Erasmus or Luther?

Tigger45

Romans 12:2…be transformed…
Supporter
Aug 24, 2012
20,713
13,149
E. Eden
✟1,264,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
When it comes to the topic of ‘free will’ would Anglicanism be closer to the position of Erasmus, Luther or unique to itself?

I’m aware Anglicanism is a ‘big tent’ tradition so clarifying which sect that is being referred to would be helpful. Although all answers are appreciated, I am most interested in the leanings of the ACNA & Episcopalians being those two are the only choices that are available to me in our area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
This Episcopalian believes in free will and is more aligned with Erasmus than Luther.

Article 10 of the 39 Articles of Religion:

Article X: Of Free-Will
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.​
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Tigger45
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
When it comes to the topic of ‘free will’ would Anglicanism be closer to the position of Erasmus, Luther or unique to itself?

I’m aware Anglicanism is a ‘big tent’ tradition so clarifying which sect that is being referred to would be helpful. Although all answers are appreciated, I am most interested in the leanings of the ACNA & Episcopalians being those two are the only choices that are available to me in our area.
The big tent probably governs the answer in this case, Tigger, but I'm pretty sure that in the ACNA, it's free will that is the norm. In TEC, it's certainly free will.
 
Upvote 0

Tigger45

Romans 12:2…be transformed…
Supporter
Aug 24, 2012
20,713
13,149
E. Eden
✟1,264,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
The big tent probably governs the answer in this case, Tigger, but I'm pretty sure that in the ACNA, it's free will that is the norm. In TEC, it's certainly free will.
Thx Albion.

That being said where would Continuing Anglicans fall on the spectrum of free will?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Thx Albion.

That being said where would Continuing Anglicans fall on the spectrum of free will?

This is a tough question to answer with precision. That's because Continuing Anglicans, like Anglicans generally, exhibit a lot of tolerance when it comes to such things.

Discounting the tiny churches that get listed as Continuing Anglican in some sources but have no actual connection to the movement but only have certain similarities and their own claims...

...most jurisdictions lean towards the catholic emphasis. That's not to say that they have codified it or flatly reject Anglicans of a different orientation. And there are different level of emphasis between these church bodies, too.

The only Continuing Anglican jurisdiction that could be considered to lean towards the Reformed POV would be the United Episcopal Church of N.A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Thx Albion.

That being said where would Continuing Anglicans fall on the spectrum of free will?
To piggy back on what @Albion said and I agree with him is that bodies like the Reformed Episcopal Church, Some parishes in the Anglican province of America and any other body with the word reformed are going to lean towards Luther. As you said it’s a big tent so there varying degrees of agreement even amongst reformed Anglicans.

Also be careful reading article 27, in case you weren’t aware and my apologies if you are the word prevent is the archaic usage meaning “to act before”.

A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tigger45
Upvote 0

Till Schilling

Active Member
Feb 3, 2021
184
121
Bern, Switzerland
✟17,430.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
This Episcopalian believes in free will and is more aligned with Erasmus than Luther.

Article 10 of the 39 Articles of Religion:

Article X: Of Free-Will
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.​

Where do you see any leaning towards free will as it was understood by Erasmus in article 10? Or any of the other articles. The theology of the articles is monergistic.

See Article 10 — Of Free-Will
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Where do you see any leaning towards free will in the understanding of Erasmus in article 10? Or any of the other articles. The theology of the articles is monergistic.

See Article 10 — Of Free-Will

If you read my post, I wrote what THIS Anglican believes and provided a further reference from the 39 articles. Never did I attest that they are the same. It's a big tent.
 
Upvote 0

Till Schilling

Active Member
Feb 3, 2021
184
121
Bern, Switzerland
✟17,430.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
If you read my post, I wrote what THIS Anglican believes and provided a further reference from the 39 articles. Never did I attest that they are the same. It's a big tent.

I did read your post and understood your belief. It is just that the reference you provided does not support your view. Which does not really matter as those 16th century confessions have lost their normative role anyway.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

faith confidence hope

Active Member
Aug 15, 2019
40
2
46
Helena
✟4,859.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are just so many different subgroups within the Anglican denomination today.

I do not know where to even begin to compare to even Luther.

Even the Lutheran Church today, does not uphold or believe many of the teachings and faiths of Martian Luther and this daughter organization that was conceived upon the fact alone that Martian Luther was nothing more than a rebel priest.

