Why are so many Anglicans Calvinists?

[file13]

Hey brother!

I'm a former Anglican who considers myself an Anglican at heart. So maybe I can help with some of these questions.

I've been wondering lately why so many Anglicans consider themselves to be "Calvinists."

What do you mean by "Calvinist?" Generally when people mean "Calvinist", they specifically mean one's view about salvation. Is this what you mean? The reason I ask is because Calvin's views about salvation are not only not unique to him (Luther, Aquinas, and Augustine held the same views before Calvin), but he would also argue are the Biblical teaching, and thus, those of Jesus Christ Himself. Besides this, you also have to remember that Calvin taught a lot of things, most of which have little if anything to do with soteriology.

I bring this up because people can hold to the "Reformed view of salvation" (sometimes called the "Doctrines of Grace") without being a follower of Calvin or even agree with many of the other things Calvin taught. So we have to be very careful to distinguish between what we mean with this easily misused term.

So, I'm guessing that you're referring to the Reformed Doctrines of Grace when you mean "Calvinism" or do you mean Reformed theology in general, or perhaps even a "follower of Calvin" (of which I don't know of any).

That being said, the short answer for many "low-church" Anglicans (like J.I. Packer) would likely be that they accept Reformed theology (or the Doctrines of Grace) because the Articles explicitly advocate Reformed theology and the Articles were in historical fact, an official standard of faith in the CoE once upon a time. Cranmer was very influenced by Calvin and even invited him to England to teach, so it shouldn't be surprising to find him adapting Reformed theology to the English reformation. But besides the articles, people (like myself) who do believe in the Doctrines of Grace do so because we are convinced by Scripture that this is the Biblical teaching. In other words, I think Anglicans who believe in the Doctrines of Grace do so because their believe it to be the Biblical teachings and feel justified in pushing for this view because it also represents the view of the 39 Articles and the reformation CoE. So it's grounded in both Scripture and church history.

Specifically: The 1662 BCP affirms Baptismal Regeneration (even of infants)

Again, not sure what you mean by "Calvinism," but FWIW, Calvin taught Baptismal Regeneration. This is consistent with Reformed theology and soteriology.

AND One of the Homilies "On the Declining from God" teaches that those who had once been believers can lose salvation.

This is not inconsistent with Reformed theology and soteriology. People can believe (have a non-saving faith) without ever have been truly regenerated. It might also be helpful to understand the different senses in which the Reformers understood the term "faith" here. For a faith the be a "saving faith," all three things are required. So those who depart (yes, even those who have been baptized) do so because they lack some element of faith.

Ok, this is making more sense, but I'm still confused about OSAS and Anglicanism. It would seem that part of the foundation of Calvinism is OSAS. Is there maybe some kind of middle view held by some Calvinists? How do Calvinists interpret the passages of Scripture that talk about falling away from God such as Hebrews 6?

Referring specifically to Hebrews 6, folks who hold to the Reformed doctrines of faith usually respond that according the Hebrews 6, you either must believe in "once saved always saved" or else "twice lost, always lost." If we begin life as lost (lost for the first time) and then come to Christ, but then fall away (lost for the second time), then you're lost for good. In other words, if you're a Christian who falls away, you're damned if you reject OSAS according to Hebrews 6. Of course folks who reject OSAS would almost always "soften the blow" here by reserving this judgement for only hardcore apostasy, not general backsliding.

As for how Reformed folks reconcile this, we would simply respond as I did above. This is referring to those who do not have a genuine saving faith, but that have had aspects of faith and participated in the sacraments of the church who fall away. We would also agree with those who reject OSAS in saying that the reference here refers to hardcore apostasy and not simply backsliding. So in other words, those who were of the fold and who fall away, but who were never regenerated inwardly by the Spirit not only did not have a saving faith, but cannot truly repent because the Spirit has not brought them to true contrition to begin with.

We would then advise folks to "keep reading" because the author of Hebrews (Paul?) then goes on to note that:

Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
(Hebrews 6:9-12 ESV)
​

Again, contrast this with what John teaches about those never have been a part and you can see that he makes a distinction between the elect and the reprobate, and thus, the earlier comments are not referring to the elect. So again, we don't see this as an issue, because they were never planted in Christ to begin with.

But isn't saying that Anglicans are either Calvinists or Anglo-Catholic kind of presenting a false dichotomy? I.e. can't you be a Protestant and not be a Calvinist? I don't think that we would call Lutherans, Moravians and Methodists, "Calvinist" but I think that everyone would say that they are Protestants.

