Calvinism Within Anglicanism

[file13]

You do imply that the C of E is a Reformed Chuch with a capital R.

Nope. The CoE and the Anglican Communion as a whole are clearly not a Reformed Churches in the way of Presbyterians or Dutch Reformed. All I said was that Reformed theology (aka Calvinism) is a part of Anglicanism and that this theology is clearly visible in the Articles. Please don't confuse a part for the whole or assert that I'm denying the small 'c' catholic side of Anglicanism. But regarding Calvinism, you acknowledge that this is the case yourself in your original post since you mention that it is indeed in Anglicanism.

The C of E was formed both catholic and reformed. You want to deny half.

Not and all and on the contrary, you and the other guy above seem to want to overemphasize the Anglo-Catholic side. What we you saying about via media?

To be the Middle Way between Protestantism and the RCC did not at the same time choose between Luther and Calvin

I never made such a claim. However, you must remember that just because the English reformers were trying to avoid the extremes on either end does not change the fact that they were still Protestants who affirmed sola scriptura along with the other four solas. They rejected the extremes of Protestantism, but they are still not Catholics and they were not interested in the historical reconstructionism you seem to be calling for until much later with folks like the Tractarians.

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

I'm pretty sure I acknowledged this above when I hinted at our hesitation to formally commit to Anglicanism. I would add that I even wonder if some even take the creeds seriously given some of the silliness that goes on in the communion where you have churches calling God "mother".... :o

 

[file13]

You'r pretty sure, but you are not backed up by Anglican History...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.

You're just repeating yourself here and I'm not going to repeat my refutation which you never addressed.

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.

Most, if not all theologians would affirm that what's called "Calvinism" is actually a systematic form of "Augustinism." This belief concerning sotierology, free will, and divine sovereignty was first clearly articulated by Augustine and it was even affirmed by the council of Orange in 529 AD. In fact you'll find the same general thought in Aquinas (who even affirmed *gulp* "double predestination") and Luther, himself a (wait for it) Augustinian monk, continued this long tradition. Calvin was just Luther's "little brother" who simply set about systematizing what was already affirmed for at least a thousand years in the West. So you see, what Calvin and Luther taught concerning monergism (and they have minor differences between them) was not something they came up out of thin air, but was in fact something which had been a part of Church tradition since at least Augustine. Of course folks who affirm monergism would also say that what is call "Augustinism" and "monergism" is really nothing but the correct understanding of what Paul and Christ Himself taught as recorded in Scripture. Of yes, Calvin certainly did make specific claims within this tradition that are not in perfect harmony with tradition, but his specific interpretations are just that, within a long standing tradition and not something he invented.

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.

Hum, I wonder why they called themselves "Reformed" Christians and the "Reformed Church" rather than the Anti-Catholic League or the Papal Destruction Church?

I'm sorry brother, but you're making wild sweeping claims at this point so there's really no reason to respond any further. Peace be with you!

 

[mark46]

In the end, you make way too much of the importance of the Articles within the Communion in 2011.

With regard to the Protestant part of the via media, first I must say that even the paradigm itself is not universally accepted. However, even to the degree it is, Wesley (and those who agree with him) is as acceptable as the Protestant standard as is Calvin (and those who agree with him).

Yes, I did indeed say that Calvinism was present with the Anglican tradition. If I have not made it obvious, I consider the 5 tulips to be error, to put it gently. I much prefer Wesley.

TULIP Calvinism Compared to Wesleyan Perspectives

Nope. The CoE and the Anglican Communion as a whole are clearly not a Reformed Churches in the way of Presbyterians or Dutch Reformed. All I said was that Reformed theology (aka Calvinism) is a part of Anglicanism and that this theology is clearly visible in the Articles. Please don't confuse a part for the whole or assert that I'm denying the small 'c' catholic side of Anglicanism. But regarding Calvinism, you acknowledge that this is the case yourself in your original post since you mention that it is indeed in Anglicanism.



Not and all and on the contrary, you and the other guy above seem to want to overemphasize the Anglo-Catholic side. What we you saying about via media?



I never made such a claim. However, you must remember that just because the English reformers were trying to avoid the extremes on either end does not change the fact that they were still Protestants who affirmed sola scriptura along with the other four solas. They rejected the extremes of Protestantism, but they are still not Catholics and they were not interested in the historical reconstructionism you seem to be calling for until much later with folks like the Tractarians.



