Reformed Anglicanism

[JM]

What changed your mind?

The Regulative Principle of Worship. It's a biblical principle that is impossible to ignore. If someone could prove the NPW, I might reconsider...

 

[gord44]

The Regulative Principle of Worship. It's a biblical principle that is impossible to ignore. If someone could prove the NPW, I might reconsider...

Fair enough brother. You just seemed pretty pumped about it the last few weeks. Hate to see someone give up something that feeds them spiritually, so I thought I would inquire. In the end you know best what your souls needs are and if that is following the RPW, then power to you good sir.

 

[JM]

Spiritual junk food...lol

Honestly, I'm very sectarian and have been making an effect to be more kind, loving and understanding to those who name the name of Christ. The BCP seemed I guess I'm probably being too hard on the ol' Anglicans. I was told today that many African Anglicans are biblically orthodox so that's something.

 

[RaylightI]

Since this thread is becoming a thread to bash Anglicanism. I'm going to give you a piece of my mind.


I'm proud to be a member of such a great Tradition. Anglican Church of Canada, Episcopal Church in USA and Church of England are ready to admit when they are wrong, we are ready to apologize for our mistakes rather than denying them or even worse, and that is trying to justify them. We focus on who unite us and that is Christ, rather than spending our effort and time in trying to defend some man-made doctrines. We don't worship the Bible like some do. Our faith is based on Christ, not on ink and paper. In Canada, Anglican Churches are among the first to help the poor and those in need. We listen to others and try to find a common ground rather than beating people's heads with the Bible. We don't waste our time in dreaming about the end times like other churches do where their whole faith is based on when the end of the world going to be. We know the world has an end, but we know for sure that each one of us has a sooner end and it is better to focus on that. We are one and different at the same time. We welcome those who are persecuted such as LGBT people and women. We fight against racism and inequality. In our churches we preach for equality because it is our duty as followers of Christ.

I have my own disagreement with my church, but I'm most welcome there with all of my disagreements and opinions.

These are enough reasons for me to be a proud Christian who follows the Anglican Tradition.

 

[JM]

Ray, please don't take my sarcasm personally. I was just joking with gordo, we joke on CF and twitter so I can see how our ribbing could easily be misunderstood. For that I do apologize. The swipes at doctrine are another matter and I believe Gill is correct.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Radagast]

What happened to Reformed or Evangelical Anglicanism?

It's alive and well in some places (particularly in Africa and in Sydney, Australia). In Canada, it seems to be represented by the Reformed Episcopal Church.

 

[JM]

Gill mentions that those things in the BCP that are indifferent to the word, but still enforced as binding are reasons to separate from the Anglicans and not use the BCP. I don't know if I agree with that principle in general.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Albion]

Gill mentions that those things in the BCP that are indifferent to the word, but still enforced as binding are reasons to separate from the Anglicans and not use the BCP. I don't know if I agree with that principle in general.

Well, Gill is wrong about that (and more), so maybe you should not make your decision on his word only. On the other hand, "indifferent to the word" does require some discussion, I'd think. If we are not allowed to do anything in church that has not explicitly been authorized in Scripture or described as having been done by the Hebrews or NT Christians, I don't see why the Presbyterian and Reformed churches engage in it themselves. And of course that only scratches the surface of the matter.

IMO Gill really doesn't show an adequate knowledge of the nature or intended use of the BCP to be speaking against it as he did. I say that for your benefit in case you decide to look deeper into that matter (which I'd recommend), but although I'm here only because of an explicit invitation to participate in this thread--one that was posted on the Anglican forum--I'll exit now before someone decides to file a report saying that a non-member has been wrongly trying to debate here.

 

[JM]

Well, Gill is wrong about that (and more), so maybe you should not make your decision on his word only.

Of course. That was never in question. Now, it is in question for the Anglican communion that believes scripture, reason and tradition must all come into play for doctrine and practice.

On the other hand, "indifferent to the word" does require some discussion, I'd think.

You have my attention. Explain.

If we are not allowed to do anything in church that has not explicitly been authorized in Scripture or described as having been done by the Hebrews or NT Christians, I don't see why the Presbyterian and Reformed churches engage in it themselves. And of course that only scratches the surface of the matter.

I would need examples for further discussion. All Reform minded Christians acknowledge the ideal of sola scriptura whereas Anglicanism, as Gill pointed out, outright contracts scripture with its tradition. Anglicanism is very difficult to discuss for two reasons; 1) it lacks confessional adherence, and 2) Anglicanism is a very relativistic church body historically formed as a comprise.

IMO Gill really doesn't show an adequate knowledge of the nature or intended use of the BCP to be speaking against it as he did.