What do you mean by "Anglo-Catholic?" If you mean a sacerdotal view that says that the sacraments and works are necessary in order to be justified, then yes, you can't be an "Anglo-Catholic" and a Five Sola evangelical, since sola gratia -> sola fide directly contradict this view. Otherwise, you'd need to define what you mean here.

Another thing I wonder is if it is really possible to be a partial Calvinist...At what point does someone believe in too little of the Calvinist doctrines to be considered a Calvinist?

Again, what do you mean by "Calvinist?" The Doctrines of Grace? Reformed theology? Or someone who follows Calvin?

As for the Doctrines of Grace, I'm with Sproul and Packer here in that there is only "one point of Calvinism," God saves sinners. Jesus Christ is either a real savior who really saves you, or He is a potential savior who makes salvation possible for you, provided you meet the conditions. As Anglican J.I. Packer once eloquently put it:

This question presumably concerns, not the word, but the thing. Whether we call ourselves Calvinists hardly matters; what matters is that we should understand the gospel biblically. But that, we think, does in fact mean understanding it as historic Calvinism does. The alternative is to misunderstand and distort it. We said earlier that modern evangelicalism, by and large, has ceased to preach the gospel in the old way, and we frankly admit that the new gospel, insofar as it deviates from the old, seems to us a distortion of the biblical message. And we can now see what has gone wrong. Our theological currency has been debased. Our minds have been conditioned to think of the cross as a redemption which does less than redeem, and of Christ as a Savior who does less than save, and of God's love as a weak affection which cannot keep anyone from hell without help, and of faith as the human help which God needs for this purpose. As a result, we are no longer free either to believe the biblical gospel or to preach it. We cannot believe it, because our thoughts are caught in the toils of synergism. We are haunted by the Arminian idea that if faith and unbelief are to be responsible acts, they must be independent acts; hence we are not free to believe that we are saved entirely by divine grace through a faith which is itself God's gift and flows to us from Calvary. Instead, we involve ourselves in a bewildering kind of double-think about salvation, telling ourselves one moment that it all depends on God and next moment that it all depends on us. The resultant mental muddle deprives God of much of the glory that we should give him as author and finisher of salvation, and ourselves of much of the comfort we might draw from knowing that God is for us.​

And when we come to preach the gospel, our false preconceptions make us say just the opposite of what we intend. We want (rightly) to proclaim Christ as Savior; yet we end up saying that Christ, having made salvation possible, has left us to become our own saviors. It comes about in this way. We want to magnify the saving grace of God and the saving power of Christ. So we declare that God's redeeming love expends to everyone, and that Christ has died to save everyone, and we proclaim that the glory of divine mercy is to be measured by these facts. And then, in order to avoid universalism, we have to depreciate all that we were previously extolling, and to explain that, after all, nothing that God and Christ have done can save us unless we add something to it; the decisive factor which actually saves us is our own believing. What we say comes to this - that Christ saves us with our help; and what that means, when one thinks it out, is this - that we save ourselves with Christ's help. This is a hollow anticlimax.​

For example, even Roman Catholics believe in Total Depravity, and within Catholicism the Thomists/Dominicans also believe in Unconditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints. However, I don't think that anyone would call Catholics "Calvinists." (actually some of the Roman Catholic critics of the Dominicans have, but it's really more of a derogatory epithet in that case.)

True. In fact, Reformed folks like us enjoy pointing this out to Roman Catholics. But it's not just Aquinas. It goes much further back within the historical church.

In any case, please realize that I'm just trying to help you understand the Reformed ("low Anglican") view in these matters and am not here to debate if this view is Biblical correct or that the 39 Articles are indeed "Reformed" (see Packer's book for that argument). There are many Anglicans who strongly and passionately disagree with these views, and I have no intention to debate with them here. Just trying to possibly provide a little insight.

Hope this helps and God bless!

 

[mark46]

I would welcome anyone with an ANglican heart to discuss and debate, but the CF rules disallow this, so I will merely ask for clarification.

1) Surely you are not suggesting that Luther and Calvin had the same theology of salvation. The positions called Lutheranism and Calvinism are clearly quite different in both the resistibility of the Holy Spirit's offer and in the perseverance of the saints.

I must misunderstood. Calvin had a consistent set of believes on the these subjects and folks who accept them often claim allegiance from Augustine and Aquinas (Roman Catholics disagree that Augustine and Aquinas taught what folks now call Calvinism with respect to salvation). We can certainly invite over one of Lutheran brethren who explain why Lutheranism does not teach Calvinism. Also, evangelical Calvinists will state that their view is scriptural, as if ours is not. Everyone thinks that their view is scriptural.