I'm pretty sure I acknowledged this above when I hinted at our hesitation to formally commit to Anglicanism. I would add that I even wonder if some even take the creeds seriously given some of the silliness that goes on in the communion where you have churches calling God "mother".... :o

 

[mark46]

Let's be clear. Both I and "the other guy" are high-church Anglicans. We both look at the Anglican Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in England, dating back 2000 years, now spread throughout much of the world.

You use "catholic" as a curse. We are not Roman Catholic. Catholic with a small "c" is what all confessing apostolic churches call ourselves. Lutherans and EO certainly consider themselves "catholic" as do most Anglicans.

you and the other guy above seem to want to overemphasize the Anglo-Catholic side.

 

[file13]

In the end, you make way too much of the importance of the Articles within the Communion in 2011.

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.

Yes, I did indeed say that Calvinism was present with the Anglican tradition. If I have not made it obvious, I consider the 5 tulips to be error, to put it gently. I much prefer Wesley.

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....)

 

[mark46]

Although the solas are added by Luther, we do affirm that we are

saved by grace (alone) though faith (alone) in Christ Jesus (alone)

as Paul taught to the Church at Ephesus.
================================
soli Deo Gloria is a consequence of the scripture cited above, and is a "duh". I know of no Christians who argue with this.
===========================
"Sola scriptura" is a slogan and a doctrine that is not stated in scripture. As used by many evangelicals, it has indeed become "solo scriptura". Of course, scripture is the final word, the word against which any tradition, experience or reason doctrine is checked against. But scripture does not speak for itself (else solo scriptura). There is no index of scripture. Many volumes were in dispute. Luther didn't accept James. Translations are not revealed, although there are those who think the kJV came down directly from Heaven. To be clear, before there was any canon at all, there were disputes about interpreting scripture.

Also, let's not be circular. If I know of several interpretations of scripture, where should I turn. Should I go to the scripture itself and come up with my own interpretation? Should I go the Creed? Should I go the Councils? Might not the Truth be there? Consider the dogma of the Trinity.

Anyone who thinks that an individual could come up with the doctrine of the Trinity from scripture all, on his own, well I guess he would be truly inspired. Many interpretations are always possible, especially about important issues. The Creed is not in scripture; not even close. It is the result of Tradition, of many of those entrusted with the faith praying (and arguing) for centuries about the interpretation of scripture and finally agreeing to the Creed of the faith. Similarly the 7 councils of the undivided Church interpreted scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I understand there are those who believe that Scripture speaks for itself and the Holy Spirit has provided no mechansims to each us the Truth other than men's individual interpretations of one translation or another. Curiously different translation somethimes imply different results.

Of course, you may using "sola sciptura" differently than evangelicals have done in the US these last 200 years, using the Scripture as a bludgeon, and selected verses as swords, to put forth their personal views.

Oh, a just BTW to sola scripture literalists, does the 6th Chapter of John speak the truth? Do we really chew the body of Lord? How many times does Jesus have to say "eat my body" before we run away as they did at the time. I put this in only to illustrate that many who claim sola scriptura really don't mean what they say.

.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....)

 

[luckyfredsdad]

We have no doctrine of our own. We only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic Creeds and those Creeds we hold without addition or diminution.

Archbishop Ramsey of Canterbury!

 

[file13]

Also, let's not be circular. If I know of several interpretations of scripture, where should I turn. Should I go to the scripture itself and come up with my own interpretation? Should I go the Creed? Should I go the Councils? Might not the Truth be there? Consider the dogma of the Trinity.

Circular like "truth is what we say is truth because we're the One True Church because we say we're the One True Church"?

