Question on the 39 Articles

[mfaust]

Hello all!

I have a question which has been difficult for me to find an answer to. I have been doing some reading here about the 39 Articles and I cannot figure out why they are important for today's Episcopal Church. From what I have read here, for the laity they are not binding and as been pointed out in an older thread concerning them "they are in the Historic Documents of the BCP".

Yet from what I have read here, those ordained in the Church must agree with them. I guess I cannot understand why? From what I gather (I could easily be wrong) but the 39 Articles are very close to (if not explicitly) reformed theology in nature.

While I do not hold to reformed theology (I am not "against" it like some may be), I feel as if this is problematic. Because the average church goer may go there either not aware of their priest holding reformed theological views or may even be strongly opposed to it because they are not aware that for Priests, the 39 are not just "historical documents".

I mean sure the priest may not preach reformed theology, but something just doesn't sound right about this. I mean (no offense to Calvinists) but it seems like the Episcopalian church is 3 (4 at most) point Calvinism in disguise.

Now please keep in mind, I am VERY NEW to the Anglican/Episcopalian faith and it is possible I have all my info completely wrong. All my info I have gotten while reading old threads here in STR and this is how I understood all that I read. I mean no offense to anyone here as I love this church and plan to stay here. As I said in my intro post, I believe I was called by God to be in this church so I am not trying to be insulting. I just need to come to some kind of understanding. Even though the Anglican church is a "large tent", is it at its core, a Reformed Church? Any help resolving this issue would be appreciative.

 

[PaladinValer]

Hello all!

I have a question which has been difficult for me to find an answer to. I have been doing some reading here about the 39 Articles and I cannot figure out why they are important for today's Episcopal Church. From what I have read here, for the laity they are not binding and as been pointed out in an older thread concerning them "they are in the Historic Documents of the BCP".

The Historic Documents are not "no longer necessary". After all, the Definition of Chalcedon is there, and that is a necessary dogma.

Yet from what I have read here, those ordained in the Church must agree with them. I guess I cannot understand why? From what I gather (I could easily be wrong) but the 39 Articles are very close to (if not explicitly) reformed theology in nature.

Yes...and no, in terms of them being "Reformed". You need to remember that Anglicanism, when the 39 came into play, was under Queen Lizzie II, who had, unlike her two siblings and her father (or, perhaps, because of them...or both), made a real and valid attempt to make the Church of England a truly unifying Church. The 39 Articles can be taken very broadly, and that was the intent of their interpretation.

The 39 are not emphasized as much as they used to be, but they remain nonetheless. I personally don't put that much stock in them, but to say they are "Reformed" is not truly very accurate.

While I do not hold to reformed theology (I am not "against" it like some may be), I feel as if this is problematic. Because the average church goer may go there either not aware of their priest holding reformed theological views or may even be strongly opposed to it because they are not aware that for Priests, the 39 are not just "historical documents".

I mean sure the priest may not preach reformed theology, but something just doesn't sound right about this. I mean (no offense to Calvinists) but it seems like the Episcopalian church is 3 (4 at most) point Calvinism in disguise.

Calvinism and Anglicanism have been at odds in the past, particularly when it came to the Puritans. It isn't "impossible," but it is problematic (so is Arminianism often). Given our sacramental nature, I'd say we are closest to a non-Thomistic theosis or Lutheran understanding.

Furthermore, in TEC, I do not believe clergy are required to uphold the Articles. It may be true in other provinces, but not TEC.

Now please keep in mind, I am VERY NEW to the Anglican/Episcopalian faith and it is possible I have all my info completely wrong. All my info I have gotten while reading old threads here in STR and this is how I understood all that I read. I mean no offense to anyone here as I love this church and plan to stay here. As I said in my intro post, I believe I was called by God to be in this church so I am not trying to be insulting. I just need to come to some kind of understanding. Even though the Anglican church is a "large tent", is it at its core, a Reformed Church? Any help resolving this issue would be appreciative.

You are not insulting anyone. Quite honestly, I give you a ton of credit for actually doing some research within CF. I've rarely seen such scholarship here.

Continue your investigations and questions!

 

[MKJ]

As far as I know the clergy are only required to uphold them in the Church of England. They are not required to in Canada.

 

[mfaust]

Thank you both for the info. I really appreciate it.