Packer is great reference. I would also suggest Sproul.

2. Calvinism has always taught that OSAS. I'm not sure that the self-identified calvinists among us would embrace such a view.

3. And let us now deal with the elephant in the room: double predestination. How many Anglicans can accept that some folks are born for heaven and others are born for hell? I stand with Wesley who debated against this notion many, many times.
-------------------------------------------'

I agree that Calvinism (The doctrine of Grace) is a part of Anglican Tradition and may be believed in a weak form today. However, I do not believe that most self-identified Anglican Calvinists are really 5 point Calvinists. As you indicated, Calvin taught about many issues. He was an awesome biblical scholar.

So my answer is that there are so many Calvinists because the definition of Calvinism is much different from that used by the Reformed churches. Or put more simply, a Presbyterian believes in all 5 points of Calvin's TULIP (see the Presbyterian statement of faith) and few Anglicans do. So when an Anglican and a Presbyterian profess to be Calvinists in terms of the Doctrine of Grace, they may mean tow very different things.






That being said, you explanations are generally on point (ignoring the comment regarding Anglo-Catholics.

Hey brother!

I'm a former Anglican who considers myself an Anglican at heart. So maybe I can help with some of these questions.



What do you mean by "Calvinist?" Generally when people mean "Calvinist", they specifically mean one's view about salvation. Is this what you mean? The reason I ask is because Calvin's views about salvation are not only not unique to him (Luther, Aquinas, and Augustine held the same views before Calvin), but he would also argue are the Biblical teaching, and thus, those of Jesus Christ Himself. Besides this, you also have to remember that Calvin taught a lot of things, most of which have little if anything to do with soteriology.

I bring this up because people can hold to the "Reformed view of salvation" (sometimes called the "Doctrines of Grace") without being a follower of Calvin or even agree with many of the other things Calvin taught. So we have to be very careful to distinguish between what we mean with this easily misused term.

So, I'm guessing that you're referring to the Reformed Doctrines of Grace when you mean "Calvinism" or do you mean Reformed theology in general, or perhaps even a "follower of Calvin" (of which I don't know of any).

That being said, the short answer for many "low-church" Anglicans (like J.I. Packer) would likely be that they accept Reformed theology (or the Doctrines of Grace) because the Articles explicitly advocate Reformed theology and the Articles were in historical fact, an official standard of faith in the CoE once upon a time. Cranmer was very influenced by Calvin and even invited him to England to teach, so it shouldn't be surprising to find him adapting Reformed theology to the English reformation. But besides the articles, people (like myself) who do believe in the Doctrines of Grace do so because we are convinced by Scripture that this is the Biblical teaching. In other words, I think Anglicans who believe in the Doctrines of Grace do so because their believe it to be the Biblical teachings and feel justified in pushing for this view because it also represents the view of the 39 Articles and the reformation CoE. So it's grounded in both Scripture and church history.



Again, not sure what you mean by "Calvinism," but FWIW, Calvin taught Baptismal Regeneration. This is consistent with Reformed theology and soteriology.



This is not inconsistent with Reformed theology and soteriology. People can believe (have a non-saving faith) without ever have been truly regenerated. It might also be helpful to understand the different senses in which the Reformers understood the term "faith" here. For a faith the be a "saving faith," all three things are required. So those who depart (yes, even those who have been baptized) do so because they lack some element of faith.



Referring specifically to Hebrews 6, folks who hold to the Reformed doctrines of faith usually respond that according the Hebrews 6, you either must believe in "once saved always saved" or else "twice lost, always lost." If we begin life as lost (lost for the first time) and then come to Christ, but then fall away (lost for the second time), then you're lost for good. In other words, if you're a Christian who falls away, you're damned if you reject OSAS according to Hebrews 6. Of course folks who reject OSAS would almost always "soften the blow" here by reserving this judgement for only hardcore apostasy, not general backsliding.

As for how Reformed folks reconcile this, we would simply respond as I did above. This is referring to those who do not have a genuine saving faith, but that have had aspects of faith and participated in the sacraments of the church who fall away. We would also agree with those who reject OSAS in saying that the reference here refers to hardcore apostasy and not simply backsliding. So in other words, those who were of the fold and who fall away, but who were never regenerated inwardly by the Spirit not only did not have a saving faith, but cannot truly repent because the Spirit has not brought them to true contrition to begin with.

We would then advise folks to "keep reading" because the author of Hebrews (Paul?) then goes on to note that:

Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
(Hebrews 6:9-12 ESV)
​

Again, contrast this with what John teaches about those never have been a part and you can see that he makes a distinction between the elect and the reprobate, and thus, the earlier comments are not referring to the elect. So again, we don't see this as an issue, because they were never planted in Christ to begin with.