Brother, I'm an ex-Orthodox Christian. I know and have used every argument you can think of to try to trump sola scriptura. Nothing you're saying here is new to either me or anyone who has actually studied the issue and there's no reason to repeat the same arguments here. Sadly though, you continue to make the same mistake of confusing solo scriptura with sola scriptura and thus, only succeed in knocking down the strawmen you setup. If you're actually interested in learning what the doctrine actually means and how the doctrine is in fact, the same one as held in the early church, I'd direct you to the following works (I can't post links, sorry):

• The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith A. Mathison
• Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vols. 1-3, William Webster, David T. King

Finally, I would point out that if you are to remain intellectually consistent and honest to your claims, you'd be forced to either embrace some form of Christian Liberalism (not to be confused with voting for Obama) or join one of the numerous "One True Church"es who all can make valid historical claims. As you might have gathered from the TAW forum (the "Anglican and Orthodox" thread specifically), the historical churches do not accept any Anglican claim to have either valid succession or that they have faithfully held to "Tradition." In light of this, an Anglican who believes as you claim to, should seek reunion with the rest of the "universal church" or embrace Liberalism and deny the formal authority of Scripture. Something tells me that it's just a matter of time before you do the former and I pray that you'd study the above mentioned books before doing so. You will not find "light" in any church that rejects the formal sufficiency of Scripture and will quickly find that since there is no consistency in the "Fathers," "Tradition," or even the "ecumenical councils" (which the ancient churches disagree on which ones are valid and pick and choose regarding interpretation and application of the doctrine and canons in them), truth becomes what your priest, bishop, church, or even Pope says is truth. This is not truth. Your Word is truth says Jesus Christ, and His body, the pillar and foundation of the truth, serves to support His Word.

Peace be with you.

 

[file13]

We have no doctrine of our own. We only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic Creeds and those Creeds we hold without addition or diminution.

Archbishop Ramsey of Canterbury!

Since you have no valid response to the arguments I've presented above, I'll take your retreat back into tautology as a sign that you have no good responses....

 

[file13]

You use "catholic" as a curse.

Just noticed this from earlier. Sorry, but please don't put words in my mouth. I never made any such claim and in fact have no problem saying either the Apostle's or Nicean Creed. There's no need for ad hominem attacks....

 

[mark46]

1) You seem to want to make the Anglican Communion a Reformed Church so taht you can feel more comfortable upon joinng.

2) I will not accept that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is dependent on scripture written after his death. I will not limit the soverighty of the Holy Spirit to speaking only through Scripture. And since I believe that all scripture is God-breathed (not only the OT as discussed by Paul in 2nd Tim), I cannot reject 2 Thes 2:15.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

3) BTW, the sufficiency of scripture is a slightly different argument from sola scriptura and certainly different from sola scriptura as used by curren day evangelists.

4) Following the Tradition of Luther and Calvin is much less reasonable than following the Tradition of the undivided Church as enunciated in the Creeds, the 4 undisputed Councils, and the Christological statements of
the 5th, 6th and 7th councils (which are also not disputed).

Is it possible to follow the faith withoutr referring to spokemen who are part of those in schism (in some sense that is EVERYONE after 787)? When in doubt, we should go to our roots, which is NOT Calvin.

5) You can choose for yourself. Follow the the undivided Church or follow Luther anc Calvin and their interpretations of the faith.

6) SEEKING UNION
I find it rather strange to have you suggesting that I leave the Anglican Communion because I believe in Tradition as a source of Truth. We can argue about interpretation, but it is certainly ACCEPTABLE within the Anglican Communion to believe as I do. As I indicated before, in this regard I follow the teachings of the early CHurch and the teachings of Wesley and his quadralateral.

There is one orthodox faith. Look to scripture, you'll find the many references. I believe that EO, RCC and the Anglican Communion certainly profess that faith and did so in unity through 787. That the RCC and EO have made mistakes after 787 does not change the fact that they accept the common dogma of the faith. That these groups do not recognize each other is not relevant. That they do not accept me as being in a valid Church is not relevant to this issue.

I also believe that Luther and those who followed him were true to the faith. Yes, there are Protestants who accept the faith of the undivided Church. I love the spirituality of some of the rest of the Protestant branch as did Wesley. As teh RCC is wont to say, they all have a measure of the truth, a part of the full deposit of faith.

BTW, the branch paradigm is not acceptable to all Anglicans. But, then, there is little that is acceptable to all Anglicans.

7) I have a special disdain for Calvinism. As has been said in this forum many times, Calvinism has drawn more away from the faith than almost any view. The tulip is not true to the faith.

