Calvinism Within Anglicanism

[luckyfredsdad]

examples, please?

Examples? Of what? That Rome claims to be the Catholic Church as does Orthodoxy?
Or that the Anglican s claimed to be a simple Communion of Believers?Where does the term Anglican Communion originate from?
Or could it be that you query my claim that Canterbury Anglicans have no strong beliefs? From what I read on this board, I get the idea that most of the Canterbury Anglicans do not hold the traditional teachings of the Fathers, either of the early church or the Anglican Fathers of the Reformation!

 

[Naomi4Christ]

On my side of the church, we believe what it says in the bible. the 'fathers' are mentioned in sermons maybe once a year, on average. And if you blink, you might miss it.

Where does all this teaching of fathers and cathlocity occur? All I know of these topics I have learnt here on this board. It's not something you hear a lot about in a mission-shaped church.

Why is it important?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Well (going back to the original post) I have read a good deal of Calvin and I can say that I think he is spot on at many points. I can and do admit to being a Calvinist.

It is clear that the Anglican Church had strong Calvinists currents. Bishops Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer where strongly influenced by Reformed/Calvinist teachings.

Here is a short list of some devout members of the C of E who were also Calvinists. William Perkins, John Preston, Richard Sibbes. George whitefield, J.C. Ryle, and today both J.I. Packer and N.T. Wright are Calvinists.

There are many more, but that is an OK starter list. I would also like to add that I believe this list could have been much longer had the post-Queen Elizabeth monarchs (i.e. the Stuarts) had her wisdom there would have been many more Calvinist in the C of E.

Kenith

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I moved from the Kirk to CofE and notice no difference in theology.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I moved from the Kirk to CofE and notice no difference in theology.

I too have been a Presbyterian and only recently ventured to the Anglican Communion. My early reason for attending was because I work shift work. I missed lots of worship, and St. Michael and all Angels Anglican Church had services I could attend whenI worked on Sundays and our Presbyterian Church did not.

I attended both Churches (Presby when I was not working on Sunday and St. Michael when I could not attend Presby worship) for several years and before I decided to make St. Michael's my home church.

Kenith

 

[mark46]

So you saying that the universal visible Church is not important in your local church, and that the Traditions of the Church are unimportant? Are you saying that what matter is the Word of scripture alone, and that Word needs no interpretation or consensus from the universal Church (all interpretations are OK)?

Surely, I must have misunderstood.

On my side of the church, we believe what it says in the bible. the 'fathers' are mentioned in sermons maybe once a year, on average. And if you blink, you might miss it.

Where does all this teaching of fathers and cathlocity occur? All I know of these topics I have learnt here on this board. It's not something you hear a lot about in a mission-shaped church.

Why is it important?

 

[Naomi4Christ]

So you saying that the universal visible Church is not important in your local church, and that the Traditions of the Church are unimportant? Are you saying that what matter is the Word of scripture alone, and that Word needs no interpretation or consensus from the universal Church (all interpretations are OK)?

Surely, I must have misunderstood.

We are 24/7 Christians

Our Sunday service is only part of what we do. I think the consensus of the universal church and the influence of the e.c.f. is not something for any of us to worry about.

Our preachers exposit on scripture and they are trained to use many orthodox resources. They explain what scripture says, what it means in the local context and what it means for us. It is up to the hearers to decide how to act.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

examples, please

For example the Church in England holds to, or believes in, the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Yet modern Canterbury Anglicans do not even know what the Councils are and their place in the Church! The Councils hold that Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of Christ, that The lady Mary is All Holy and Ever Virgin and Immaculate. Yet how many of today's modern Neo Anglicans believe this and keep to it? Certainly the Anglo Catholics follow Roman ideas, but there's a difference between the two , whilst I have yet to find an evangelical, or Calvanist within the Church who does have an understanding of the Churches teaching on the Lady Mary.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

examples, please

Well (going back to the original post) I have read a good deal of Calvin and I can say that I think he is spot on at many points. I can and do admit to being a Calvinist.

At the Robber Council of Trent, Kidd in his book on the Counter Reformation tells us that at least a third of the Bishops at the first session voted for Calvinist doctrine!

It was for political reasons that Calvinists were admitted to the Anglican Church at the Reformation, as far as the Church was concerned the long hard winters of the minnie ice age would clear off the older ones whilst the younger ones would be convered by sweet winning words of the scriptures and the early fathers. It was a sad mistake on the Queen and Bishops behalf, the Dissenters were a more vigorous and positive group than the Anglicans, Rome sent them to the fires and the galleys, we used patience and the teachings of Christ. Within a few years the Calvinists brought the Church to the brink of destruction, killing our leaders S.Charles and Bl, William Laud, whilst taking over the Church and turning the priests out!

It is clear that the Anglican Church had strong Calvinists currents. Bishops Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer where strongly influenced by Reformed/Calvinist teachings.