What do you mean by "Anglo-Catholic?" If you mean a sacerdotal view that says that the sacraments and works are necessary in order to be justified, then yes, you can't be an "Anglo-Catholic" and a Five Sola evangelical, since sola gratia -> sola fide directly contradict this view. Otherwise, you'd need to define what you mean here.



Again, what do you mean by "Calvinist?" The Doctrines of Grace? Reformed theology? Or someone who follows Calvin?

As for the Doctrines of Grace, I'm with Sproul and Packer here in that there is only "one point of Calvinism," God saves sinners. Jesus Christ is either a real savior who really saves you, or He is a potential savior who makes salvation possible for you, provided you meet the conditions. As Anglican J.I. Packer once eloquently put it:

This question presumably concerns, not the word, but the thing. Whether we call ourselves Calvinists hardly matters; what matters is that we should understand the gospel biblically. But that, we think, does in fact mean understanding it as historic Calvinism does. The alternative is to misunderstand and distort it. We said earlier that modern evangelicalism, by and large, has ceased to preach the gospel in the old way, and we frankly admit that the new gospel, insofar as it deviates from the old, seems to us a distortion of the biblical message. And we can now see what has gone wrong. Our theological currency has been debased. Our minds have been conditioned to think of the cross as a redemption which does less than redeem, and of Christ as a Savior who does less than save, and of God's love as a weak affection which cannot keep anyone from hell without help, and of faith as the human help which God needs for this purpose. As a result, we are no longer free either to believe the biblical gospel or to preach it. We cannot believe it, because our thoughts are caught in the toils of synergism. We are haunted by the Arminian idea that if faith and unbelief are to be responsible acts, they must be independent acts; hence we are not free to believe that we are saved entirely by divine grace through a faith which is itself God's gift and flows to us from Calvary. Instead, we involve ourselves in a bewildering kind of double-think about salvation, telling ourselves one moment that it all depends on God and next moment that it all depends on us. The resultant mental muddle deprives God of much of the glory that we should give him as author and finisher of salvation, and ourselves of much of the comfort we might draw from knowing that God is for us.​

And when we come to preach the gospel, our false preconceptions make us say just the opposite of what we intend. We want (rightly) to proclaim Christ as Savior; yet we end up saying that Christ, having made salvation possible, has left us to become our own saviors. It comes about in this way. We want to magnify the saving grace of God and the saving power of Christ. So we declare that God's redeeming love expends to everyone, and that Christ has died to save everyone, and we proclaim that the glory of divine mercy is to be measured by these facts. And then, in order to avoid universalism, we have to depreciate all that we were previously extolling, and to explain that, after all, nothing that God and Christ have done can save us unless we add something to it; the decisive factor which actually saves us is our own believing. What we say comes to this - that Christ saves us with our help; and what that means, when one thinks it out, is this - that we save ourselves with Christ's help. This is a hollow anticlimax.​

True. In fact, Reformed folks like us enjoy pointing this out to Roman Catholics. But it's not just Aquinas. It goes much further back within the historical church.

In any case, please realize that I'm just trying to help you understand the Reformed ("low Anglican") view in these matters and am not here to debate if this view is Biblical correct or that the 39 Articles are indeed "Reformed" (see Packer's book for that argument). There are many Anglicans who strongly and passionately disagree with these views, and I have no intention to debate with them here. Just trying to possibly provide a little insight.

Hope this helps and God bless!

 

[RadixLecti]

Hey brother!

I'm a former Anglican who considers myself an Anglican at heart. So maybe I can help with some of these questions.

That's a lot of good information. Thanks.

I think the distinction that you made between the teachings of Calvin and the different understandings of Reformed theology are helpful. One of the things that has surprised me about certain forms of Calvinism has to do with OSAS, especially considering that no one from the ancient or medieval Church denied that one could (in some way) fall from grace. The fact that there are Calvinists who make the distinction of there being at least a sort of falling from faith makes it seem much more reasonable as to how they could reconcile that with Anglicanism.

With respect to Baptism, I think the difference between the Calvinist view and the view from the BCP is in the Calvinist view Baptism (if I understand it correctly) only regenerates an infant who happens to be elect. Whereas, I think that the rubrics from the 1662 are implying that any infant that receives Baptism is regenerated. (however if they later reject the work of the Holy Spirit in their life which continually enables them to have faith, then they can fall from grace and lose salvation - or lose what would have lead to salvation if you perfer to think of it that way.) I'm using the example of infant Baptism specifically (instead of the baptism of an adult), to avoid the question of what it means to "receive Baptism rightly."