For some reason, you seem to equate Calvinism with the 5 solas. These are not Calvin's "contribution". His contribution is the 5 pointed tulip, with all its error. The solas are of Luther. Lutherans (who also call themselves catholic and apostolic, as they are) so not have these errors.

MY BOTTOM LINE
I do not have any argument with you regarding the solas. Even with regard to sola scriptura, it is more a matter of interpretation that slogan.

Where we disagree is in the acceptabilty of the cruel legacy of Calvin and in the importance of the Tradition of the undivided Church.

And, of course, I do not accept your characteriztion and understanding of the Anglican Communion as being anti-Catholic and anti-catholic. Anglicans, EO and Lutherans are catholic, apostolic and part of the Catholic Church.

We believe it is Rome that went wrong and added schsimatic dogmatic error after 787. It is Rome that left. You seem to accept the Roman positiion that it is the reformers who left the true church and formed their own church.

I do NOT need to go to another Church to be in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I am home. That EO and RCC does not recognize the uniity of the universal Church is their loss. I will continue to study the fathers and divines of the CHurch, east and west, past and current.

Circular like "truth is what we say is truth because we're the One True Church because we say we're the One True Church"?

Brother, I'm an ex-Orthodox Christian. I know and have used every argument you can think of to try to trump sola scriptura. Nothing you're saying here is new to either me or anyone who has actually studied the issue and there's no reason to repeat the same arguments here. Sadly though, you continue to make the same mistake of confusing solo scriptura with sola scriptura and thus, only succeed in knocking down the strawmen you setup. If you're actually interested in learning what the doctrine actually means and how the doctrine is in fact, the same one as held in the early church, I'd direct you to the following works (I can't post links, sorry):

• The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith A. Mathison
• Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vols. 1-3, William Webster, David T. King

Finally, I would point out that if you are to remain intellectually consistent and honest to your claims, you'd be forced to either embrace some form of Christian Liberalism (not to be confused with voting for Obama) or join one of the numerous "One True Church"es who all can make valid historical claims. As you might have gathered from the TAW forum (the "Anglican and Orthodox" thread specifically), the historical churches do not accept any Anglican claim to have either valid succession or that they have faithfully held to "Tradition." In light of this, an Anglican who believes as you claim to, should seek reunion with the rest of the "universal church" or embrace Liberalism and deny the formal authority of Scripture. Something tells me that it's just a matter of time before you do the former and I pray that you'd study the above mentioned books before doing so. You will not find "light" in any church that rejects the formal sufficiency of Scripture and will quickly find that since there is no consistency in the "Fathers," "Tradition," or even the "ecumenical councils" (which the ancient churches disagree on which ones are valid and pick and choose regarding interpretation and application of the doctrine and canons in them), truth becomes what your priest, bishop, church, or even Pope says is truth. This is not truth. Your Word is truth says Jesus Christ, and His body, the pillar and foundation of the truth, serves to support His Word.

Peace be with you.

 

[file13]

My goodness we're off topic! I don't have time to respond to all of this.

3) BTW, the sufficiency of scripture is a slightly different argument from sola scriptura and certainly different from sola scriptura as used by curren day evangelists.

Yes. That's because many (most?) evangelicals do not follow sola scriptura, but solo scriptura.

4) Following the Tradition of Luther and Calvin is much less reasonable than following the Tradition of the undivided Church as enunciated in the Creeds, the 4 undisputed Councils, and the Christological statements of the 5th, 6th and 7th councils (which are also not disputed).

5) You can choose for yourself. Follow the the undivided Church or follow Luther anc Calvin and their interpretations of the faith.

Which undivided church would that be? The Ethopian Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Copts? Assyrian Orthodox? Eastern Orthodox? Armenian Orthodox? Please clarify and provide sources where I can verify which one is really the "One True Church," since they all seem to make this exclusive claim.

6) SEEKING UNION
I find it rather strange to have you suggesting that I leave the Anglican Communion because I believe in Tradition as a source of Truth. We can argue about interpretation, but it is certainly ACCEPTABLE within the Anglican Communion to believe as I do. As I indicated before, in this regard I follow the teachings of the early CHurch and the teachings of Wesley and his quadralateral.

I never said you should. I said that if you were going to be intellectually honest and consistent you would be forced to. I'm well aware folks in the communion agree with you, but they have the same consistency problem as yourself.