 

[bhillyard]

They came into effect with Elizabeth I, in 1563.

 

[Rurik]

To the people who have said the the articals have no relivence, can you please explane to me why the break off groups reafrim them? They must have some sort of relivence if this keeps on happening.

 

[MKJ]

To the people who have said the the articals have no relivence, can you please explane to me why the break off groups reafrim them? They must have some sort of relivence if this keeps on happening.

It isn't really that they are irrelavent, necessarily. They are important in that they are a particular picture of Anglicanism at a particular time - the represent the consensus of the Elizabethan settlement, and that has been very foundational in Anglicanism. But, they are one document, not some sort of confessional statement that is meant to be for all time or to include everything.

They are also very much a response to the goings on of the period they were created, so without knowing something about that time it can be hard to see what they mean.

Some Anglican groups do take them as an expression of what those people currently believe, and that is probably why they affirm them. As well, they can be interpreted in a very broad way. I think sometimes people affirm them because they are looking for any points of agreement to build on.

 

[PaladinValer]

It isn't really that they are irrelavent, necessarily. They are important in that they are a particular picture of Anglicanism at a particular time - the represent the consensus of the Elizabethan settlement, and that has been very foundational in Anglicanism. But, they are one document, not some sort of confessional statement that is meant to be for all time or to include everything.

They are also very much a response to the goings on of the period they were created, so without knowing something about that time it can be hard to see what they mean.

Some Anglican groups do take them as an expression of what those people currently believe, and that is probably why they affirm them. As well, they can be interpreted in a very broad way. I think sometimes people affirm them because they are looking for any points of agreement to build on.

I pretty much second this.

 

[Albion]

To the people who have said the the articals have no relivence, can you please explane to me why the break off groups reafrim them? They must have some sort of relivence if this keeps on happening.

We hold to the Articles because they reflect the faith of Anglicanism. Although many Anglican groups say that they don't matter any more and are just a reflection of where the church was in the 16th century, the US church didn't exist when they were written and yet, when the church came into existence, it affirmed the Articles of Religion--in 1801. If the Articles were irrelevant after 1600, our forefathers must not have thought so.

Even the famous Anglican Catholic revival of the 1840s (the Oxford Movement) argued that the Articles can have more than one interpretation, not that they were of no significance any more. And that was almost 200 years after the Articles were adopted. The Episcopal Church in the USA, in fact, has never rescinded its adoption of the Articles. You've already learned that other Anglican churches still require them of new priests when ordained.

So it is for individuals and groups within some churches to have decided that the Articles are not going to speak for them. We in the "continuing Anglican" churches are convinced that the Articles are a correct statement of Christian belief and practice, and that's the most important reason for reaffirming them, as others here have already suggested.

 

[mfaust]

What everyone is saying makes sense... but I still can't wrap my head around why they are still important or even a reflection of the Anglican faith "today". I can understand that the Fathers of the Episcopalian Church felt they were, I understand that they were originally very important.

But why are they today so important anywhere except as a "historical treasure" if you take my meaning.

In my original post, I mentioned that they are very Calvinist in nature. I see that was not entirely accurate as was pointed out. However while going over the Articles again, and it seems Articles IX and X go hand in hand showing the concept of Total Depravity with number X being the clincher:

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.

And number XVII showing Predestination, Election and "possibly" Limited Atonement:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

Those are very Calvinist from what I can see.

Now again, I am not even remotely saying I have an issue with these or that they are wrong. Not at all. But I know many Episcopalians who do not agree with those. Now if someone raised in the Anglican/Episcopalian church wanted to become clergy and where they were required agreement to the 39 Articles... that seems like kind of a bait and switch. Not intentionally mind you... but it still feels off.

Now if the laity studied the Articles ahead of time and decided they didn't agree with them, they could decide what to do from there. But why would they if the laity are not bound to them as well? I still fail to see why (in areas where the clergy are bound to them) why the laity would not be as well.

Now what I am hearing is that the 39 Articles are not meant to be a SoF in the same way as the Westminster Confession or some such documents, but it seems like that is what they are for some clergy as a requirement. So again like I said in my OP, it seems like you are requiring the clergy to believe one thing, while some of the laity believes it while others don't. It just is confusing to me and should be consistent.