The Calvinists within the Church caused a Civil War, that is their legacy. Calvinism is a cuckoo in the nest of the Church. But as for the Bishops you mention when you read their publications it is obvious that they retained their Catholic teachings. When they appeared before the Judges, they suffered not for protestant errors, but for being married and holding to the beliefs of the early fathers certainly not for holding medieval intrusions.. As far as I know all three martyrs you mentioned held to the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

There are many more, but that is an OK starter list. I would also like to add that I believe this list could have been much longer had the post-Queen Elizabeth monarchs (i.e. the Stuarts) had her wisdom there would have been many more Calvinist in the C of E.

You mention the Stuarts, I would further beg to differ, without Eliza,as well as the two Stuart monarchs we wouldn't have a Catholic Church in England. Calvinism with the support of the gentry who increased their wealth by wholesale stealing from the Church, proved to strong what we would have had was a presbyterian Sect similar to what we have in Scotland, or indeed what we are quietly slipping in to now in England, a broad Church without any faith whatsoever!


Kenith[/QUOTE]

 

[file13]

For example the Church in England holds to, or believes in, the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Yet modern Canterbury Anglicans do not even know what the Councils are and their place in the Church! The Councils hold that Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of Christ, that The lady Mary is All Holy and Ever Virgin and Immaculate. Yet how many of today's modern Neo Anglicans believe this and keep to it? Certainly the Anglo Catholics follow Roman ideas, but there's a difference between the two , whilst I have yet to find an evangelical, or Calvanist within the Church who does have an understanding of the Churches teaching on the Lady Mary.

Anglicans do not explicitly hold to the first seven ecumenical councils in either full or part, or the 39 Articles would not have been written, especially article 22 which would stand in direct contradiction of the 7th council which demands that any one who does NOT venerate icons or relics, is anathema. This claim about believing seven councils is simply an anglo-catholic claim that has no explicit historical backing. In reality, the most common notion was the sentiment expressed by Lancelot Andrewes who famously said of his own belief:

"One canon, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries and the series of the Fathers in that period determine the boundaries of our faith."

This notion is also backed up in the book The Study of Anglicanism (sorry, I can't make links) which says that the first four ecumenical Councils "have a special place in Anglican theology, secondary to the Scriptures themselves, but the way in which their authority is acknowledged is complex and very important in its expression of classical Anglican theological method" (p. 203).

As for the Theotokos, this doctrine comes from the 3rd council of Ephesus and so Anglicans, as the magisterial Reformers themselves, should have no trouble accepting this doctrine as sound and it in no way conflicts with Scripture or even the 39 Articles. But your reference to her as "all holy, ever virgin, and immaculate," asserts more than the title Theotokos allows and I think would rightly cause any Protestant Christian, Anglican or not, who takes sola scriptura seriously to reject at least two of these titles. Theotokos is a valid inference and the title itself was given not to exalt Mary, but to uphold the two natures of Christ. As for the other titles, the middle claim could go either way--in fact, Calvin accepted it along with the title Theotokos--but the first and last must be rejected as lying in direct contradiction to Scripture. Christ was quite explicit when he asked the rich man who called Him good that there is "no one good," (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19) and Scripture is also clear that all people are sinners (see Romans) and thus, in no way, "immaculate" or "all holy."[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[file13]

It was for political reasons that Calvinists were admitted to the Anglican Church at the Reformation

Nonsense, Cranmer was clearly Reformed in his doctrine and you'll find the 39 Articles listed in collections of Reformed confessions because they do, with the exception of articles 36 & 37, represent the Reformed mainstream.

The Calvinists within the Church caused a Civil War, that is their legacy. Calvinism is a cuckoo in the nest of the Church.

This is also completely inaccurate. Although it's certainly fair to say that by definition, all Puritans were Calvinists. It's not at all accurate to say that all Puritans were non-conformists nor even wannabe Presbyterians. There were many Puritans who remained in the Church of England and who did not support either Cromwell or the push for Presbyterian reform. Also the history of many famous Anglicans who were clearly reformed in their doctrine should make it clear that you accusation of Calvinists as crazy folks in the Church is nothing but pure slander.

In all seriousness, who are you trying to fool in denying that Reformed theology is clearly a part of Anglicanism? No one is fooled by this claim accept for Anglo-Catholics who want to be more Catholic. History is clear as are contemporary relations with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that Reformed doctrine is clearly Anglican. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a barrier in communion with either of these churches. But it is, because they know that Calvinism is clearly taught historically and in the 39 Articles. If the Catholics and Orthodox are not fooled by your denial of Calvinism, why should Anglicans or any other Protestant?