There is one orthodox faith. Look to scripture, you'll find the many references. I believe that EO, RCC and the Anglican Communion certainly profess that faith and did so in unity through 787. That the RCC and EO have made mistakes after 787 does not change the fact that they accept the common dogma of the faith. That these groups do not recognize each other is not relevant. That they do not accept me as being in a valid Church is not relevant to this issue.

Then you all should have no problem uniting. Until that happens, you're forced to admit that there is no such thing as "one orthodox faith," but in fact, many different Traditions and many different Churches who all claim to be the original. Until you can define and show from history what exactly this "one true faith" that's held "everywhere, always, and by everyone," you're forced to admit that there is no true uniformity in the early church and that "Tradition" actually means "traditions" and that they often conflict with one another.

I also believe that Luther and those who followed him were true to the faith. Yes, there are Protestants who accept the faith of the undivided Church. I love the spirituality of some of the rest of the Protestant branch as did Wesley. As teh RCC is wont to say, they all have a measure of the truth, a part of the full deposit of faith.

Luther followed Augustine and was a monergist. This puts him into conflict with the "one orthodox faith" because the East rejects this in favor of synergism, as does Wesley. Again, not so unified eh? Over in the TAW they're even on to the sticky problem of how they deal with a canonized saint who taught "heresy" according to them....

For some reason, you seem to equate Calvinism with the 5 solas. These are not Calvin's "contribution". His contribution is the 5 pointed tulip, with all its error. The solas are of Luther. Lutherans (who also call themselves catholic and apostolic, as they are) so not have these errors.

All of the magesterial reformers agreed on the solas. Where are you getting this idea from that I ever claimed Calvin came up with them or for that matter the idea that I'm saying all Anglicans need to be Calvinists?

But regardless, nothing you've said here is even accurate and it's starting to get quite comical if you look at all the silly things your saying. For example, the doctrines contained in TULIP were not written by Calvin. Arminius was four years old when Calvin died. Later, Arminius went against his teacher Beza and with his followers, came up with the "Five articles of Remonstrance." These five articles were later refuted at the Synod of Dort, which responded to Arminius and co's five points. This is where TULIP comes from.

That being said, nothing contained in TULIP is new and had already been in existence for at least 1000 years since Augustine. Again, see my comment above to luckyfredsdad where I point out that Calvinism is actually Augustinianism because I'm not gonna repeat myself here.

Yes, I know Luther and Lutherans. However, it apparently might suprise you that since they are monergists (Luther was an Augustanian), they are in opposition to the Eastern view of synergy. Your comment about them also being "also call themselves catholic and apostolic" does not prove in any way shape or form what you want it to prove and this in fact shows that "all is not well in Denmark" when it comes to agreement with the "One True Churches". Besides, your ridiculous claim that I (or even Reformed Churches) deny any of these statements shows that you're looking through a very narrow lens when it comes to history. I think at this point your emotions might be clouded your ability to discuss because you continue to put words in my mouth....

Where we disagree is in the acceptabilty of the cruel legacy of Calvin and in the importance of the Tradition of the undivided Church.

Nothing wrong with tradition. But if one puts it on equal footing with Scripture, than one rejects the formal sufficiency of Scripture and thus, rejects both the early church's view of scripture along with the return to this view during the reformation. This is why we must be careful.

And, of course, I do not accept your characteriztion and understanding of the Anglican Communion as being anti-Catholic and anti-catholic.

Please please please please stop putting words in my mouth. The only place this has happend is in your own imagination....

I do NOT need to go to another Church to be in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I am home. That EO and RCC does not recognize the uniity of the universal Church is their loss. I will continue to study the fathers and divines of the CHurch, east and west, past and current.

Good for you! I never said you should stop and in fact I encourage it because the more you do, the less unified it becomes and the more apparent it becomes that "hey guys, the Father's are always arguing from Scripture...hummm, I wonder why they don't argue from Tradition!?"

In any case, I'm done here....