Again, I just have to reiterate, I am truly not attacking the Anglican church and for the most part, I am sympathetic with Calvinism if not in agreement with it (still mulling it over). It is NOT the 39 I have an issue with. If they were required, I could go with them. If not, then ok. And I love how the Anglican Church can be so diverse in belief among its members. I see this a good thing. HOWEVER, with the 39 Articles, I feel if it is going to be a requirement for some, it should be a requirement for all or none. It just feels off to me.

I hope I am making sense and not offending anyone. I am just getting this worked out in my mind. Aside from this ONE issue, I am more than happy in my church, and proud to be a part of it.

Some Anglican groups do take them as an expression of what those people currently believe, and that is probably why they affirm them. As well, they can be interpreted in a very broad way. I think sometimes people affirm them because they are looking for any points of agreement to build on.

This all makes sense, but perhaps then the affirmation of them should be agreed upon by each individual church if particular clergy wants to serve there. I don't know. It is just confusing why it is the way it is.

 

[PaladinValer]

What everyone is saying makes sense... but I still can't wrap my head around why they are still important or even a reflection of the Anglican faith "today". I can understand that the Fathers of the Episcopalian Church felt they were, I understand that they were originally very important.

But why are they today so important anywhere except as a "historical treasure" if you take my meaning.

The Articles are paid lip service pretty much, with exception of those which were defended by the Early Church. However, as an Anglo-Catholic, I see nothing wrong with the Articles.

Albion is incorrect that they have such significance today in the Anglican Communion; only in some of the Continuing Churches. They were, as MKJ says and suggests, written at a certain time for a specific reason, and their intent and interpretation was broad. As I said, they were not as Calvinistic as you seem to think.

In my original post, I mentioned that they are very Calvinist in nature. I see that was not entirely accurate as was pointed out. However while going over the Articles again, and it seems Articles IX and X go hand in hand showing the concept of Total Depravity with number X being the clincher:

Total Depravity, in the sense that no one, in and of themselves, cannot say oneself or anyone else, is orthodox. The idea that some are born only to experience hell, is not found in that article. That would be Calvinism. As the article is written, it basically says what I said in the first sentence along with the fact that faith is a gift from God as are grace and salvation. That's all. There's nothing Calvinistic about it.

And number XVII showing Predestination, Election and "possibly" Limited Atonement:

There's no double predestination there. Since the Bible says He loves the whole Earth that He gave Christ to die for, we need to read the article in that context. God is not a respecter of persons; equal is His love. Therefore, the article is teaching singular predestination, which is orthodox and absolutely not Calvinist.

Those are very Calvinist from what I can see.

What then is your understanding of Calvinism?

Now again, I am not even remotely saying I have an issue with these or that they are wrong. Not at all. But I know many Episcopalians who do not agree with those. Now if someone raised in the Anglican/Episcopalian church wanted to become clergy and where they were required agreement to the 39 Articles... that seems like kind of a bait and switch. Not intentionally mind you... but it still feels off.

Again, those who are educated and understand the history and intent upon the implementation of those Articles know that they were meant to be broad in interpretation and in purpose. Once that is understood, then their true meaning is easily ascertained. Albion's position ignores that and is not historic.

Now if the laity studied the Articles ahead of time and decided they didn't agree with them, they could decide what to do from there. But why would they if the laity are not bound to them as well? I still fail to see why (in areas where the clergy are bound to them) why the laity would not be as well.

If they study the Articles without learning the history, then their study is moot and their opinion colored and invalid.

Now what I am hearing is that the 39 Articles are not meant to be a SoF in the same way as the Westminster Confession or some such documents, but it seems like that is what they are for some clergy as a requirement. So again like I said in my OP, it seems like you are requiring the clergy to believe one thing, while some of the laity believes it while others don't. It just is confusing to me and should be consistent.

What clergy? Only in the CoE it seems are they a requirement, and, again, when you include the history, it shows their true intent. They are often vague and are meant to be.

 

[mfaust]

The Articles are paid lip service pretty much, with exception of those which were defended by the Early Church.

If that is the case, then I suppose that really then makes this a non-issue. My mistake.

Total Depravity, in the sense that no one, in and of themselves, cannot say oneself or anyone else, is orthodox. The idea that some are born only to experience hell, is not found in that article. That would be Calvinism. As the article is written, it basically says what I said in the first sentence along with the fact that faith is a gift from God as are grace and salvation. That's all. There's nothing Calvinistic about it.