The Anglican Church was conceived when King Henry VIII split his kingdom and dominion from the mother - the Roman Catholic Church, in 1534

I believe that when we all take a closer look at all of the details of what the early Anglican Church taught about many things " including FREEWILL " we will find that it is mainly a one-step based theology- meaning, in the one-step theology that is only taking one single step - in matters of faith and theology - the only goal for the Anglican Church would be to just simply rebel against her mother and to pick apart and denounce and tear down all of the teachings and claims of the Roman Catholic Church. - from the standpoint and perspective of a rebel Catholic / or, an ex Catholic.

The Roman Church had such a chain and such a hold on Europe and upon peoples minds and upon their ability to read the Scriptures for themselves in their own language. That, just rebelling alone - and just the simple act of creating a simple insurrection, this alone was a miraculous achievement -

The question I think would be good to ask is, has the Anglican Church or any other daughter Church Of Rome progressed beyond the one - step theology of just simply being conceived by rebellion against Mother Rome.

Is it enough - or is it good enough to simply have a Copy Cat Bible of the Jesuit Douay Rheims English Translation. Is this as far as Protestants want to go - - just having a King James translation, which is almost an exact duplicate copy of the Catholic Douay Rheims English Translation,

or do protestants continue onward studying and learning the Greek and Hebrew and finding more detail about FREEWILL, and finding more about the meaning of the original message within the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS instead of relying upon the Roman Catholic Church and King James to decide for Protestants what the Bible says. The King James Translators had not broken away from the Catholic Church no more than just a single generation.

Meaning, just one single generation had passed from breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church - until the time when King James made an almost exact duplicated copy of the Catholic Douay Rheims English Bible and changed a few sentence structures, and provided his Kingdom a Bible Permit. 1611

A King James Bible Permit - authorized by the King - no death penalty, no torture, no burning at the stake, no torture and imprisonment or fines or confiscation of properties for citizens possessing or reading.

I have found that when we honestly go through and study the Manuscripts of Hebrew and Greek we find that The Church Of Rome and the King Of England were not at all interested in producing a true reflection of the nearly 2000 year old ancient book.

An ancient book that had not been translated into a complete book until nearly 2000 years after it was written.
 
Last edited:
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Shane R
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have worshipped in a variety of Anglican parishes, and not one of them has used the King James as their standard text for liturgical or devotional use. I think we've long since moved on from either a reliance on one translation, or a sense of Biblical scholarship as either reactionary or derivative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kalevalatar
Upvote 0

faith confidence hope

Active Member
Aug 15, 2019
40
2
46
Helena
✟4,859.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello - Arcangl86

Would you consider how many languages both the King James Bible and D-R Bibles have been translated into ?

If there are Millions of bibles translated from the King James and D-R English translations - would not this still matter to the majority of the majority of the world's Christians.

The English language would not matter, true - but the altered and minipulated message that contradicts and differs from the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS - in these English Translations would be exactly the same mistranslation all across the world - this mistranslated message matters very much to the majority. They are in love with the false message of the - King James and D-R.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The big tent probably governs the answer in this case, Tigger, but I'm pretty sure that in the ACNA, it's free will that is the norm. In TEC, it's certainly free will.

Instead of Erasmus or Luther, many Anglicans choose Wesley.

We are a big tent. However, I have always been very uncomfortable with both Erasmus and Calvin.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Padres1969

Episcopalian
Nov 28, 2015
403
181
San Diego
✟28,176.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There are just so many different subgroups within the Anglican denomination today.

I do not know where to even begin to compare to even Luther.

Even the Lutheran Church today, does not uphold or believe many of the teachings and faiths of Martian Luther and this daughter organization that was conceived upon the fact alone that Martian Luther was nothing more than a rebel priest.

The Anglican Church was conceived when King Henry VIII split his kingdom and dominion from the mother - the Roman Catholic Church, in 1534

I believe that when we all take a closer look at all of the details of what the early Anglican Church taught about many things " including FREEWILL " we will find that it is mainly a one-step based theology- meaning, in the one-step theology that is only taking one single step - in matters of faith and theology - the only goal for the Anglican Church would be to just simply rebel against her mother and to pick apart and denounce and tear down all of the teachings and claims of the Roman Catholic Church. - from the standpoint and perspective of a rebel Catholic / or, an ex Catholic.