The one thing that would confuse me from a Calvinist perspective is why would the Scriptures warn people against the dangers of falling away? If God is going to preserve the elect and keep them from falling away, and there is nothing that anyone can do to cause themselves to become elect then why does it matter?

I'm not questioning the concept of Predestination. My issue has more to do with denying the paradox. Both Lutheranism and Thomas Aquinas assert that salvation is completly dependant on God's act of grace and predestination (I'm simplifying to save time), but both believe that there is some sort of paradox where our decisions still actually matter.

As I understand it (and maybe I'm misinformed) Calvinism believes that there is no paradox between God's predestination and our choices.

 

[file13]

That's a lot of good information. Thanks.

My pleasure brother!

With respect to Baptism, I think the difference between the Calvinist view and the view from the BCP is in the Calvinist view Baptism (if I understand it correctly) only regenerates an infant who happens to be elect. Whereas, I think that the rubrics from the 1662 are implying that any infant that receives Baptism is regenerated.

Gotcha. I think it might be helpful to understand a bit of what Reformed folks call "Covenant theology." The basic idea of the concept is that God always has a covenant with His chosen people. In the Abrahamic covenant, circumcision was the outward sign that one belonged to the covenant. It was administered to everyone including infant boys who had no choice in the matter. Thus, baptism is also the outward sign that one is a "covenant child." But just as those within the covenant of circumcision may not have been regenerated, so is it possible for not all those in the covenant of baptism.

So the key point in this view is that this is an outward symbol that one is a part of the "visible church." One's standing in the invisible church is another issue, and one which only God knows, though an elect individual can have assurance of their standing (and only their personal standing!).

That being said, the idea that "regeneration" is a part of the symbol is really not that different between what you find in the 39 Articles and the WCF. Note carefully the deliberate use of the term "visible" in the Articles and contrast it with what the WCF says about the efficacy of regeneration in point VI of chapter XXVIII of WCF. Note that the Articles say "the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God." I.e. this seems to clearly agree that the WCF that the efficacy is not temporally tied or absolutely to the actual outward act.

So in other words, low-church Anglicans don't see any conflict between the Articles and the WCF, or even the rites of baptism in the 1662. In fact, the theology and the rites seem to be quite in sync with Reformed theology here where we have an outward sign of one's affiliation with God's people, His church.

The one thing that would confuse me from a Calvinist perspective is why would the Scriptures warn people against the dangers of falling away? If God is going to preserve the elect and keep them from falling away, and there is nothing that anyone can do to cause themselves to become elect then why does it matter?

In the Reformed view, God warns His elect to wake those who have fallen into sin and bring them back to their knees before their Savior. God not only determines the outcome, but also the means to achieve the outcome. In other words, often he uses His supernaturally revealed will (aka, special revelation, aka Scripture) as the means to bring His children back to Him.

So it's a simple matter of discerning the outcome from the means to achieve the outcome. In the same way, God will often use human preaching (along with all sort of other means) as the outward means that the Holy Spirit uses to regenerate someone. In other words, He not only ordained the final outcome, but also ordained the means to achieve the outcome. Thus, these verses are revealed by God and used as the means to bring backsliders back to the cross.

I'm not questioning the concept of Predestination. My issue has more to do with denying the paradox. Both Lutheranism and Thomas Aquinas assert that salvation is completly dependant on God's act of grace and predestination (I'm simplifying to save time), but both believe that there is some sort of paradox where our decisions still actually matter.

I address this below. But just so we're clear, Reformed folks don't deny that there is a mystery or paradox (and not a paradox in the modern sense of it being a contradiction) at work. In fact, I would argue that the real issue is where we identify the paradox. Lutheran's, for example, would place the paradox in the mystery of how someone can be monergistically predestined to be elect and still fall from grace--which FWIW, Reformed folks would say is not a mystery, but a flat out logical contradiction, and thus, not a paradox in the classical sense, but a logical impossibility. The Reformed place the paradox in the interaction between God's providence (God's will) and man's will. So both have a paradox, it's just a matter of where the paradox is and how we identify it. Reformed theology would say that the real paradox that's explicit in Scripture is this issue of God's providence and human free will. For example, not how you have both present in this verse:

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
(Acts 2:23 ESV)
​

Thus Reformed folks say that this is the appropriate place to identify the paradox. More on this below.

As I understand it (and maybe I'm misinformed) Calvinism believes that there is no paradox between God's predestination and our choices.

