Why are so many Anglicans Calvinists?

[MKJ]

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.

I disagree - I think for some the literal meaning was/is to be ambiguous. They deliberatly chose language that could, litarally, be used in a number of ways.

 

[file13]

I disagree - I think for some the literal meaning was/is to be ambiguous. They deliberatly chose language that could, litarally, be used in a number of ways.

Fair enough. But what specifically would you say is ambiguous about this article, if read in a "usual" and "literal" manner? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems very clear what is being said here.

 

[Albion]

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.

If the Reformed view is that God doesn't elect some people to salvation, you are correct. I didn't realize that you did understand the Article to be saying that.

 

[Albion]

I disagree - I think for some the literal meaning was/is to be ambiguous. They deliberatly chose language that could, litarally, be used in a number of ways.

Exactly.

 

[Albion]

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.

Such as those people who are embarrassed at the literalness or inverted Aristotelianism that Transubstantiation is all about and so aspire to keep the word itself but rework the meaning into something more like "an enhanced way of saying Real Presence?" I agree, but then again, the Articles are still right to have rejected the actual meaning of Transubstantiation and, after all, the church that introduced it to the Christian world is still promoting the word, even while trying to downplay its historic meaning.

Personally I don't see how people see them as having the level of authority that some do.

Well, we were talking elsewhere about Anglicans having to swear to them in the CofE and maybe also in some other churches in order to be ordained. If that is so, even if the Articles are steadily weakening, they have to be considered meaningful...or at least that they were until recently, which is enough for some to say that they aren't going to become revisionists.

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.

But all of the Articles can be accepted and that understanding still stand just as you described it. We are after all "reformed Catholics," not unreformed Catholics who just happen to speak English, etc.

If that is true, how could something written more than 1500 years after the Church began be really authoritative

How could the Council of Nicaea be authoritative, having been held 300 years after the start of the Church Age? Or how could Vatican II be authoritative in the Roman Church, coming as it did 1900 years after?

 

[file13]

If the Reformed view is that God doesn't elect some people to salvation, you are correct. I didn't realize that you did understand the Article to be saying that.

I was just asking what specifically is ambiguous about this particular article. I'm not interested in debating the interpretation, but just asking where the ambiguity is that would lead to different interpretations, because I honestly could be missing something here that is clear to others.

 

[Rurik]

I think that the RCC has it covered if Rom was to dissapear tomorrow.

" Titular bishops are those who have been appointed by the Holy See to a see or diocese which, in former times, had been canonically established and possessed cathedral church,clergy,and laity,but at present, on account of pagan occupation and government, has neither clergy nor people."

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Auxiliary Bishop

 

[ebia]

Well, we were talking elsewhere about Anglicans having to swear to them in the CofE and maybe also in some other churches in order to be ordained.

What they have to swear is that they "bear witness to the historic faith". Which itself is a wonderful bit of Anglican ambiguity.

They have a stronger position in Australia than most places, where they are enshrined in the constitution and canons of the church.

 

[MKJ]

Fair enough. But what specifically would you say is ambiguous about this article, if read in a "usual" and "literal" manner? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems very clear what is being said here.

Well, the Church has never had a problem with predestination as such - its the logical consequence of God's omniscience. It's also not had a problem understanding that as compatible with free will or seeing God as creating people in order to condemn them.

If I read that article in light of what has already been said, I don't see anything alarming there. And how could I read it without that context?

I guess then I am wondering why you might read it differently?

 

[MKJ]

Such as those people who are embarrassed at the literalness or inverted Aristotelianism that Transubstantiation is all about and so aspire to keep the word itself but rework the meaning into something more like "an enhanced way of saying Real Presence?" I agree, but then again, the Articles are still right to have rejected the actual meaning of Transubstantiation and, after all, the church that introduced it to the Christian world is still promoting the word, even while trying to downplay its historic meaning.

I don't think that is really a fair description of that particular issue. The Roman Church would say there is nothing wrong with the Aristotelian description, per se. What is a change is not insisting on it as the only appropriate description, which really changes the nature of the dispute.

That isn't revisionism though, its a change in how it is treated. That stuff happens all the time in theological and doctrinal disputes, and its often completely legitimate.

Well, we were talking elsewhere about Anglicans having to swear to them in the CofE and maybe also in some other churches in order to be ordained. If that is so, even if the Articles are steadily weakening, they have to be considered meaningful...or at least that they were until recently, which is enough for some to say that they aren't going to become revisionists.

I don't think most serious Anglicans could say they were never important. The question is what kind of meaning or authority they have now. What are they for, what do they tell us?