Now of course there are extremes on both sides of Anglicanism and I can completly understand your frustration with the "low church" side, but to claim what you are is to knee jerk to the other extreme. Sure, I absolutely am sympathetic to Anglicians asking why "Presbyterians with prayerbooks" don't simply go be Presbyterian? But I'm also on board with the reverse side of the coin which would ask why "Catholics with prayerbooks" simply don't become Catholic or Orthodox? The via media requires us to not go to either extreme and to outright deny the overwhelming presence of Reformed theology in Anglicanism is to veer off that middle way.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Anglicans do not explicitly hold to the first seven ecumenical councils in either full or part,

Not only do Anglicans hold to the seven councils, but they were a living active part of the Church wherein the Ecumenical Councils came in to being. Church bishops, at least one' being at Nicea! [Catholic Messenger. Estells. 2006/7 ] At the early Anglicans Synods held regularly throughout the Saxon Church, belief in the Councils was a fact regularly affirmed. That there was disquiet regarding the Seventh Council, is most certainly true, the Copy received in England was a false one, never-the-less the English Church followed the teaching of that Council and still does though it was less than warm towards the Second Ephesus. But in the 2000 years of the British Church it has never at any time rejected Ikons, simply the Worship of them and that the Church has not advocated, though certain people might have done so.

Referring to your statement,That Anglicans do not hold explicitly to the first seven ecumenical councils?

If you read Collier's Ecclesiastical History, Vol I, he tells a different story all together, as does Kidd in his 39 Articles! There, Kidd says that the Articles should be read and judged, through the prism or, lens, of the the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The traditional Anglican view. In 1536 & 42 the English Convocation affirmed resolutely the First four Ecumenical Councils and sith (such,) others as are needful. In 1558, Parliament accepted the Councils as a basis for heresy Charges. Again in 1571 the reaffirmation took place of the 1536 definition was accepted. Now at the time the English Church accepted without any doubt whatsoever that there were Seven Ecumenical Councils. They believed that four were Christological whilst the next two were explanatory and the last, the one you are quering was a ,'matter of good manners."
Dealing as it did with our relations with the Holy people of God and the Lady Mary, the Theotokos, His mother.

or the 39 Articles would not have been written, especially article 22 which would stand in direct contradiction of the 7th council which demands that any one who does NOT venerate icons or relics, is anathema.

The attitude recorded in the 39 Articles was a result of the horror built up in the Roman or latin Council of Trent, 1545/64, which turned the Holy Roman Church in to a Catholic Sect! It was described as ,"The New Church of Trent," English Churchmen were simply trying to avoid Anglicans being tarred with that same brush.

 

[mark46]

I note that you do not identify yourself as Anglican. The first four Councils are much than simply "having a place in Anglican theology".

I understand that you are primarily a Protestant. You presume "sola scriptura" (alien to many Anglicans) and reject Tradition (essential). Truth has four stools (two for some) NOT only one as it does for you.

Yes, the 5th, 6th and 7th Councils are often treated differently in deference to those within the Communion who cannot accept the Councils in full. We often confess that we accept only the Christological statements the 5th, 6th and 7th councils. Personally, I find this position a denial of the Universal Church. The undivided Church met in Council and made certain discernments and we should follow them. HOWEVER, I can certainly accept this position as part of the understanding of the Communion as a whole. HOWEVER, for me, not to accept the Councils as authoritive (the first 4 in whole and the next four in part) is to deny to heart of the holy, catholic and apostolic faith.

SOLA SCRIPTURA
We can discuss "sola scriptura" in a separate thread if you wish. However, let me assure you that this doctrine is certainly not acceptable to all Anglicans. "Prima sciptura" is another doctrine entirely, as can be consistent with Tradition. I do indeed understand that a belief in the doctrine of sola scripture makes the Councils a nice thing to have, but essentially irrelevant on not authoritive. You might find the following discussion interesting.
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/tag/sola-scriptura

Anglicans do not explicitly hold to the first seven ecumenical councils in either full or part, or the 39 Articles would not have been written, especially article 22 which would stand in direct contradiction of the 7th council which demands that any one who does NOT venerate icons or relics, is anathema. This claim about believing seven councils is simply an anglo-catholic claim that has no explicit historical backing. In reality, the most common notion was the sentiment expressed by Lancelot Andrewes who famously said of his own belief:

This notion is also backed up in the book The Study of Anglicanism (sorry, I can't make links) which says that the first four ecumenical Councils "have a special place in Anglican theology, secondary to the Scriptures themselves, but the way in which their authority is acknowledged is complex and very important in its expression of classical Anglican theological method" (p. 203).