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I think that when people turn to peevishness and unpleasant it is time to withdraw, but I must say that as far as I am concerned you have not put a viable case to substantiate your claims! By the way it wasn't Ramsey who made the declaration, which is perfectly acceptable as a pointer to 20th, Century Anglicanism, it was the metropolitan in 1952, whose name I can't remember, I'm sorry.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I think that when people turn to peevishness and unpleasant it is time to withdraw, but I must say that as far as I am concerned you have not put a viable case to substantiate your claims! By the way it wasn't Ramsey who made the declaration, which is perfectly acceptable as a pointer to 20th, Century Anglicanism, it was the metropolitan in 1952, whose name I can't remember, I'm sorry.

I've been quite riveted by his case. It is certainly more refreshing than 'just because' OBOBesque arguments.

If I had one request, it would be that everyone's posts were just a little bit more bite-sized

 

[mark46]

I belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church as established by Jesus Christ. This is the confession of our faith. This is testified to by the writings that the Holy Spirit, though the councils of his Church, decided that we should include in Scripture. The apostles established the early churches. The doctors of the early church provided understanding of what the Holy Spirit would teach us through scripture and trhough the other traditions passed down from the apostles.

I have no reason to dispute with men with regard to who has the right to exclude others from Christ's Church. I have nothing to gain by debating over whose sin of disunity is worse.

I hve no reason to dispute with those who would make Scripture what it never says it is. Scripture is not sufficient for all Truth and for all our needs. We do not worship a book, even one that is breathed by God Himself. It is Jesus Christ that is sufficient.

Perhaps one of the greatest heresies of the Reformation was that Christ's Church needed to be re-invented in thousands of church bodies, each with their own interpretions of the faith, each thinking that their view was right, with the standard set in the teachings of the protesters. The result is 30,000 separate churches, the ultimate rebuke of Jesus and his prayer for unity in the garden.

In the end, most of us pray each day for our sisters and brothers who confess the faith, no matter what church body they gather with in assembly. And in the end, we also pray for those who cannot accept membership into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. And yes, we also pray for all those have not accepted Jesus as Savior of their lives. We also pray for those who have not accepted Jesus as Lord of their lives.

I know this is heresy to you, but I have little time to pray for those who do not call scripture LOGOS and worhip it as Jesus.

My goodness we're off topic! I don't have time to respond to all of this.



Yes. That's because many (most?) evangelicals do not follow sola scriptura, but solo scriptura.





Which undivided church would that be? The Ethopian Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Copts? Assyrian Orthodox? Eastern Orthodox? Armenian Orthodox? Please clarify and provide sources where I can verify which one is really the "One True Church," since they all seem to make this exclusive claim.



I never said you should. I said that if you were going to be intellectually honest and consistent you would be forced to. I'm well aware folks in the communion agree with you, but they have the same consistency problem as yourself.



Then you all should have no problem uniting. Until that happens, you're forced to admit that there is no such thing as "one orthodox faith," but in fact, many different Traditions and many different Churches who all claim to be the original. Until you can define and show from history what exactly this "one true faith" that's held "everywhere, always, and by everyone," you're forced to admit that there is no true uniformity in the early church and that "Tradition" actually means "traditions" and that they often conflict with one another.



Luther followed Augustine and was a monergist. This puts him into conflict with the "one orthodox faith" because the East rejects this in favor of synergism, as does Wesley. Again, not so unified eh? Over in the TAW they're even on to the sticky problem of how they deal with a canonized saint who taught "heresy" according to them....



All of the magesterial reformers agreed on the solas. Where are you getting this idea from that I ever claimed Calvin came up with them or for that matter the idea that I'm saying all Anglicans need to be Calvinists?

But regardless, nothing you've said here is even accurate and it's starting to get quite comical if you look at all the silly things your saying. For example, the doctrines contained in TULIP were not written by Calvin. Arminius was four years old when Calvin died. Later, Arminius went against his teacher Beza and with his followers, came up with the "Five articles of Remonstrance." These five articles were later refuted at the Synod of Dort, which responded to Arminius and co's five points. This is where TULIP comes from.

That being said, nothing contained in TULIP is new and had already been in existence for at least 1000 years since Augustine. Again, see my comment above to luckyfredsdad where I point out that Calvinism is actually Augustinianism because I'm not gonna repeat myself here.

