Question on the 39 Articles

[Albion]

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."

No. That's a summary of Arminianism, not Calvinism. Single predestination is God calls his elect to salvation only. The rest of mankind is to be judged on their own merits (meaning they'll be lost). Double predestination is some are called by God and the others are condemned to hell.

BTW, the Article on Predestination is considered by Calvinist Anglicans NOT to endorse Predestination in the sense we've been considering it here. Read it carefully to see what I mean. To the extent that the Articles represent a compromise between Catholicism and Puritanism, this article is not a sop to the Puritans but itself is a compromise in which the language tilts towards them but the actual meaning or message denies Election (Predestination).

 

[PaladinValer]

No. That's a summary of Arminianism, not Calvinism. Single predestination is God calls his elect to salvation only. The rest of mankind is to be judged on their own merits (meaning they'll be lost). Double predestination is some are called by God and the others are condemned to hell.

Theosis is not Arminianism and yet would have no problem with my definition. I don't believe Lutherans would have too great a deal either, since they reject Calvinism entirely as well.

Singular predestination is that all will be called by God to God. It doesn't mean all will accept it, of course. God desires all to accept His gifts of grace and salvation, for He isn't a respecter of persons and loves all His creation. He will never force us to, and out of mercy, will allow those who do not want it to never have it, though He will continue to call them because He loves them. Those who reject it do so because of their unbelief and sins. St. Augustine taught that, in terms of salvation, no one has a free will, although he recognized that all people do have it in general; it is only that we cannot save ourselves due to our sinful nature.

 

[Albion]

Theosis is not Arminianism and yet would have no problem with my definition.

But you weren't describing theosis there, even if it were related to Calvinism...??? You were respondng directly to this comment by mfaust--

My understanding of "single predestination" by Calvinists is that God "actively" predestined some to salvation and other he just let be.

His description there was correct, BTW.

Singular predestination is that all will be called by God to God.

Not according to Calvinism, and that's what our inquirer, mfaust, was concerned about on this thread. Do I take it that you were offering another concept altogether to him, rather than defining Predestination?

 

[PaladinValer]

But you weren't describing theosis there, even if it were related to Calvinism...???

I disagree.

Not according to Calvinism, and that's what our inquirer, mfaust, was concerned about on this thread.

According to the thread's title, the question is about the 39 Articles. Furthermore, I really don't care what Calvinists think since I am not a Calvinist. Luther believed in singular predestination, and He wasn't a Calvinist and didn't hold to the idea that Calvinists ascribe to it.

Theosis has God acting first at all times. Singular Predestination does as well.

 

[Albion]

According to the thread's title, the question is about the 39 Articles. Furthermore, I really don't care what Calvinists think since I am not a Calvinist.

That's fine, but he is concerned about Calvinism and repeatedly brought it into the conversation, not other ideas about the afterlife. I guess the fact that you seemed to directly respond to his definition of Calvinistic Predestination made it look as though you were correcting that rather than offering another POV entirely. It's rare that anyone speaks of Predestination and uses the word to define a non-Calvinistic concept.

 

[mfaust]

That's fine, but he is concerned about Calvinism and repeatedly brought it into the conversation, not other ideas about the afterlife. I guess the fact that you seemed to directly respond to his definition of Calvinistic Predestination made it look as though you were correcting that rather than offering another POV entirely. It's rare that anyone speaks of Predestination and uses the word to define a non-Calvinistic concept.

My apologies for getting the thread side-tracked. Yes Calvinism WAS part of the original concern, but not the truth of falsity of it. It all came down to what I "thought" was Calvinism being in the 39 and so on and so forth.

Thankfully, both you and PaladinValer answered my questions on all matters to satisfy all my concerns, and now I am happy with my understanding.

Thank you very much!

 

[Albion]

My apologies for getting the thread side-tracked. Yes Calvinism WAS part of the original concern, but not the truth of falsity of it. It all came down to what I "thought" was Calvinism being in the 39 and so on and so forth.

Thankfully, both you and PaladinValer answered my questions on all matters to satisfy all my concerns, and now I am happy with my understanding.

Thank you very much!

Not to start up something that has ended well, but I want to add that the 39 Articles have relatively little in them that are specifically Calvinistic or a concession to Puritans. Mostly, the positions described are those that an average, moderate Protestant of whatever denomination would sympathize with.

 

[MKJ]

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

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?

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.

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:


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:


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.

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.

It's important to remember that the Articles do not, and have never, stood alone. Even confessions like one finds in some other Protestant groups have to understood in light of the Traditions of the Church to really get at what they are saying, and the Articles are not that authoritative themselves.

The primary document you would need to read them against would be the Book of Common Prayer, but also other Anglican theologians and the Church Fathers and so on.

I think if you read them along with the BCP you will find that it changes the impact the articles have alone.

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

Well, theoretically, but my own priest says if he had to undo a button on his cassock for all the articles he does not exactly agree with, he would go around half dressed.

I think the word 'uphold' is interpreted very broadly, particularly among the higher priests.