God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour

It is perfectly possible I wrong, but my understanding takes the bolded parts to basically say that God has decreed to deliver from curse and damnation, those who he chose in Christ and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation. Which means (I would think) that therefore there are a remainder that are not delivered from curse and damnation through Christ chosen "before the foundations of the world were laid". I have always been under the impression that "single-predestination" is really just double-predestination in denial. I mean if it is not double, and God has chosen some to be delivered from curse and damnation... is there a third option?

Since the Bible says He loves the whole Earth that He gave Christ to die for, we need to read the article in that context. God is not a respecter of persons; equal is His love. Therefore, the article is teaching singular predestination, which is orthodox and absolutely not Calvinist.

I would say this shows the concept of "unlimited atonement" which I agree is not Calvinist. Otherwise I agree completely with what you have said here.

What then is your understanding of Calvinism?

Going strictly by the TULIP acronym and the Westminster CoF the very essence of Calvinistic thought in an SoF:
Total Depravity... all are born with the inability to willfully chose God/Christ. It is impossible. WCoF 6:4:

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

Unconditional Election... From before the creation of the Earth, God chose by his own counsel who would attain Salvation by nothing that we have done on our own merit. (Which necessitates there are those he did not... hence automatic double predestination, just not explicitly stated.)

Limited Atonement... Our Savior Jesus Christ died for those who God chose from before the creation of the Earth. (Again, double predestination is not stated explicitly but is there by simple understanding. "If X = Y then not X = not Y.)

WCoF 3:3-5:

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in
Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

Irresistible Grace... God's elect will be called and drawn to him by God and will then through Grace allow them to choose God whereas before they would not have due to their Total Depravity. WCoF:
Chapter X

Perseverance of the Saints... Those who God chose as his elect, and through his Grace have accepted him, shall remain his. WCoF:
Chapter XVII

Now my understanding of Calvinism may be off slightly but that is how I have been taught it. And yes, the wording is different in the 39, but I suppose I should say it "sounds" Calvinist to me.

Again, those who are educated and understand the history and intent upon the implementation of those Articles know that they were meant to be broad in interpretation and in purpose. Once that is understood, then their true meaning is easily ascertained. Albion's position ignores that and is not historic... If they study the Articles without learning the history, then their study is moot and their opinion colored and invalid... Only in the CoE it seems are they a requirement, and, again, when you include the history, it shows their true intent. They are often vague and are meant to be.

That actually makes far more sense to me and as I said above, this whole thing is likely a non-issue and I apologize for taking up everyone's time.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

That actually makes far more sense to me and as I said above, this whole thing is likely a non-issue and I apologize for taking up everyone's time.

For making us use our God-given intellects and actually think about our faith? That's nothing to apologize for.

 

[Albion]

What everyone is saying makes sense... but I still can't wrap my head around why they are still important or even a reflection of the Anglican faith "today". I can understand that the Fathers of the Episcopalian Church felt they were, I understand that they were originally very important.

But why are they today so important anywhere except as a "historical treasure" if you take my meaning.

Perhaps at this point it's time to ask, "Why shouldn't they be considered important?'' Almost every church has some statement of beliefs and most of them do not get changed every few years. In fact, the Episcopal Church (not the "Episcopalian Church" BTW) affirms the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed...and those who favor de-emphasizing the Articles of Religion aren't saying to do the same with those Creeds which do also reflect the issues of their day.

In my original post, I mentioned that they are very Calvinist in nature. I see that was not entirely accurate as was pointed out. However while going over the Articles again, and it seems Articles IX and X go hand in hand showing the concept of Total Depravity with number X being the clincher:


And number XVII showing Predestination, Election and "possibly" Limited Atonement:


Those are very Calvinist from what I can see.

Now again, I am not even remotely saying I have an issue with these or that they are wrong. Not at all. But I know many Episcopalians who do not agree with those.

And they customarily reject the Articles of Religion; you can do so as well, with perfect impugnity, if that's your choice. If you want to eliminate the Articles altogether, that's what the church has general conventions to deal with. If everyone Episcopalian were in favor of that, it would already have happened.