As for the Theotokos, this doctrine comes from the 3rd council of Ephesus and so Anglicans, as the magisterial Reformers themselves, should have no trouble accepting this doctrine as sound and it in no way conflicts with Scripture or even the 39 Articles. But your reference to her as "all holy, ever virgin, and immaculate," asserts more than the title Theotokos allows and I think would rightly cause any Protestant Christian, Anglican or not, who takes sola scriptura seriously to reject at least two of these titles. Theotokos is a valid inference and the title itself was given not to exalt Mary, but to uphold the two natures of Christ. As for the other titles, the middle claim could go either way--in fact, Calvin accepted it along with the title Theotokos--but the first and last must be rejected as lying in direct contradiction to Scripture. Christ was quite explicit when he asked the rich man who called Him good that there is "no one good," (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19) and Scripture is also clear that all people are sinners (see Romans) and thus, in no way, "immaculate" or "all holy."

 

[file13]

Not only do Anglicans hold to the seven councils, but they were a living active part of the Church wherein the Ecumenical Councils came in to being.

By "Anglicans," I am referring to to the church that emerged from the Reformation, not the fact that the English Church has been in existence for at least 1500 years. You seem to be referring to the pre-reformation church. That's another discussion all together.

But in the 2000 years of the British Church it has never at any time rejected Ikons, simply the Worship of them and that the Church has not advocated, though certain people might have done so.

Than by your own claim you do not accept the 7th council. The 7th council is explicit that not only are icons permitted, but they must be venerated on pain of anathema.

Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.

(I'd site the url but I can't post links. You can verify on ccel . org).

If you read Collier's Ecclesiastical History, Vol I, he tells a different story all together, as does Kidd in his 39 Articles! There, Kidd says that the Articles should be read and judged, through the prism or, lens, of the the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

This is one persons opinion and even if a single opinion represented the views of the post-Reformation church we would clearly be faced with a contradiction between article 22 (to mention one) and what is required in order to claim that one really accepts the 7th council. In fact, it's clear that one can't accept the doctrine of the 7th council because the council goes too far. In fact, I would suggest that when Protestants, Anglicians included, say that we accept such and such a council, what we really mean is that we accept some of the doctrinal statements made there, but not really the full council. Again, it seems that your entire argument is essentially that "the English Church used to be Catholic and thus it is still Catholic." This assertion completely ignores the reformation and when people today refer to "Anglicians," they don't mean Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians who happen to be British.

The traditional Anglican view. In 1536 & 42 the English Convocation affirmed resolutely the First four Ecumenical Councils and sith (such,) others as are needful. In 1558, Parliament accepted the Councils as a basis for heresy Charges. Again in 1571 the reaffirmation took place of the 1536 definition was accepted.

Again, you can point to historical resolutions all you like, but the fact remains that according to the 1662 BCP:

XXII. Of Purgatory. THE Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God.

Remember that according to His Majesty's Declaration:

That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which Our Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's Word: which We do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all Our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles; which to that End We command to be new printed, and this Our Declaration to be published therewith.

That therefore in these both curious and unhappy differences, which have for so many hundred years, in different times and places, exercised the Church of Christ, We will, that all further curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up in God's promises, as they be generally set forth to us in the holy Scriptures, and the general meaning of the Articles of the Church of England according to them. 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.

Finally, Anglican clergy in the UK agree to the following per their ordination:

CANON C15 OF THE DECLARATION OF ASSENT 1(1) The Declaration of Assent to be made under this Canon shall be in the form set out below:

PREFACE
The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?

DECLARATION OF ASSENT
I A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorised or allowed by Canon.

So you see, it's quite clear that even UK Anglicans are required per their oath to uphold the 39 Articles (this isn't the case in the rest of the Anglican communion) and article 22 clearly contradicts doctrinal proclamations of the 7th council. Post reformation Anglicans cannot agree to this council and it is for reasons such as this that they do not accept seven councils and even the doctrinal proclamations from the councils that they do accept must be qualified with the rest of the "confessions."

The attitude recorded in the 39 Articles was a result of the horror built up in the Roman or latin Council of Trent, 1545/64, which turned the Holy Roman Church in to a Catholic Sect! It was described as ,"The New Church of Trent," English Churchmen were simply trying to avoid Anglicans being tarred with that same brush.

Regardless of your personal attitude about the Articles, your own prayerbook confesses (at least on paper, because we all know that no one upholds the 39 Articles in defiance to their oath) the Articles to indeed represent to beliefs of the Church of England and a quick perusal of them reveals them to be very Reformed in doctrine. I'm well aware that Anglo-Catholics don't like this, but it is the "official doctrine" of the CoE and as such, is the basis for the rest of the Anglican communion.

I must ask though, why don't you simply become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? Anglicans in the plain modern sense of the term clearly means "Protestant." Don't believe me, ask any Catholic or Orthodox if you're a Protestant or not. Neither accept you as either "Catholic" or "Orthodox," although they might if they're being nice and trying to poach sheep, say that you're "close."

 

[mark46]

Aaah! So for you, our Celtic brothers are deluded, as is the Archbishop, when they think of the Anglican Church to be the continuing Church of Christians in the UK and Ireland since the 1st century, well established by the 4th century, certainly by 597.