The Roman Church had such a chain and such a hold on Europe and upon peoples minds and upon their ability to read the Scriptures for themselves in their own language. That, just rebelling alone - and just the simple act of creating a simple insurrection, this alone was a miraculous achievement -

The question I think would be good to ask is, has the Anglican Church or any other daughter Church Of Rome progressed beyond the one - step theology of just simply being conceived by rebellion against Mother Rome.

Is it enough - or is it good enough to simply have a Copy Cat Bible of the Jesuit Douay Rheims English Translation. Is this as far as Protestants want to go - - just having a King James translation, which is almost an exact duplicate copy of the Catholic Douay Rheims English Translation,

or do protestants continue onward studying and learning the Greek and Hebrew and finding more detail about FREEWILL, and finding more about the meaning of the original message within the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS instead of relying upon the Roman Catholic Church and King James to decide for Protestants what the Bible says. The King James Translators had not broken away from the Catholic Church no more than just a single generation.

Meaning, just one single generation had passed from breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church - until the time when King James made an almost exact duplicated copy of the Catholic Douay Rheims English Bible and changed a few sentence structures, and provided his Kingdom a Bible Permit. 1611

A King James Bible Permit - authorized by the King - no death penalty, no torture, no burning at the stake, no torture and imprisonment or fines or confiscation of properties for citizens possessing or reading.

I have found that when we honestly go through and study the Manuscripts of Hebrew and Greek we find that The Church Of Rome and the King Of England were not at all interested in producing a true reflection of the nearly 2000 year old ancient book.

An ancient book that had not been translated into a complete book until nearly 2000 years after it was written.
Good news is most of the bibles in use today aren't KJV or the Douay-Rheims based and most non-KJV only churches don't use them anymore. In fact most of the most commonly used versions have gone back to as much of the source material or near source material as they can.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,921
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,152.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
There are just so many different subgroups within the Anglican denomination today.

I do not know where to even begin to compare to even Luther.

Even the Lutheran Church today, does not uphold or believe many of the teachings and faiths of Martian Luther and this daughter organization that was conceived upon the fact alone that Martian Luther was nothing more than a rebel priest.

The Anglican Church was conceived when King Henry VIII split his kingdom and dominion from the mother - the Roman Catholic Church, in 1534

I believe that when we all take a closer look at all of the details of what the early Anglican Church taught about many things " including FREEWILL " we will find that it is mainly a one-step based theology- meaning, in the one-step theology that is only taking one single step - in matters of faith and theology - the only goal for the Anglican Church would be to just simply rebel against her mother and to pick apart and denounce and tear down all of the teachings and claims of the Roman Catholic Church. - from the standpoint and perspective of a rebel Catholic / or, an ex Catholic.

The Roman Church had such a chain and such a hold on Europe and upon peoples minds and upon their ability to read the Scriptures for themselves in their own language. That, just rebelling alone - and just the simple act of creating a simple insurrection, this alone was a miraculous achievement -

The question I think would be good to ask is, has the Anglican Church or any other daughter Church Of Rome progressed beyond the one - step theology of just simply being conceived by rebellion against Mother Rome.

Is it enough - or is it good enough to simply have a Copy Cat Bible of the Jesuit Douay Rheims English Translation. Is this as far as Protestants want to go - - just having a King James translation, which is almost an exact duplicate copy of the Catholic Douay Rheims English Translation,

or do protestants continue onward studying and learning the Greek and Hebrew and finding more detail about FREEWILL, and finding more about the meaning of the original message within the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS instead of relying upon the Roman Catholic Church and King James to decide for Protestants what the Bible says. The King James Translators had not broken away from the Catholic Church no more than just a single generation.

Meaning, just one single generation had passed from breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church - until the time when King James made an almost exact duplicated copy of the Catholic Douay Rheims English Bible and changed a few sentence structures, and provided his Kingdom a Bible Permit. 1611

A King James Bible Permit - authorized by the King - no death penalty, no torture, no burning at the stake, no torture and imprisonment or fines or confiscation of properties for citizens possessing or reading.

I have found that when we honestly go through and study the Manuscripts of Hebrew and Greek we find that The Church Of Rome and the King Of England were not at all interested in producing a true reflection of the nearly 2000 year old ancient book.

An ancient book that had not been translated into a complete book until nearly 2000 years after it was written.