This is a common misunderstanding of the Reformed view of "free will." Reformed folks do not deny that humans have free will. We simply have a different definition of it than some. To the Reformed, an act is considered a free act (condition 1) if the person does what they want to do. We would then say that in many circumstances, this condition is accompanied with the fact that the person doing what they want to do (2) "could have done otherwise" (called the CDO condition). But we would deny that this second condition is necessary in order for an act to still be considered free. It can and often is there along with condition 1. But we deny that it's necessary for an act to be free as long as the person does what they want to do (condition 1). This position is also known as "compatibilism," or sometimes "soft-determinism."

Those who believe in libertarian free will, on the other hand, believe that both conditions 1 and 2 (i.e. an act is free if someone does what they want do do AND could have done otherwise) are required for an act to be considered free.

If you're having trouble understanding how an act can be free even if someone could not have done otherwise, the Reformed Christian would simply point to addiction as a classic example. Someone addicted to something wants to feed their addiction. Thus, we would say the act is free, even if the addiction prevents them from doing otherwise, because they are doing what they want to do. Another classic example is that if you have libertarian free will, then stop sinning. If it exists then you can choose to stop sinning. But can anyone?

So with all that in mind, the paradox, in Reformed theology is what we believe Scripture teaches about God's providence and human free will. Since we believe that we find this pretty clear in many places of Scripture (both old and new) that people freely choose to do what God has ordained. If you keep in mind what I just said about an act being free, you'll see there's no logical contradiction here. But there is a paradox here in that we are not told how exactly God works with people so that they freely choose to do what God has ordained. In other words, the paradox is not that human free will (condition 1) and God's will are in conflict, but how God does this and His reasons for doing what He does. Frankly, the view is that God's secret will is none of our business (as He made quite clear to Job). If He wanted to tell us He would. but He has not, so we cannot penetrate any father than saying that we freely choose to do what God has ordained.

Does that make sense? Again, I'm not interested in auguring if these views or correct or Biblical or not, but just sharing how Reformed folks see it, and thus, likely how informed low-church Anglicans also see it.

Again, hope this helps and God bless!

 

[file13]

Everyone thinks that their view is scriptural.

Yes. Therefore we should examine the Scriptures and see if their views are indeed, in accord with it.

It's easy to claim, another thing to validly demonstrate. But as you no doubt know, my point in bringing this up is to emphasis that "Calvinists" believe what they believe not because of Calvin, but because we find this view to be soundly demonstrated in Scripture. Sometimes folks seem to have this idea that a Calvinist is one who follows Calvin. But as I hopefully demonstrated before, sometimes it simply means that one happens to hold the same view of the Doctrines of Grace as Calvin. For example, Calvin would have likely pushed to kick Reformed Baptists out of Geneva. So they're not followers of Calvin, but rather folks who believe the same interpretation of Scripture regarding salvation. This is what I hope to emphasize.

3. And let us now deal with the elephant in the room: double predestination. How many Anglicans can accept that some folks are born for heaven and others are born for hell?

I can't respond for any Anglicans other then Packer. He, like Sproul, believes that the only non "five pointer" is one who doesn't understand the first point. If total depravity (in the Reformed sense) is true, resistless logic requires double predestination. Amyraldism is not what many people think it is. It is a very subtle distinction regarding when God decreed to have mercy on some and give justice to the rest. Again, I'm not gonna debate this with ya'll (and fell free to have at it if you like), but I did want to at least point out that most informed Reformed folks would deny there is such a thing as a "non-fiver pointer." Rather, they'd say that they're just uninformed or confused in their theology.

 

[mark46]

Thank you for your very clear explanation of what Calvinism means today, including the references which clearly state the arguments being made. As you say, when folks discuss Calvinism, they mean the Doctrine of Grace, the five points of the TULIP. I agree that 4 point Calvinism makes little sense.

In the end, I suspect that there are so many self-identified Calvinists because 1) many of the early Anglicans also identified themselves as such and 2) because many individuals do not really understand what they are affirming.

iMHO, there has been no deeper, extensive and important argument in the past 1500 years than the arguments between those who followed Calvin in this matter and those who follow Wesley. In the time of John Wesley, this topic was debated by all. The issue and arguments were much more important to everyone than the current arguments over women's ordination and same sex marriage.

But as you no doubt know, my point in bringing this up is to emphasis that "Calvinists" believe what they believe not because of Calvin, but because we find this view to be soundly demonstrated in Scripture. Sometimes folks seem to have this idea that a Calvinist is one who follows Calvin. But as I hopefully demonstrated before, sometimes it simply means that one happens to hold the same view of the Doctrines of Grace as Calvin. For example, Calvin would have likely pushed to kick Reformed Baptists out of Geneva. So they're not followers of Calvin, but rather folks who believe the same interpretation of Scripture regarding salvation. This is what I hope to emphasize.