Apparently, you think of the Anglican Chruch as derivitave of the Reformation, a Reformed Church.

For many, the Anglican Church predates the Reformation by 1500 years. The Middle Way established the Anglican Church as a third choice, neither Roman, nor Reformed, between the two, or BOTH Catholic and Reformed. For me, to consider the Anglican Communion to be a reformed church is to deny the whole idea of the Middle Way.
================================

WHY NOT CATHOLIC?
The choice is not Catholic of Reformed. Elizabeth I established the C of E so that we did not have to make that choice. We are catholic and accept at the 4 councils and at least some of the 5th, 6th and 7th councils. We understand the critical importance of Tradition. We are not a "sola scriptura' confessing church. Rome added unacceptable dogma doctrines to those agreed to by the undivided Church. We do not to move to Rome to be part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

WHY NOT ORTHODOX

At various times, patriarchs or metropolitans have considered accepting Anglican Churches as Orthodox. St Tikhon almost did that in the US. Some churches in the US have become Orthodox, maintaining a Western worship style.

However, we do have no need to accept the authority of an Orthodox patriarch in order to be orthodox Christians. Personally, I think that we have much to learn from the Eastern fathers, from the Early Church and from today's Church. We have no need to agree with the worship styles and choices of theological opinion that current Orthodox hold. The Russians have taken their path, the Anitochian's their path, and the Greeks theirs. Anglicans have taken their own.

CAN THE MIDDLE WAY STILL WORK
I guess the answer for you is a resounding "no". We are a Reformed Church, no need for a Middle Way.

YOU ARE BIG ON LABELS
Yes, EO and RCC call Anglicans Protestant. Eo calls all Christains either EO, Roman or Protestant. So what! What you saying is that Anglicanism is not recognized as separate path from Baptist by EO and RCC. They misunderstand, We are not Baptists or non-apostolic Christians.

By "Anglicans," I am referring to to the church that emerged from the Reformation, not the fact that the English Church has been in existence for at least 1500 years. You seem to be referring to the pre-reformation church. That's another discussion all together.

............................................

I must ask though, why don't you simply become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? Anglicans in the plain modern sense of the term clearly means "Protestant." Don't believe me, ask any Catholic or Orthodox if you're a Protestant or not. Neither accept you as either "Catholic" or "Orthodox," although they might if they're being nice and trying to poach sheep, say that you're "close."

 

[file13]

I note that you do not identify yourself as Anglican. The first four Councils are much than simply "having a place in Anglican theology".

I'm not an official "Anglican" because my wife and I have not settled on a particular church yet. But at this time we mostly go to Episcopal or ACNA churches and will likely settle in one in time. But you bringing this up is entirely irrelevant because what I've stated so far in this thread is not my personal opinion, but the doctrine of the CoE as contained in the 39 Articles, which is Anglican and affirmed even by the ACNA.

I understand that you are primarily a Protestant. You presume "sola scriptura" (alien to many Anglicans) and reject Tradition (essential). Truth has four stools (two for some) NOT only one as it does for you.

Nope, you're either unaware of the difference between solo or nuda scriptura and sola scriptura, or you're just having a bad day and not making the logical inferences. I'm clearly in line with the latter since I'm quoting from Anglican "tradition." I'm also aware of Hooker's view of "the stool," but you seem unaware that "the stool" does not reject sola scriptura. One can and must include tradition and reason in one's epistemology. Sola scriptura does not reject either, but it is the final appeal. By your own words, you seem to imply that all three (or four if you want to add Wesley's "experience" to the mix) are on equal footing and that none of them has a final say. But this is an absurd and unrealistic view which Hooker himself dispels when he says:

“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

This is sola scriptura and you'll notice the graded epistemology in it where Scripture gets the first and final say on any given issue. This is all sola scriptura means.

Regardless, article 6 is clear that the CoE does affirm sola scriptura (which does not throw away earlier tradition outright):

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

We can discuss "sola scriptura" in a separat thread if you wish. However, let me assure you that this doctrine is certainly not acceptable to all Anglicans. "Prima sciptura" is another doctrine entirely, as can be consistent with Tradition. I do indeed understand that a belief in the doctrine of sola scripture makes the Councils a nice thing to have, but essentially irrelevant on not authoritive.

If this is what you understand about sola scriptura, than your view is flawed. Sola scriptura does not treat tradition as either irrelevant or not authoritative. Tradition gets a vote and is indeed a part of the epistemology, but, only Scripture has veto power because in the scheme of knowing, it has the highest authority.

Concerning prima scriptura, I'm aware many folks affirm this and want it to be the belief of Anglicanism (some Anglo-Catholics). But if one does so, they do it in defiance of the belief of the reformers and the Articles. In my opinion, to make such a claim for prima scriptura is to reject the reformation and to hop on an adrift raft that's either bound for chaos (solo scriptura/"me and my Bible"/or pick and chose your Tradition depending on which Fathers and councils you want to throw at each other) or Rome (or Constantinople) since to deny the formal sufficiency of Scripture (which Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants--possibly including yourself) is according to J.I. Packer, to affirm that when it comes to Scripture, "they do not in practice fully accept it's authority, and their Christian profession, however sincere, is thereby flawed."