 

[PaladinValer]

If that is the case, then I suppose that really then makes this a non-issue. My mistake.

Well...it isn't a "non-issue" because the Articles do represent a fundamental aspect of Anglican identity and history. They are important, but their emphasis has deminished in terms of their absolute authority.

Anglicanism is lex credendi lex oranti: what we pray, we believe.

It is perfectly possible I wrong, but my understanding takes the bolded parts to basically say that God has decreed to deliver from curse and damnation, those who he chose in Christ and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation. Which means (I would think) that therefore there are a remainder that are not delivered from curse and damnation through Christ chosen "before the foundations of the world were laid". I have always been under the impression that "single-predestination" is really just double-predestination in denial. I mean if it is not double, and God has chosen some to be delivered from curse and damnation... is there a third option?

Single predestination is everyone is called by God. Double predestination is some are called by God and others are never. As you can see, single predestination is in no way any form of "double in denial."

I would say this shows the concept of "unlimited atonement" which I agree is not Calvinist. Otherwise I agree completely with what you have said here.

Anglicanism and Calvinism has some serious bad blood. It was the Calvinistic Puritans who waged war with King Charles I and put him to death for his faith and declared Anglicanism outlawed. When the monarchy was restored (which was not only favored by the Anglican royalists but a majority of the Presbyterian-minded folk as well...they liked Christmas), Anglicanism could once again be practiced openly and the late king became the first recognized solely Anglican Saint in history.

Going strictly by the TULIP acronym and the Westminster CoF the very essence of Calvinistic thought in an SoF

Now my understanding of Calvinism may be off slightly but that is how I have been taught it. And yes, the wording is different in the 39, but I suppose I should say it "sounds" Calvinist to me.

The Articles sound Calvinistic to appease the more Reformist sides during the Elizabethian era. Remember, Elizabeth I understood the problems that were caused by both her father, brother, and sister. The Articles had to sound appealing to them because there would be one common church for the people, not several, which was the problem going on in the Continent. Unfortunately, the Puritan Calvinists/Presbyterians were never satisfied and became more and more irate and irritable; it was they that asked King James I for a new Bible like the Geneva to replace the Bishop's Bible. However, James I, though originally Scottish, liked and preferred the Anglican and English models of religion and state, and thus, the KJV was indeed up to the standard of the Geneva, but was decidedly Anglican and episcopal. It rejected the Protestantism, especially the Reformist aspect thereof, of the Geneva.

Of course, the Puritans eventually left the Church; they were never satisfied and with the return of the king and the continued episcopacy and Catholicity of the Church even after the Tudor line, they simply gave up.

That actually makes far more sense to me and as I said above, this whole thing is likely a non-issue and I apologize for taking up everyone's time.

Do not apologize for attempting to learn. That's your job, and our blessing to teach.

 

[mfaust]

Perhaps at this point it's time to ask, "Why shouldn't they be considered important?'' the Episcopal Church (not the "Episcopalian Church" BTW)

That is a very good question, and I apologize for the improper terminology.

And they customarily reject the Articles of Religion; you can do so as well, with perfect impugnity, if that's your choice. If you want to eliminate the Articles altogether, that's what the church has general conventions to deal with. If everyone Episcopalian were in favor of that, it would already have happened.

But when I talk about the Episcopal Church, through my posts I have also been referring to the Anglican as a unity. From what I have heard, the CoE requires agreement to the 39 by the Clergy as mentioned by PaladinValer and the CoE is Anglican, and the Episcopal Church is in the Anglican Communion, so why isn't it consistent? Even considering how diverse in interpretation they may be, and even if it is just for paying lip service... why not make it required all across the board for all or not at all? Forget the issue of whether they are Calvinist or not. This issue of some requiring it while others don't just seems arbitrary. Quite frankly I actually DO like the Articles and back when I thought they were like an SoF that one agreed to, the Articles are one of the many things that attracted me to the Church.
Can I live without them? Sure. But if they were required, I wouldn't fret about it either.

Perhaps I am just looking at this all wrong. Regardless, this is not something that will hurt my love for the church, nor is this a stumbling block for me. I was just hoping to get some clarity on this issue. From the prior comments, I feel I have almost reached it.

Thank you all again for taking time to help with this.