Yes, I know Luther and Lutherans. However, it apparently might suprise you that since they are monergists (Luther was an Augustanian), they are in opposition to the Eastern view of synergy. Your comment about them also being "also call themselves catholic and apostolic" does not prove in any way shape or form what you want it to prove and this in fact shows that "all is not well in Denmark" when it comes to agreement with the "One True Churches". Besides, your ridiculous claim that I (or even Reformed Churches) deny any of these statements shows that you're looking through a very narrow lens when it comes to history. I think at this point your emotions might be clouded your ability to discuss because you continue to put words in my mouth....



Nothing wrong with tradition. But if one puts it on equal footing with Scripture, than one rejects the formal sufficiency of Scripture and thus, rejects both the early church's view of scripture along with the return to this view during the reformation. This is why we must be careful.



Please please please please stop putting words in my mouth. The only place this has happend is in your own imagination....



Good for you! I never said you should stop and in fact I encourage it because the more you do, the less unified it becomes and the more apparent it becomes that "hey guys, the Father's are always arguing from Scripture...hummm, I wonder why they don't argue from Tradition!?"

In any case, I'm done here....

 

[file13]

I belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church as established by Jesus Christ. This is the confession of our faith. This is testified to by the writings that the Holy Spirit, though the councils of his Church, decided that we should include in Scripture. The apostles established the early churches. The doctors of the early church provided understanding of what the Holy Spirit would teach us through scripture and trhough the other traditions passed down from the apostles.

Can you be more specific? What you've stated here describes just about all orthodox (small-o) Christians believe (which includes Catholics, Orthodox, and classical Protestants). Or are you claiming that anyone who subscribes to small-o orthodoxy is a part of the universal church? If so, please elaborate.

Scripture is not sufficient for all Truth and for all our needs.

Solo scriptura is a silly position. But would you agree that it is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work?

We do not worship a book, even one that is breathed by God Himself. It is Jesus Christ that is sufficient.

Cliches and slogans, although amusing, really don't add much to your case. Regardless, I feel I should mention that sola scriptura is not ignorant of the need for hermeneutics, but then again, you really don't seem interested in what sola scriptura actually teaches since you keep on giving those strawmen a good thrashing.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Can you be more specific? What you've stated here describes just about all orthodox (small-o) Christians believe (which includes Catholics, Orthodox, and classical Protestants). Or are you claiming that anyone who subscribes to small-o orthodoxy is a part of the universal church? If so, please elaborate. ::

Entrance to the Body of Christ, is gained ,Anglicans are taught, by baptism. This is completed by the laying on of hands by the Catholic Bishop after sufficient teaching by that same bishop. This is what makes a Catholic! There are claims that to attain that dizzy height, we have to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, this our Church rejects as not having any source in either Scripture or Holy Tradition. With some two thousand years experience under their belt Anglicans do not claim to be the whole Church, that would indeed be foolish, what the Anglican Church claims and this is substantiated by custom and practice, ( tradition,) is to be no more than a Communion of Catholic Believers within the Body of Christ! After all the Church has never been a monolithic Body with power a base centred on a western patriarchy, it is a confederation of ,'Particular,'Churches based on the Five Patriarchates
with the Authority or Magisterium based on the Bishops in the ( Seven) Councils.
Membership of Christ's Body is gained through baptism by water and by word, after instruction in the faith we are then confirmed by a bishop a descendant of the apostles. If one is in a Church that doesn't hold to the Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, then we would be in not the Catholic Church, but a Christian Sect!

 

[file13]

Entrance to the Body of Christ, is gained ,Anglicans are taught, by baptism.

I think many Christians could almost subscribe to what you've said here in the first sentence. Although I think they can and should rightly insist on a distinction between Baptism being the material entry into the visible body of Christ (sheep and goats together) while God's calling and election is the the formal entry into the invisible body of Christ (the sheep). If you'd agree with this, would you also agree that all baptized Christians are thus catholic?

This is completed by the laying on of hands by the Catholic Bishop after sufficient teaching by that same bishop. This is what makes a 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.

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?

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?

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." Are 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?

If one is in a Church that doesn't hold to the Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, then we would be in not the Catholic Church, but a Christian Sect!

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?

 

[MLynn]

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.

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

 

[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.This is not to say that they are not Christian, but are members of a Christian Sect!

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."

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!

Are 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?

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!

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 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!