Again, sola scriptura is not solo scriptura. I am not talking about the latter, but the former, and post reformation Anglicanism was clearly sola scriptura. Can the same be said today? Perhaps this is why I haven't formally committed to Anglicanism....

 

[file13]

Aaah! So for you, our Celtic brothers are deluded, as is the Archbishop, when they think of the Anglican Church to be the continuing Church of Christians in the UK and Ireland since the 1st century, well established by the 4th century, certainly by 597.

Are you seriously suggesting that "proper Anglicanism" is really "Anglo-Catholic reconstructionism?" No wonder Catholics and Orthodox don't take Anglicans seriously....

No one is denying that there have been Christians in England for at least 1500 years. But your current claim requires a great leap in logic which seems to suggest that English Christians and their spiritual heirs throughout the world should try to reconstruct their faith from the past and that that is what Anglicanism is all about because (apparently) older is better.

Apparently, you think of the Anglican Chruch as derivitave of the Reformation, a Reformed Church.

This isn't a personal opinion of mine, it's historical fact. What we call "The Anglican Communion" is a Protestant communion. You can call yourself Catholic all day long and expound upon branch theory (which only certain Anglicans buy), but at the end of the day, you're still a Protestant. Of course there were Christians in the British Isles from thousands of years. But the Anglican Communion historically did not (and even currently does not) operate by trying to reconstruct the past to make themselves conform to something more palatable to Catholics and Orthodox Christians. They went through a reformation. Some Anglo-Catholics wish they would engage in reconstruction, but it hasn't really panned out and it seems that the ones who continue down this trail will end up in Rome eventually like so many of the Tractarians.

For many, the Anglican Church predates the Reformation by 1500 years. The Middle Way established the Anglican Church as a third choice, neither Roman, nor Reformed, between the two, or BOTH Catholic and Reformed. For me, to consider the Anglican Communion to be a reformed church is to deny the whole idea of the Middle Way.

Unfortunately, your opinion is in conflict with your prayerbook, the articles, the divines, and history. I understand your point and what you think Anglicanism should be, but I'm talking about what it is. Don't believe me, go ask a Catholic or Orthodox Christian.

YOU ARE BIG ON LABELS
Yes, EO and RCC call Anglicans Protestant. Eo calls all Christains either EO, Roman or Protestant. So what! What you saying is that Anglicanism is not recognized as separate path from Baptist by EO and RCC. They misunderstand, We are not Baptists or non-apostolic Christians.

Lumping all Protestants into one category is as erroneous as denying that one is a Protestant to begin with. Again, I see what you're getting at in that Anglicans are different from Catholics, Orthodox, and even other Protestants. Yes, of course. And? Seriously, Baptists are different from Methodists!? No way! Next you're gonna tell me that Adventists are different from Catholics!?

Sorry, but all joking aside, of course Anglicanism is unique. No one denies that. But the point is that none of this justifies a call for Anglo-Catholic Christian reconstructionism when it's blatantly clear that what ma and pa call "Anglican" is the current communion which happens to be a clear product of the reformation. I'm not claiming that the Anglican communion is a capitol 'R' Reformed Church in the Calvinist sense, but that they are indeed a product of the reformation and to deny this is pure fantasy. Your prayerbook makes this perfectly clear even if you relegate the Articles to the "Historical Document" dump.

 

[mark46]

You seem to want to join a Reformed Church. I'm sure there are many in the area where you live, perhaps even an Episcopal Church that is Calvinist. If you believe that the current Anglican Communion is a Reformed Chruch, with standard docttines and clear support of the 39 articles, I suspect that you will be disappointed. Perhaps you will find an ACNA church that waves the 39 Articles as if they were the Creed and Packer as if he were one of the early Church fathers. You won't even find that on the C of E website. You will find the articles solewhat buried. You certainly would not understand them as the Creed of the faith, or even of critical value, for that matter.

In any case, there are those within the Communion who wish to belong to an English Church based on scripture, the Tradition of the Church, on reason and on experience. We are members not of a church that started in Europe as a protest against the excesses of the RCC. We have no interest in Roman dogma added after 787. We even confess the Creed with and without the filioque clause. We are evangelical, we are catholic, we are charismatic, and yes we are liberal. We are members of the one, holy catholic and apostolic church. We have our bishops, and our archbishop. We serve neither the patriarch of Rome, nor those of the EO.

We well understand that the Articles were promulgated almost simultaneuosly with the break with the RCC. We well understand the debates and the necessity to choose between Wesley and the Calvinists. Many of us choose Wesley. The choice is not between Calvin and the Pope, no matter how many times you would like it to be so.