Additionally, characterizing the KJV as a “copycat Douai Rheims” is extremely inaccurate historically. The KJV most closely resembles the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible, both of which it was intended to replace, but was also a new translation with rigorous scholarship by 17th century standards. They even consulted the Peshitta! (I would, to my discredit, not have believed there was a Briton alive in the reign of King James who could read Syriac).

As for the Douai Rheims, the original is a very poor translation of the Latin; the Challoner edition in the 18th century was basically a rewrite to give it similiar attributes to a KJV, if memory serves.

Do forgive me, my Anglican friends, as an interloper, for my presence in this thread, intended in support of the scholastic integrity of the Church of England in translating the KJV, which I think was as proper as we might hope for with any modern translation.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
While I agree with your comments, I am not sure why we dwell on the 17th translations. And yes, I do understand that many believe the KJV is essentially delivered by God to the English translators. As Anglicans with a world-wide Communion and mission, we should know much better than that.

I do like the NKJV (and the RSV), both of which are serious improvements on the KJV. Those based on the Aramaic are better, but are less available and studied. Both the Roman and Eastern churches find these translations acceptable.

There is a lot to be said for using the Orthodox translation, especially for the New Testament. When you speak of the lack of experts on the original languages in England, there were many such experts through out the Greek and Arabic world.

Additionally, characterizing the KJV as a “copycat Douai Rheims” is extremely inaccurate historically. The KJV most closely resembles the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible, both of which it was intended to replace, but was also a new translation with rigorous scholarship by 17th century standards. They even consulted the Peshitta! (I would, to my discredit, not have believed there was a Briton alive in the reign of King James who could read Syriac).

As for the Douai Rheims, the original is a very poor translation of the Latin; the Challoner edition in the 18th century was basically a rewrite to give it similiar attributes to a KJV, if memory serves.

Do forgive me, my Anglican friends, as an interloper, for my presence in this thread, intended in support of the scholastic integrity of the Church of England in translating the KJV, which I think was as proper as we might hope for with any modern translation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,921
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,152.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
While I agree with your comments, I am not sure why we dwell on the 17th translations. And yes, I do understand that many believe the KJV is essentially delivered by God to the English translators. As Anglicans with a world-wide Communion and mission, we should know much better than that.

I do like the NKJV (and the RSV), both of which are serious improvements on the KJV. Those based on the Aramaic are better, but are less available and studied. Both the Roman and Eastern churches find these translations acceptable.

There is a lot to be said for using the Orthodox translation, especially for the New Testament. When you speak of the lack of experts on the original languages in England, there were many such experts through out the Greek and Arabic world.

Don’t forget, there are several Syriac Aramaic translations that predate the Peshitta, but which were less easily “understanded by the people,” and Classical Syriac is quite different from Gallilean and Judean Aramaic. Which are in turn different from the Aramaic in the Old Testament, and the Babylonian Eastern Neo-Aramaic of the Talmud. So the value of the Greek Orthodox textus receptus and also certain manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus, is paramount, but seeing the Aramaic and interesting quirks in the Peshitta, for example, the translators did not feel the need to insert a translation of Aramaic quotations of our Lord and other Aramaic things which survived the dialectical gap, just as I, an American, need not provide an Americanized translation of every bit of other English dialects, although sometimes this is helpful.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark46
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Don’t forget, there are several Syriac Aramaic translations that predate the Peshitta, but which were less easily “understanded by the people,” and Classical Syriac is quite different from Gallilean and Judean Aramaic. Which are in turn different from the Aramaic in the Old Testament, and the Babylonian Eastern Neo-Aramaic of the Talmud. So the value of the Greek Orthodox textus receptus and also certain manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus, is paramount, but seeing the Aramaic and interesting quirks in the Peshitta, for example, the translators did not feel the need to insert a translation of Aramaic quotations of our Lord and other Aramaic things which survived the dialectical gap, just as I, an American, need not provide an Americanized translation of every bit of other English dialects, although sometimes this is helpful.

Also, in the West, we have little access to many hundreds of years of Arabic biblical scholarship.

With regard to understanding the idiom better, I have found the books on viewing the Bible from the perspective of a Middle Eastern reader useful. While it may be comfortable to use English, Puritan amd Calvinist models and perspectives, we need to understand the words from a linguistic and cultural setting other than England.
 
Upvote 0