The people that have the more liberal type of understanding are really, IMO, on a totally different page. Someone who sees Scripture and the Church as essentially without authority isn't going to see it in the articles either.

But all of the Articles can be accepted and that understanding still stand just as you described it. We are after all "reformed Catholics," not unreformed Catholics who just happen to speak English, etc.

Sure, they could. But I don't think that we can have that understanding and say that it is necessary that they are.

How could the Council of Nicaea be authoritative, having been held 300 years after the start of the Church Age? Or how could Vatican II be authoritative in the Roman Church, coming as it did 1900 years after?

Well, do you think all the councils of the Church have been authoritative? Or the councils of the Roman Church? Many who think the articles have authority, maybe particularly the more Reformed sorts, do not accept all of them, in which case I don't see how they can give the Articles any sort of more permanent authority.

I think there are two things I'd want to say here. One is that I am not at all sure that the articles are compatible with all of the ecumenical councils.

Which brings me to the second point - the advantage the ecumenical councils have is that they were ecumenical. THe mode for change in the Church was, until the Pope began to declare inappropriate authority and there were serious fractures, the assent of the whole Church. The idea being that the Holy Spirit, eventually, would guide the Church into the right way of thinking or acting.

Once you have serious fractures in the Church, an ecumenical council or other decision by the Church as a whole (which could be a decision from silence) becomes impossible. If we really think the Church is fractured in that way, we are admitting that we think all Churches have and do err.

The reason the Romans maintain their subsequent councils are infallible, and the Orthodox say they could have an ecumenical council if they wanted to and they have the infallible protection of the Holy Spirit, is that they both consider that they are in fact the whole of the institutional Church.

Anglicans make no such claim, we admit freely to being only part of the Church, in schism from some other parts. As such, we can make no claim to permanent authoritative documents, councils, or whatever. We believe all can err, including ourselves. There is no way that the Articles could somehow be shielded from that possibility. We can only claim that possibly for the ecumenical councils, and for Scripture, and as you know many would apply the same logic to Scripture.

 

[Albion]

I was just asking what specifically is ambiguous about this particular article. I'm not interested in debating the interpretation, but just asking where the ambiguity is that would lead to different interpretations, because I honestly could be missing something here that is clear to others.

If you read it carefully, you will notice that the word Predestination is used in a sense that is not exactly the way a Reformed Christian would use it but more like "God has a master plan." In addition, and FWIW, I know some Anglicans who would be considered very much Protestant and Low church but they quite readily agree about this article too. Customarily, I defend the Protestant nature of Anglicanism, at least the original nature of it, but I have to admit that Article XVII (I believe it is) isn't what some Evangelical Anglicans think it is.

 

[Albion]

I don't think that is really a fair description of that particular issue. The Roman Church would say there is nothing wrong with the Aristotelian description, per se.

Well then, the Articles are all the more important and not just something that has a "historical" meaning, the falsity of Transubstantiation NOT being denied by the RCC, as you say.

I don't think most serious Anglicans could say they were never important.

"most serious Anglicans?" That's always a safe way of putting it.

I have encountered plenty of them, loads of them I'd almost say, who flatly deny that the Articles ever were important (except to Puritans for whom no one is expected to have any respect). But if we call these Anglicans not "most" Anglicans and not the "serious" ones, that certainly blurs everything, doesn't it?

 

[MKJ]

Well then, the Articles are all the more important and not just something that has a "historical" meaning, the falsity of Transubstantiation NOT being denied by the RCC, as you say.

The disputes over transubstantiation had as much to do with the insistence on that language and understanding it as being some kind of perfect be-all end-all philosophical paradigm as it did with the idea itself. The whole discussion was heated in a way it simply isn't now between even those who don't like some of the implications of that model and those that do.

The whole dispute was against a background of politics that has changed substantially. The articles were reactionary as much as proscriptive, and being reactionary will always be a limit.

"most serious Anglicans?" That's always a safe way of putting it.

I have encountered plenty of them, loads of them I'd almost say, who flatly deny that the Articles ever were important (except to Puritans for whom no one is expected to have any respect). But if we call these Anglicans not "most" Anglicans and not the "serious" ones, that certainly blurs everything, doesn't it?

Say most Anglicans that know their history then. It would be very hard to say they were never important at all - their reasons for being framed and framed in the way they were important in the early formation of Anglicanism. I'd say anyone who denies that is just putting his head in the sand. I suppose one could say they were never theologically important to everyone, though I don't know that I would agree.