I can't respond for any Anglicans other then Packer. He, like Sproul, believes that the only non "five pointer" is one who doesn't understand the first point. If total depravity (in the Reformed sense) is true, resistless logic requires double predestination. Amyraldism is not what many people think it is. It is a very subtle distinction regarding when God decreed to have mercy on some and give justice to the rest. Again, I'm not gonna debate this with ya'll (and fell free to have at it if you like), but I did want to at least point out that most informed Reformed folks would deny there is such a thing as a "non-fiver pointer." Rather, they'd say that they're just uninformed or confused in their theology.

 

[file13]

iMHO, there has been no deeper, extensive and important argument in the past 1500 years than the arguments between those who followed Calvin in this matter and those who follow Wesley.

I smell what you're stepping in. But FWIW, I would personally say that Sola Gratia -> Sola Fide, which Arminians, Calvinists, and Lutheran's all affirm, is far more important then this sub issue (which is certainly related to it). I don't personally think the classical Arminian or confessional Lutheran positions reflect the Biblical teaching, but as long as they affirm that they are indeed saved (justified) by grace through faith alone, I don't see any reason to push into these deeper issues unless someone asks. If the Reformed view is correct and God wills it, He'll lead them there when they are ready for it. But as long as we've repented and put our trust in Jesus Christ and Him alone to save us, I'm happy to work with any of my brothers and sisters in Christ to share the Good News of Jesus Christ. Having perfect theology won't save us. Only Christ can save those who will repent and put their trust in Him.

 

[mark46]

You are correct; however we did not argue and split churches over Sola Gratia, Sola Fide. We split churches over difference in understandings of OSAS, free will and double predestination. However, you are correct, Calvinists, Lutherans and Arminians/Methodists are close in their understandings. And besides, most do not pay attention to these issues any more, even though they have been a source of contention for many, many centuries.

In the end, we don't argue about doctrine much any more; we now split churches (and unite with other churches) over sexual, social and political issues.

I smell what you're stepping in. But FWIW, I would personally say that Sola Gratia -> Sola Fide, which Arminians, Calvinists, and Lutheran's all affirm, is far more important then this sub issue (which is certainly related to it). I don't personally think the classical Arminian or confessional Lutheran positions reflect the Biblical teaching, but as long as they affirm that they are indeed saved (justified) by grace through faith alone, I don't see any reason to push into these deeper issues unless someone asks. If the Reformed view is correct and God wills it, He'll lead them there when they are ready for it. But as long as we've repented and put our trust in Jesus Christ and Him alone to save us, I'm happy to work with any of my brothers and sisters in Christ to share the Good News of Jesus Christ. Having perfect theology won't save us. Only Christ can save those who will repent and put their trust in Him.

 

[RadixLecti]

however we did not argue and split churches over Sola Gratia, Sola Fide.

Well . . . I can think of one instance in particular where those exact words caused a pretty big split.

 

[mark46]

I just noticed your quotation from CS Lewis.

"In the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes . . .” C.S. Lewis

And who is that is at the heart and who is at the fringes?

Well . . . I can think of one instance in particular where those exact words caused a pretty big split.

 

[mark46]

Folks might be interested in this discussion of an Anglican view of predestination.

Sweet, Pleasant, and Unspeakable Comfort: The Anglican View of Predestination | The Conciliar Anglican

Thank you for your very clear explanation of what Calvinism means today, including the references which clearly state the arguments being made. As you say, when folks discuss Calvinism, they mean the Doctrine of Grace, the five points of the TULIP. I agree that 4 point Calvinism makes little sense.

In the end, I suspect that there are so many self-identified Calvinists because 1) many of the early Anglicans also identified themselves as such and 2) because many individuals do not really understand what they are affirming.

iMHO, there has been no deeper, extensive and important argument in the past 1500 years than the arguments between those who followed Calvin in this matter and those who follow Wesley. In the time of John Wesley, this topic was debated by all. The issue and arguments were much more important to everyone than the current arguments over women's ordination and same sex marriage.

 

[RadixLecti]

I just noticed your quotation from CS Lewis.

"In the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes . . .” C.S. Lewis

And who is that is at the heart and who is at the fringes?

I think his point is that those who draw from the different notions orthodoxy from among the various Christian traditions have a great deal in common, because in spite of their different understandings of doctrine they are working from a common world-view.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I think his point is that those who draw from the different notions orthodoxy from among the various Christian traditions have a great deal in common, because in spite of their different understandings of doctrine they are working from a common world-view.