Keep in mind that Gill is merely summarizing why the Puritans rejected the BCP, which are his own reasons, they are the historic reasons for dissention. Gill does know what he is talking about, you have to remove your anachronisms from the discussion to understand, he is addressing the Anglican church of his time. Of course, Anglicanism has morphed into many streams of doctrine and practice since then, but that doesn’t invalidate his criticisms. Besides, many Anglicans use other service books now.

I say that for your benefit in case you decide to look deeper into that matter (which I'd recommend), but although I'm here only because of an explicit invitation to participate in this thread--one that was posted on the Anglican forum--I'll exit now before someone decides to file a report saying that a non-member has been wrongly trying to debate here.

Honestly, I have looked into it, I just simply needed a reminder as to why I left the Anglican church in the first place.

Anglicans are “Reformed” in a sense so I doubt you would be reported. Just not in the Calvinistic sense. I asked a “Reformed 39 Article” Anglican to critic Gill’s comments and he seemed interested in doing so. I’ll post his reply in this thread for those interested.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Albion]

All right. I'll take your thinking that a report wouldn't be in order merely because I might criticize certain ideas that come under the broader heading of reformed, especially because I consider myself to be a reformed Christian. However, this is the forum for certain denominations, and "Anglican" isn't one of them. Therefore, I may speak less directly than I might otherwise.

Of course. That was never in question. Now, it is in question for the Anglican communion that believes scripture, reason and tradition must all come into play for doctrine and practice.

Two problems there IMO. For one, why confine oneself to the Anglican Communion when Reformed Anglicanism is supposed to be the topic?

For another, every Anglican that has any understanding of the nature of his church--and that's most of those whom I know--understand full well that Scripture, Tradition, and Reason are not three equals. Scripture is supreme and Tradition and Reason are merely valuable tools for comprehending Scripture properly.

I would need examples for further discussion. All Reform minded Christians acknowledge the ideal of sola scriptura whereas Anglicanism, as Gill pointed out, outright contracts scripture with its tradition.

And that is categorically incorrect.

Anglicanism is very difficult to discuss for two reasons; 1) it lacks confessional adherence, and 2) Anglicanism is a very relativistic church body historically formed as a comprise.

Oh well, I guess anyone can make a weakness out of a strength if one tries hard enough. For example, a response could easily be made that since the Anglican church is the historical and national church of England, and dates from the first century before there were any other competing Christian church bodies, it is NOT a sect like most of the churches founded, brand spanking new, during the 16th, 17th , and 18th centuries.

And by the way, for the church to officially accept the Articles of Religion, the Quadrilateral, and three historic creeds, does not exactly add up to being "relativistic" or without a confessional compass to my way of thinking, especially when compared to other protestant churches, including those that incorporate the terms Reformed or Presbyterian into their names.

Keep in mind that Gill is merely summarizing why the Puritans rejected the BCP, which are his own reasons

All right, but that is not the way the article is framed and it's not incorporated into your assessment, and approval, of the Gill piece.

 

[JM]

Albion, you really haven't explained why Gill was incorrect or why you disagree. Simply claiming the critic is wrong isn't demonstrating it. Gill gave example from the BCP as to why he disagreed with it and backed his criticism with scripture. Could you give scriptural reasons, you claim Anglicanism appeals to scripture as the supreme authority with two other minor authorities, as to why Gill and the Puritans were wrong about the BCP?

Yours in the lord,

JM

 

[Albion]

Albion, you really haven't explained why Gill was incorrect or why you disagree. Simply claiming the critic is wrong isn't demonstrating it.

That's true, but I have already explained that I do not want to trigger a report from someone here (not you) who does NOT agree that I'm posting in fellowship rather than assailing Reformed beliefs, etc.

Gill gave example from the BCP as to why he disagreed with it and backed his criticism with scripture. Could you give scriptural reasons, you claim Anglicanism appeals to scripture as the supreme authority with two other minor authorities, as to why Gill and the Puritans were wrong about the BCP?

Oh, JM, the Puritans were wrong about a lot in Anglicanism, it's usually understood. And Anglicanism is well-known to be a variety of Christianity that is filled with nuances being, as it is, in the middle of the spectrum of Christian denominations.

As for Anglicanism considering Scripture to be the final and ultimate authority for doctrine, that is so fundamental to Anglicanism that you have to look no further than the Thirty-nine Articles for evidence of that POV. And it's so widely recognized among us that I can hardly imagine that you who have a familiarity, as you said, with Anglicanism could have missed it.