To say that we are catholic does not make us Catholic.
To say that we are reformed does not make us Reformed.
To say that we are one and orthodox does not make us Orthodox.
To say that we are charismatic does not make us penecostal.
To say that we put Scripture first does not make us fundamentalists.

Perhaps ACNA will be a Calvinist Church with strict support of the 39 articles plus the interpretations you have of scripture and tradition.

I'm not an official "Anglican" because my wife and I have not settled on a particular church yet. But at this time we mostly go to Episcopal or ACNA churches and will likely settle in one in time. But you bringing this up is entirely irrelevant because what I've stated so far in this thread is not my personal opinion, but the doctrine of the CoE as contained in the 39 Articles, which is Anglican and affirmed even by the ACNA.



Nope, you're either unaware of the difference between solo or nuda scriptura and sola scriptura, or you're just having a bad day and not making the logical inferences. I'm clearly in line with the latter since I'm quoting from Anglican "tradition." I'm also aware of Hooker's view of "the stool," but you seem unaware that "the stool" does not reject sola scriptura. One can and must include tradition and reason in one's epistemology. Sola scriptura does not reject either, but it is the final appeal. By your own words, you seem to imply that all three (or four if you want to add Wesley's "experience" to the mix) are on equal footing and that none of them has a final say. But this is an absurd and unrealistic view which Hooker himself dispels when he says:

This is sola scriptura and you'll notice the graded epistemology in it where Scripture gets the first and final say on any given issue. This is all sola scriptura means.

Regardless, article 6 is clear that the CoE does affirm sola scriptura (which does not throw away earlier tradition outright):



If this is what you understand about sola scriptura, than your view is flawed. Sola scriptura does not treat tradition as either irrelevant or not authoritative. Tradition gets a vote and is indeed a part of the epistemology, but, only Scripture has veto power because in the scheme of knowing, it has the highest authority.

Concerning prima scriptura, I'm aware many folks affirm this and want it to be the belief of Anglicanism (some Anglo-Catholics). But if one does so, they do it in defiance of the belief of the reformers and the Articles. In my opinion, to make such a claim for prima scriptura is to reject the reformation and to hop on an adrift raft that's either bound for chaos (solo scriptura/"me and my Bible"/or pick and chose your Tradition depending on which Fathers and councils you want to throw at each other) or Rome (or Constantinople) since to deny the formal sufficiency of Scripture (which Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants--possibly including yourself) is according to J.I. Packer, to affirm that when it comes to Scripture, "they do not in practice fully accept it's authority, and their Christian profession, however sincere, is thereby flawed."

Again, sola scriptura is not solo scriptura. I am not talking about the latter, but the former, and post reformation Anglicanism was clearly sola scriptura. Can the same be said today? Perhaps this is why I haven't formally committed to Anglicanism....

 

[mark46]

You do imply that the C of E is a Reformed Chuch with a capital R. The C of E was formed both catholic and reformed. You want to deny half. With regard to the "reformed" half, it is indeed protestant. That does not imply Reformed as opposed to Lutheran. To be the Middle Way between Protestantism and the RCC did not at the same time choose between Luther and Calvin (although Zwingli seems foreign to the C of E).

No matter what you choose to believe about the 1500's, Anglican Churches in 2011 confess the Creeds, not the Articles.

Are you seriously suggesting that "proper Anglicanism" is really "Anglo-Catholic reconstructionism?" No wonder Catholics and Orthodox don't take Anglicans seriously....

No one is denying that there have been Christians in England for at least 1500 years. But your current claim requires a great leap in logic which seems to suggest that English Christians and their spiritual heirs throughout the world should try to reconstruct their faith from the past and that that is what Anglicanism is all about because (apparently) older is better.



This isn't a personal opinion of mine, it's historical fact. What we call "The Anglican Communion" is a Protestant communion. You can call yourself Catholic all day long and expound upon branch theory (which only certain Anglicans buy), but at the end of the day, you're still a Protestant. Of course there were Christians in the British Isles from thousands of years. But the Anglican Communion historically did not (and even currently does not) operate by trying to reconstruct the past to make themselves conform to something more palatable to Catholics and Orthodox Christians. They went through a reformation. Some Anglo-Catholics wish they would engage in reconstruction, but it hasn't really panned out and it seems that the ones who continue down this trail will end up in Rome eventually like so many of the Tractarians.



Unfortunately, your opinion is in conflict with your prayerbook, the articles, the divines, and history. I understand your point and what you think Anglicanism should be, but I'm talking about what it is. Don't believe me, go ask a Catholic or Orthodox Christian.



Lumping all Protestants into one category is as erroneous as denying that one is a Protestant to begin with. Again, I see what you're getting at in that Anglicans are different from Catholics, Orthodox, and even other Protestants. Yes, of course. And? Seriously, Baptists are different from Methodists!? No way! Next you're gonna tell me that Adventists are different from Catholics!?

