Do Anglicans tend more towards Calvinism or Arminianism?

[R_A]

Look to Jesus, not to whether we have free will or not.

The question of free will is antecedent to looking to Jesus. Can we choose to look to Jesus in the first place?

 

[MKJ]

The question of free will is antecedent to looking to Jesus. Can we choose to look to Jesus in the first place?

That's true in a way, but I think historically it isn't really. The first Christians were not debating whether or not they had free will.

To me, there just isn't any evidence of a denial of free will anywhere in the early church. Augustine seems the most quoted to suggest there is, but I find don't see that if you look at everything he said on the issue. It isn't until the Reformation that it appears, and that is just too late for me.

It seems to me they were trying to make an either/or statement out of what had always been a both/and synthesis.

 

[R_A]

That's true in a way, but I think historically it isn't really. The first Christians were not debating whether or not they had free will.

To me, there just isn't any evidence of a denial of free will anywhere in the early church. Augustine seems the most quoted to suggest there is, but I find don't see that if you look at everything he said on the issue. It isn't until the Reformation that it appears, and that is just too late for me.

Well the Council of Orange in the 5th century also formally denied it, in a way that seems remarkably similar to the later Calvinists. But I of course agree that, excluding such isolated (and late) examples, the tenor of the Early Church was what we today would call Arminian. In other words, they had a definite view, even if it wasn't formalized into a larger theory. To a question of "Can you choose Jesus" they would quite simply and uncontroversially answer, "Yes."

 

[PaladinValer]

Well the Council of Orange in the 5th century also formally denied it, in a way that seems remarkably similar to the later Calvinists. But I of course agree that, excluding such isolated (and late) examples, the tenor of the Early Church was what we today would call Arminian. In other words, they had a definite view, even if it wasn't formalized into a larger theory. To a question of "Can you choose Jesus" they would quite simply and uncontroversially answer, "Yes."

No, they wouldn't.

They taught synergy, not monergism on the part of humanity. Furthermore, they taught that, despite synergy, God acts first and foremost always.

 

[MKJ]

Well the Council of Orange in the 5th century also formally denied it, in a way that seems remarkably similar to the later Calvinists. But I of course agree that, excluding such isolated (and late) examples, the tenor of the Early Church was what we today would call Arminian. In other words, they had a definite view, even if it wasn't formalized into a larger theory. To a question of "Can you choose Jesus" they would quite simply and uncontroversially answer, "Yes."

I wouldn't call it Arminianism though. That is a response to Calvinism, not the position of the early church. As a pp said, it tends to accept the Calvinist positioning of the question.

 

[Pamarella]

The question is always based on free will, not on Jesus.

Jesus(Yeshua) is God manifested in the flesh.

Who is Jesus? How is He God? How is He human? Etc.



Look to Jesus, not to whether we have free will or not.

 

[Andrewn]

I'm a bit confused now, and I'd like to know whether you, as Anglicans, tend more towards Arminianism or Calvinism.

My impression is that in early Anglicanism many Reformed views were adopted. Some people still uphold these views while others have adopted Wesley's 18th-century corrections. Thus the Methodist view as well as that of the ELCA are relevant. The latter are in full communion with the Anglican Church of Canada, and probably other Anglican churches.

Having said this, I disagree with you that Predestination as taught by the Reformed churches is biblically supported. This is a misinterpretation.