Here's one example from Richard Hooker who is just about as revered as anyone in English church history:

the testimonies of God are true, the testimonies of God are perfect, the testimonies of God are all sufficient unto that end for which they were given. Therefore accordingly we do receive them, we do not think that in them God hath omitted any thing needful unto his purpose, and left his intent to be accomplished by our devising. What the Scripture purposeth the same in all points it doth perform”

And here an estimate of the above from no less than the Prayerbook Society of the USA:

On this basis Hooker challenges all teachings that rely upon extra-biblical sources and treat them as authorities equal to Scripture.

 

[JM]

That's true, but I have already explained that I do not want to trigger a report from someone here (not you) who does NOT agree that I'm posting in fellowship rather than assailing Reformed beliefs, etc.

I believe your fears are unfounded. Posts get reported if someone is being a jerk, not for disagreements.

Oh, JM, the Puritans were wrong about a lot in Anglicanism, it's usually understood.

Maybe that's how Anglicans view the works of the Puritans contra Anglicanism but it's not generally understood by all. That’s a hasty generalization.

And Anglicanism is well-known to be a variety of Christianity that is filled with nuances being, as it is, in the middle of the spectrum of Christian denominations.

Ahhh, the nuances. This isn’t directed at you but I’ve found many liberal progressives try to place disagreements in the “nuances.” As if those disagreeing fail to consider the “nuances.” It’s like saying, “you disagree because you do not understand.” Gill offered a few points worth reading.

As for Anglicanism considering Scripture to be the final and ultimate authority for doctrine, that is so fundamental to Anglicanism that you have to look no further than the Thirty-nine Articles for evidence of that POV. And it's so widely recognized among us that I can hardly imagine that you who have a familiarity, as you said, with Anglicanism could have missed it.

Many scoff at the 39 Articles as “a Calvinistic period” and not representative of Anglicanism as a whole. When I studied to be a layreader that was the position held by the parish I was a member of. I was told to ignore them.

Here's one example from Richard Hooker who is just about as revered as anyone in English church history:

And here an estimate of the above from no less than the Prayerbook Society of the USA:

I understand. Rylie and Toplady also come to mind. Perhaps they offer a defence for the BCP? Toplady and Gill were good friends and if I remember correctly Toplady preached at Gill’s furnal.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Albion]

I believe your fears are unfounded. Posts get reported if someone is being a jerk, not for disagreements.

Maybe that's the case on this forum. I don't really know. But I can say without hesitation--because I know--that it's not true for some others. What's more, it doesn't even require there to have been a disagreement. Merely being a non-member is considered sufficient if there's a protest.

Ahhh, the nuances. This isn’t directed at you but I’ve found many liberal progressives try to place disagreements in the “nuances.” As if those disagreeing fail to consider the “nuances.” It’s like saying, “you disagree because you do not understand.” Gill offered a few points worth reading.

This comment seems to reinforce an idea I've gotten from some of your remarks. It seems to me that you are not asking about or concerned about or put off by Anglicanism (let alone by Reformed Anglicanism) but by the liberal trends evident in some Anglican church bodies. How I can respond to that, or how I'm expected to respond to that (since I don't approve of that stuff myself), I'm not sure. It could be that you need to have a typical member of TEC to converse with, and I'm just the Anglican who responded to the invitation.

 

[JM]

This comment seems to reinforce an idea I've gotten from some of your remarks. It seems to me that you are not asking about or concerned about or put off by Anglicanism (let alone by Reformed Anglicanism)

True, I have less of a problem with Reformed Anglicanism.

…but by the liberal trends

I wouldn’t say progressivism in Anglicanism is a “trend.” It really seems like a the Elizabethan church of comprise is now compromising with liberalism and embracing it. The issue is not liberalism but the willingness to cede biblical ground to any philosophy or tradition. That was the heart of the issue and the reason why the Puritans dissented.

evident in some Anglican church bodies.

Not some, but all. Anyone in communion with Canterbury is supporting progressivism. It’s like bailing water on shipping ocean liner with a tea cup.

How I can respond to that, or how I'm expected to respond to that (since I don't approve of that stuff myself), I'm not sure.

Good. I’m happy you do not want to yield to progressivism. At this point you should leave the Anglican communion for a dissenting body, join WELS or LCMS…or better yet, reform completely and become a Particular Baptist. (tongue in cheek mostly)

It could be that you need to have a typical member of TEC to converse with, and I'm just the Anglican who responded to the invitation.

Would love to. Is the TEC Anglo-Catholic? That seems to be the way of things. It’s either Anglo-Catholic, Charismatic or a muddle mixture claiming to be a “true Anglican.”