Sorry, but all joking aside, of course Anglicanism is unique. No one denies that. But the point is that none of this justifies a call for Anglo-Catholic Christian reconstructionism when it's blatantly clear that what ma and pa call "Anglican" is the current communion which happens to be a clear product of the reformation. I'm not claiming that the Anglican communion is a capitol 'R' Reformed Church in the Calvinist sense, but that they are indeed a product of the reformation and to deny this is pure fantasy. Your prayerbook makes this perfectly clear even if you relegate the Articles to the "Historical Document" dump.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Nonsense, Cranmer was clearly Reformed in his doctrine and you'll find the 39 Articles listed in collections of Reformed confessions because they do, with the exception of articles 36 & 37, represent the Reformed mainstream.

Nonsense?

You'r pretty sure, but you are not backed up by Anglican History! You should be aware also that we have no pope in the Anglican Church and Cranmer didn't even try to take that place. Also that what ever John Calvin's hopes or aspirations he wasn't even considered.
That Cranmer had Reformed ideas and aspirations, so what? he was a member of the most ancient part of the catholic Church outside Palestine! When he was quizzed before the Bishops on his beliefs he and other bishops, Ridley and Hooper claimed belief in the Seven Councils, when he was martyred he was not killed because of his theological opinions but because he was married!
The articles were simply a line in the sand beyond which the ,'wild men,'both Anglo Papist and Calvinist must not go. Kidd, the theologian in his book regarding the articles said that they must be read ,or viewed through the lens or prism of the Ecumenical Councils. It is the latter that are of importance being the utterances of the Body of Christ, the catholic Church at its highest level, whilst the Articles are no more than the utterances of a Church Synod on a particular issue! [ See Bishop Field in his Book, 'On the Church as to Anglican Views on the authority of the Councils. Also Laud's Conference with Fisher.] That the Calvinists agreed with the Articles has been a matter of debate for 3/400 years and I wouldn't deny it, especially when we read what they have to say against Rome! The fact is the 39 Articles played their part at a time of great excess and the calvinists were part of that excess and only incidentally part of the Anglican,'Catholic ,'Church.

. Although it's certainly fair to say that by definition, all Puritans were Calvinists. It's not at all accurate to say that all Puritans were non-conformists nor even wannabe Presbyterians. There were many Puritans who remained in the Church of England and who did not support either Cromwell or the push for Presbyterian reform. Also the history of many famous Anglicans who were clearly reformed in their doctrine should make it clear that you accusation of Calvinists as crazy folks in the Church is nothing but pure slander.

The Anglican Church in the middle ages was known as the Church in England! As far as I can see the Calvinist doctrine had no part to play in the Faith of the first thousand years and that is what Anglicanism believed in. The aim of the Calvinists from their own point of view was to destroy the Catholic Church in England and by 1646 they had pretty well succeeded, Anglicanism existing only in France and with the aid and support of Queen Mary. As to calvinists being crazy folk, read the antics they got up to, suppressing the Anglican Church, martyring the King for refusing to make legal their depredations, slaughtering the Archbishop of Canterbury for trying to establish order from the chaos they brought to the Body of Christ. They evicted all the Anglicans from their livings, those who clung to their faith , many were sent as indetured servants,[7 year slavery,] to the Indies. They pursued the Anglicans to a Civil War and were responsible for two large massacres, the slaughter of the Episcopalian women after Naseby 1645 AD. As well as the murder of two thousand Royalist Irishmen at Philliphaugh in Scotland. There are many more ,'crazy,' happenings.

Anglicanism had its own Reformation in that it got rid of the enormities of the Bishop of Rome, unfortunately it was impregnated by the enormities of Calvin and Knox, in a previous e-mail i used the term,' Cuckoo in the Nest,' I find no reason to change my mind.
I am not an Anglo Catholic, neither have I ever been one, if I were to pick a label, it would be High Church Man or Anglican Catholic. If you care to look at Orthodox and Anglican relations over the last hundred years, {See Project canterbury,} you would find that whilst what you claim about Calvinist corruptions within the Church is true, in essence the basics seemed to be holding at least until Women's Ordinations. Try to remember Archbishop Carey's row with Rome and their reply about 1996!
I have to say that what the Romans or the Orthodox believe about my religion doesn't depress me at all, it has nothing at all to do with them and the Anglican Church doesn't depend on them or Calvin for truth, we rely on Christ's revelation once made to the saints and the apostolic succession of both faith and order being passed on to the Bishops in Council. Neither have you a very good understanding of the Via Media, as far as Anglicans were concerned, Laudian, High Church Men and Non Jurors, the Anglican Church is as Catholic as either of the other two and more than Rome which I believe is no more than a Catholic Sect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------===============================================