 

[PaladinValer]

But when I talk about the Episcopal Church, through my posts I have also been referring to the Anglican as a unity. From what I have heard, the CoE requires agreement to the 39 by the Clergy as mentioned by PaladinValer and the CoE is Anglican, and the Episcopal Church is in the Anglican Communion, so why isn't it consistent?

Local canons.

Even considering how diverse in interpretation they may be, and even if it is just for paying lip service... why not make it required all across the board for all or not at all?

Historically, different canons in different provinces, dioceses, metropolitanates, etc, has been common. The Church has the authority to declare disciplines as necessary insofar as they don't contradict established doctrine and dogma. The celibate clergy in the Roman Rite of the Vatican Church is a good example: the Eastern Rites do not have that restriction, but the Roman Rite does. If ++Benny wanted to, he could pronounce that it is no longer a requirement.

 

[Albion]

That is a very good question, and I apologize for the improper terminology.

There's no need to apologize, and certainly not to me. Every church has its own special terminology and I was just passing along a tip that might help you. It's a common mistake.

But when I talk about the Episcopal Church, through my posts I have also been referring to the Anglican as a unity. From what I have heard, the CoE requires agreement to the 39 by the Clergy as mentioned by PaladinValer and the CoE is Anglican, and the Episcopal Church is in the Anglican Communion, so why isn't it consistent?

That's Anglicanism. Unity in essentials, charity (we hope) in the non-essentials.

Even considering how diverse in interpretation they may be, and even if it is just for paying lip service... why not make it required all across the board for all or not at all?

There is no power that could do that. Anglicanism is a loose association of independent churches of a common heritage...at best. Half of the provinces (national churches) in the Anglican Communion are currently not in communion with each other. There is no pope, no international convention, etc. There is currently a proposal being circulated to make for some degree of conformity or cohesion among most of them, but it's being voted down in church after church as too confining, too authoritarian, etc. So that's the way it is.

Thank you all again for taking time to help with this.

We're glad to help.

 

[mfaust]

Single predestination is everyone is called by God. Double predestination is some are called by God and others are never. As you can see, single predestination is in no way any form of "double in denial."

I can get behind this.

My understanding of "single predestination" by Calvinists is that God "actively" predestined some to salvation and other he just let be. An old thread I just found actually covers this very question and one post in particular gives what my understanding has been (not saying it cant be wrong) http://www.christianforums.com/t7573467/#post57922790

It's simple. Everyone... is on their way to hell. God is not sending them that way, they themselves choose that way because of their rebellion against God. Of all those headed to destruction, He graciously chooses some and saves them and puts them on the path to glory. He leaves the rest to the consequences of theirs sins. God only chooses who gets saved, because no one deserves to be saved, and He doesn't have to save anyone. He doesn't owe anyone anything. Everyone deserves hell.

This has always been defined to me as "single predestination" since God is not actively damning the ones he "graciously chooses". So you see why I would say that going by THIS understanding, it would be "double in denial". But if this definition is inaccurate for single predestination, then ok.

Regardless, in fear of getting off the point of the original topic, I feel like my questions on this issue have been answered for the most part and I am happy.

Thank you all for taking time to help me with this.

 

[mfaust]

The Articles sound Calvinistic to appease the more Reformist sides during the Elizabethian era. Remember, Elizabeth I understood the problems that were caused by both her father, brother, and sister. The Articles had to sound appealing to them because there would be one common church for the people, not several, which was the problem going on in the Continent. Unfortunately, the Puritan Calvinists/Presbyterians were never satisfied and became more and more irate and irritable; it was they that asked King James I for a new Bible like the Geneva to replace the Bishop's Bible. However, James I, though originally Scottish, liked and preferred the Anglican and English models of religion and state, and thus, the KJV was indeed up to the standard of the Geneva, but was decidedly Anglican and episcopal. It rejected the Protestantism, especially the Reformist aspect thereof, of the Geneva.

Of course, the Puritans eventually left the Church; they were never satisfied and with the return of the king and the continued episcopacy and Catholicity of the Church even after the Tudor line, they simply gave up.

And THIS answers my question concerning the Calvinism I was "seeing" in the 39. THANK YOU!!!

Regarding my other question about what I was perceiving as inconsistency in requiring the 39 all around, thank you Albion and PaladinValer. Both of your final comments perfectly answered what I was seeking. I am now content.