But being important historically doesn't necessarily mean they will be important now, and it doesn't say that they have a permanent authority. Authority is, I think, a little different than being important. Those who produced the articles don't seem to have wanted, for example, to go quite the same route as the Lutherans with confessional documents that were highly authoritative and meant to be somewhat permanent.

 

[Albion]

Say most Anglicans that know their history then.

According to the observer's particular understanding, that is.

 

[MKJ]

According to the observer's particular understanding, that is.

I am not sure how one coud read Anglican history and ignore the Articles. That would be like reading English history and ignoring the Saxons. People may do it, but they are unaccountable.

 

[Albion]

I am not sure how one coud read Anglican history and ignore the Articles.

I agree.

 

[mark46]

For me, it is not a matter of ignoring the Articles. As Lambeth, said they are of "historical" interest. I certainly agree. They were cleverly crafted to stop invasion of European Protestantism and maintaining a clear Separation from Rome. It was a masterpiece.

HOWEVER, then is then and now is now. Precisely because the Articles were such a great compromise, it seems that we should be free as 21st Century Anglicans to set our own (as a Communion) way independent of the compromises of the Articles.

We are free to reject OSAS and 5 point Calvinism and embrace our 21st understanding of acceptance of God's gift (and our understanding of free will). We are free to make Church rules (perhaps with compromises) on the issues of the 21st century. We did that in the 19th century with respect to slavery. We did that in the 20th Century with regard to the role of woman in society and in the Church. In the 20th Century, we also dealt with the issue of re-marriage of the divorced. Those struggles are behind us.

Let us NOT make believe that we haven't changed as we deal with the issues of this century! We are not Orthodox, so we cannot reasonably make such statements.

The 21st Century starts us off with several issues (as has always been the case). We must deal with the role and authority of our primates (and the authority of the local bishops), the role of the Communion instruments themselves, the definition of marriage, and the Communion's position regarding sex outside of marriage.

I do NOT believe that what we face in this century is any more earth shattering that what we have faced in previous ones. IMHO, it is unfortunate that others on both sides of these issues (including leadership) disagree so forcefully. My bishop will be in prayer this month over these issues, as I suspect will be many others. The future of American Anglicanism is certainly at stake, and likely the future of the Anglican Communion.

 

[file13]

Well, the Church has never had a problem with predestination as such - its the logical consequence of God's omniscience.

Ok, but where does the article identify predestination with only God's foreknowledge of who would choose Him? It seems to plainly say that it's not foreknowledge, but a secret decree:

...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.
​

Again, I don't see anything here that indicates that God's decree is based on some kind of foreknowledge of who would chose Him or it would not be His "secret counsel." Also, dosen't this seem pretty plain that it's saying that God decreed to deliver those who He has chosen, and thus, by plain and irresistible logic, that He didn't do so for those He didn't chose, especially in light of article 10?

This is why I'm asking, because I just don't see how you can not get a Reformed view from this article if you read them as the declaration says, in their plain and literal manner. I'm open to suggestions and even the idea that the articles are indeed ambiguous. But I just haven't heard any.

 

[file13]

If you read it carefully, you will notice that the word Predestination is used in a sense that is not exactly the way a Reformed Christian would use it but more like "God has a master plan."

Please see my comment here. It seems to plainly say God not only has a plan, but it's a secret one. If it's a secret one, it cannot be based on some manifest action of the individual or it would not be a secret.

In addition, and FWIW, I know some Anglicans who would be considered very much Protestant and Low church but they quite readily agree about this article too.

That's cool, but I'm just trying to figure out why they agree. Everyone keeps saying "they're ambiguous." I'm just asking "where are they ambiguous?" Again, I could be missing something, which is why I'm asking for what it is that is ambiguous.

Customarily, I defend the Protestant nature of Anglicanism, at least the original nature of it, but I have to admit that Article XVII (I believe it is) isn't what some Evangelical Anglicans think it is.

Gotcha. That article sounds like it's essential the Reformed view of baptism. What do you think it's saying?

 

[Albion]

Please see my comment here.

That link doesn't seem to take me to any post of yours.

It seems to plainly say God not only has a plan, but it's a secret one. If it's a secret one, it cannot be based on some manifest action of the individual or it would not be a secret.

You're apparently assuming that the secrecy relates to whomhe predestines. However, whether or not his workings are secret or unknowable, that doesn't mean that he's predestining individuals to salvation, etc. The best I can probably do is ask you to read that Article carefully and without any preconceived idea, based upon the title, of what it's going to say. At the same time, be aware that Reformed-type Predestination was the predominant POV of the church in that century, regardless of how the Article on Predestination itself is understood.