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Albion]

I wouldn’t say progressivism in Anglicanism is a “trend.” It really seems like a the Elizabethan church of comprise is now compromising with liberalism and embracing it. The issue is not liberalism but the willingness to cede biblical ground to any philosophy or tradition. That was the heart of the issue and the reason why the Puritans dissented. [/FONT]

That may indeed be the 64 dollar question. I'd say that there was no compromise on essentials, but Puritans of course want to expunge from the life of the church everything that characterized the pre-Reformation church , both the good and the bad, the essential and the non-essential alike. I have no sympathy for that, not even if it's dressed up with a word like "compromise" or is likened (incorrectly) to the Catholic concept of (Sacred) Tradition.

Not some, but all.

Hmm. It's a rare person who says he's is up on the beliefs and practice of every Anglican church in the world, but go ahead and give me some specifics so that I can see what you are referring to.

Good. I’m happy you do not want to yield to progressivism. At this point you should leave the Anglican communion for a dissenting body

The Anglican church I belong to is not a member province of the Anglican Communion, and I've never represented myself in any other way. About 1/4 to 1/5 of the world's Anglicans belong to churches that are not members.

Would love to. Is the TEC Anglo-Catholic?

That wouldn't be accurate to say categorically. Some dioceses and parishes could be described that way.

 

[JM]

That may indeed be the 64 dollar question. I'd say that there was no compromise on essentials, but Puritans of course want to expunge from the life of the church everything that characterized the pre-Reformation church , both the good and the bad, the essential and the non-essential alike. I have no sympathy for that, not even if it's dressed up with a word like "compromise" or is likened (incorrectly) to the Catholic concept of (Sacred) Tradition.

Essential and non-essentials, that might be a good place to start. Many of us Reformed folks would say that if scripture doesn’t reveal it the church has no right to saddled the conscious’ of bought men, freed by the blood of Jesus Christ, under the framework of another’s man’s attempt at worship or piety. The Regulative Principle is a principle drawn from scripture to free us of traditions of man.

Hmm. It's a rare person who says he's is up on the beliefs and practice of every Anglican church in the world, but go ahead and give me some specifics so that I can see what you are referring to.

I did qualify my comment with, “Anyone in communion with Canterbury is supporting progressivism.” And truth is proven by her children…African Bishops are now stepping in to shepherd the flock dispersed by progressivism.

The Anglican church I belong to is not a member province of the Anglican Communion, and I've never represented myself in any other way. About 1/4 to 1/5 of the world's Anglicans belong to churches that are not members.

Good.

That wouldn't be accurate to say categorically. Some dioceses and parishes could be described that way.

http://www.virtueonline.org/navigating-%E2%80%9Cthree-streams%E2%80%9D-dr-gillis-harp

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Albion]

Essential and non-essentials, that might be a good place to start. Many of us Reformed folks would say that if scripture doesn’t reveal it the church has no right to saddled the conscious’ of bought men, freed by the blood of Jesus Christ, under the framework of another’s man’s attempt at worship or piety. The Regulative Principle is a principle drawn from scripture to free us of traditions of man.

I think I've already covered that. We do NOT approve of saddling anyone with non-essentials and we do NOT believe that the church can require any belief of the membership that is not an essential doctrine (which is to say, just about everything you and I would agree is vitally important). That does not mean, however, that every posture, every harmless church program etc. and teaching that is in the category of adiaphora must be purged.

I did qualify my comment with, “Anyone in communion with Canterbury is supporting progressivism.” And truth is proven by her children…African Bishops are now stepping in to shepherd the flock dispersed by progressivism.

We'll see. They're not as orthodox as is sometimes supposed.

 

[JM]

Albion, Gill points out elements in the BCP that are required of the congregates to adhere to and states that we should not be burden with them...

...oh well. We are beginning to go round and round.

May you and yours have a good Lord's Day.

jm

 

[Albion]

Albion, Gill points out elements in the BCP that are required of the congregates to adhere to and states that we should not be burden with them...
jm

I might have missed what you are referring to, but I think it's silly to say that a prescribed order of worship is somehow an imposition and doctrinally wrong. I did see him saying that, and yet the last time I was in a (Dutch) Reformed church, there was a similar prescribed order of service with a prescribed hymnal. His complaint can't be taken seriously--especially when accompanied by such hyperbole as this: "ties men up to the use of them." It's also not accurate, since, as you yourself noted, Anglican churches employ many forms. In fact it's hundreds of different forms, even as the BCP continues to be the standard.

But if you have something else in mind, and I've overlooked or forgotten those points, I'd welcome you directing my attention to it.

If you choose not to, please know that I consider this to have been an interesting discussion I'm glad we had.