching of the first thousand years, it is the Faith of the founding fathers of the Catholic Church. It is the Body of Christ. It should be respected and its teachings cherished not shouldered to the side and our own ideas interposed.
As for out duty to minister to all and sundry, I have no complaints with that either! I simply believe we should teach the Doctrine that Christ revealed and the Councils, through the Holy Ghost, opened up to us. Not simply the latest whim of excited minds.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Thanks for the clarification luckyfredsdad!



My apologies for putting you on the spot. I'm new here wave and didn't know that others have already expressed that what you're saying here (regardelss of who's right) does not jive with the wider Anglican communion. This is what I was trying to determine myself and it's clear where you stand. So thanks for that and I'll leave it at that.

My opinions are those that the Anglican Church holds. You have in my opinion a wrong view, or understanding of the Church in England, it isn't a omnibus you can board and alight if you get bored or see a better offer. It is the Body of Christ here on earth, not a trade association, or farmer's association, it is the Catholic Church in its area. To that extent it doesn't matter what the opinions of individuals are, they can decide wether to accept the Church's teaching or reject it, that's their decision and they will be judged accordingly as we all will be. It is what the Church holds that is essential.