There ya go! That's what I do.

I don't think of myself as a Calvinist (but I'm sort of close to Amyraldian, aka "Christmas Calvinist", no L, no L), and I'm not sure Calvin was one either. He differed quite a bit from what his current followers teach.

 

[VolRaider]

We discuss this from time to time. In the end, folks conclude that Cranmer and the writers of the Articles were Calvinists, so it is a reasonable position to take. Some look at writers like Packer and find that Calvinism makes sense. I suspect that few are Calvinists as defined by the confessions of the Reformed churches. I think the Reformed/Presbyterian sub-board statement of faith is quite clear.

When I suggest that double predestination and OSAS make little sense to me, I am told that these beliefs aren't necessarily held by Calvinists. My guess is that the issue is definition and that most Anglicans are much closer to Luther (and Wesley) than Calvin.

I agree that some think that there are many, many Calvinists within our midst. Perhaps there are, perhaps not.

But I once wrote an Anglican priest (APA), asking him if one had to hold to the 39 Articles to be in the ministry. He said yes. Some parts of the Articles sound very Calvinist to me.

 

[MKJ]

But I once wrote an Anglican priest (APA), asking him if one had to hold to the 39 Articles to be in the ministry. He said yes. Some parts of the Articles sound very Calvinist to me.

I believe it is only the Church of England that has that requirement.

The articles, however, are fairly ambiguous, and can be understood in a number of ways.

 

[Albion]

I believe it is only the Church of England that has that requirement.

The articles, however, are fairly ambiguous, and can be understood in a number of ways.

So are some of the promises made by the candidate to be ordained, depending upon the ordinal used, so there could be others. Seems to me I've encountered some, but I can't remember which is which.

 

[file13]

The articles, however, are fairly ambiguous, and can be understood in a number of ways.

I suppose they can be depending on how one interprets them. But the declaration that proceeds the Articles explicitly specifies how they should be interpreted. Namely "that they all agree in the true, usual, literal meaning of the said Articles." When you combine this with the fact that one of the Articles tells folks to read the Homilies, which further explain various doctrines, I think there's probably a lot less wiggly room than many Anglicans would like to admit. But of course, many Anglicans don't consider the Articles authoritative, so this is all easily dismissed as simply a non-binding "historical document."

 

[Albion]

I suppose they can be depending on how one interprets them. But the declaration that proceeds the Articles explicitly specifies how they should be interpreted. Namely "that they all agree in the true, usual, literal meaning of the said Articles."

I think the reference was to the built-in ambiguity in some of the Articles. The one on Predestination is a good example. On the other hand, there are those that are explicit in rejecting solemn Benediction, transubstantiation, etc. and yet there are Anglicans who dismiss all of them. But if they do, it's not becuase of ambiguity but a theory that holds the Articles themselves to be an abberation.

 

[file13]

I think the reference was to the built-in ambiguity in some of the Articles. The one on Predestination is a good example.

I understand and yeah, that's what I assumed MKJ meant. But frankly, I don't think they're really ambiguous if you take that article in it's literal and usual meaning. It's seems to be pretty clearly Reformed in content if you know what the Reformed view is.

But if they do, it's not becuase of ambiguity but a theory that holds the Articles themselves to be an abberation.

Yup, for Anglo-Catholics. But for many Liberals, they just don't seem to care what these "historical documents" say.

 

[MKJ]

I think the reference was to the built-in ambiguity in some of the Articles. The one on Predestination is a good example. On the other hand, there are those that are explicit in rejecting solemn Benediction, transubstantiation, etc. and yet there are Anglicans who dismiss all of them. But if they do, it's not becuase of ambiguity but a theory that holds the Articles themselves to be an abberation.

Yes, I was thinking of those with built-in ambiguty.

But I think it is pretty much impossible to say they aren't to be understood historically, even if you think they are authoritative. We have to look at Scripture in its historical context as well. So to me, even from that perspective, if we want to talk about something like transubstantiation, we have to see what those who framed the articles understood by that. If it is used or understood in a different way now or by others, then it doesn't necessarily apply. Or, if their understanding was just plain incorrect, which is possible.

Personally I don't see how people see them as having the level of authority that some do. Anglicanism undertands itself as being part of the historic catholic Church, not a new creation of some kind, and it sees itself as being able to err or grow in understanding on many points. If that is true, how could something written more than 1500 years after the Church began be really authoritative, or of more weight than many other documents and writings written in a particular time and place?