Why or why not become Anglican?

[prodromos]

I was raised in the Anglican Church but it has changed significantly in my lifetime such that I no longer recognise it as the same Church. It also never sat well with me that someone could be a complete heretic and still remain in good standing in the Church (Bishop John Shelby Spong)

 

[HosannaHM]

Anglicanism, to me, was a church with many strengths - including the ones I admired in Catholicism - but without (what I saw as) the appalling arrogance and pride of saying "We can never be wrong." I appreciate my tradition's humility in saying that as humans, even Christian humans, we can be wrong and are open to ongoing reflection, repentance, and reform.

This is something that I value. It's not that there aren't truths that are objective, but there is humility in being able to admit that some things aren't as clear as others.

 

[HosannaHM]

Amen, it is a fundamental difference in perspective.

I attach infallibility to the statement, not to the reader. If the reader misinterprets or misunderstands, that is correctable by means of patient instruction. If the statement itself is in error then no patient instruction can make it true, only amendment can do that.

This certainly lines up with the idea of truth existing outside of us or "extra nos". There has to be some sense in which we can glean things that are infallibly true, otherwise we're wasting our time claiming to stand for the truth.

 

[HosannaHM]

-
​

I would maybe, be allowed to hold that position, but as you ask why a person would or would not become Anglican. That is the reason that i would not become Anglican. As i would be holding a position that the majority (99%+) of the Anglican church does not believe in.

Dear friend, I would not say that 99% of Anglicans do not believe in perseverance of the saints. There are branches of Anglicanism- Anglo-Catholic and Reformed Anglican, of which many of your Reformed Anglicans would hold that position (and possibly some on the other side of the aisle).

 

[HosannaHM]

Similarly, I do not believe in the ability of any other person, or group of persons, or church, to infallibly discern truth, so I find the claim by a church that they are infallible in their truth claims, and the requirement by such a church that its members accept that claim of infallibility (and all that logically flows from that), to be simply insupportable.

I'm having a hard time with this one. This seems to make everything relative. If I followed this to its logical conclusion, then I've wasted everyone's time with my question about Anglicanism. I should only be Anglican if it seems true to me. I could apply that reason to Buddhism, Islam, etc. and beyond. You may not have intended this statement to be taken this way, but it's a bit of a double-edged sword. Yes, it helps with nonessentials and doctrinal disagreements, but it severely cripples the gospel message when we start to speak of truth. "That's just what you think brother/sister." There has to be something more than that.

I don't want to be Anglican or anything for that matter because it "feels" true or seems true- let alone the fact that I don't want to be a Christian because it feels true.

I want to follow Christ because He is the truth. If that truth is expressed in the most truthful way in the Anglican tradition, sign me up.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"That's just what you think brother/sister." There has to be something more than that.

Agreed, truth ought to be true regardless of the way a reader or hearer interprets what they read or hear. For example, it ought to be true that "God is Love" regardless of how individual readers perceive that statement.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I was raised in the Anglican Church but it has changed significantly in my lifetime such that I no longer recognise it as the same Church. It also never sat well with me that someone could be a complete heretic and still remain in good standing in the Church (Bishop John Shelby Spong)

A corollary of the idea of infallibility is that being completely and utterly in error is as possible as being completely and utterly correct. As much as one may be speaking infallible truth when one says "God is Love" one may be speaking unmitigated error when one says "Jesus is just a wise man and nothing more". I suspect that John Selby Spong was occasionally completely and utterly in error in what he said on some matters.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Creed is a statement of faith on the part of those who say it; but we do not say it in an attempt to impose it on anyone else.

Every infallible dogma is a statement of faith made from faith and not an attempt to impose acceptance upon anyone. It seems to me that belief either comes willingly or is it not belief. Thus the Creed (Nicene) is a statement of faith made by the faithful and for those who reject it, eschew it as an imposition of 'human ideas' upon the holy scriptures and Christians, are in error no matter how sincerely they may hold to such an opinion.

 

[The Liturgist]

I was raised in the Anglican Church but it has changed significantly in my lifetime such that I no longer recognise it as the same Church. It also never sat well with me that someone could be a complete heretic and still remain in good standing in the Church (Bishop John Shelby Spong)

And before Bishop Spong there was Bishop James Pike, who was the Bishop of San Francisco in the 1960s and was subject to a heresy trial after he made remarks that deprecated the Holy Trinity and other essential articles of faith, but astonishingly and disastrously, the bishops of the Episcopal Church failed to convict him.

However, there are Anglican provinces which are committed to doctrinal orthodoxy as well as local Anglican churches including some in the Episcopal Church, as there is still one traditional Anglo-Catholic seminary remaining that ordains Episcopalian clergy as well as clergy for related denominations, that being Nashotah House.

It was by the way the seminaries, according to my retired friend, Fr. Steve Dean, that caused the leftward shift of the Episcopal Church, since most of the seminaries fell under the control of various modernist theological movements such as the Liberal Catholic movement, and the formation in these seminaries stressed a different set of values than those previously embraced by the Episcopal Church. The LCMS was able to avoid going down a similiar direction in the 1970s by taking control of its main Concordia seminary (which resulted in a bit of drama known as Seminex, which my friend @MarkRohfrietsch is familiar with, but the net effect was very positive in that the LCMS, which had been a mainline denomination, was able to pull back from the edge and retain the traditional beliefs of Lutheran orthodoxy. Likewise the SBC was also at one time regarded as a mainline denomination, but it also underwent a course correction.

The nice thing about the Orthodox Church however is that change is simply not accepted by the faithful. Even relatively minor changes to the liturgy, when forced upon the the laity, have caused schisms, for example, the Revised Julian Calendar led to the Old Calendarist Movement, and the persecution by Czar Peter of those who refused to accept the efforts of Patriarch Nikon to standardize the liturgy and make the Russian service books consistent with those in use in the Greek church led to the Old Believer schism, but fortunately large scale reconciliation with the Russian Old Rite Orthodox has occurred since the early 1800s starting with the formation of “Edinovertsy” parishes which used the Old Rite but were in communion with the rest of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is also worth noting that Peter the Great refused to allow the Holy Synod to appoint a successor to Patriarch Nikon, and also reduced their number to just the three most senior metropolitans of the Russian church, and appointed an Imperial bureaucrat, the Imperial Procurator, to the synod (ostensibly to represent the Emperor, but he exercised the real power, particularly since he was the official in charge of the church budget, and the Holy Synod by all accounts did not do a very good job running the Russian Orthodox Church, with most of the major accomplishments of that era being the result of popular movements such as enthusiasm for the Jesus Prayer sparked by the anonymous book The Pilgrim’s Journey, and through the work of individual saints such as St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, and St. John of Kronstadt, and in the US by St. Tikhon of Moscow, before he became Patriarch in 1917.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm having a hard time with this one. This seems to make everything relative. If I followed this to its logical conclusion, then I've wasted everyone's time with my question about Anglicanism. I should only be Anglican if it seems true to me. I could apply that reason to Buddhism, Islam, etc. and beyond. You may not have intended this statement to be taken this way, but it's a bit of a double-edged sword. Yes, it helps with nonessentials and doctrinal disagreements, but it severely cripples the gospel message when we start to speak of truth. "That's just what you think brother/sister." There has to be something more than that.

I don't want to be Anglican or anything for that matter because it "feels" true or seems true- let alone the fact that I don't want to be a Christian because it feels true.

I want to follow Christ because He is the truth. If that truth is expressed in the most truthful way in the Anglican tradition, sign me up.

I think I am aiming for something between this and the extreme position of infallibility. I think that we can offer good, robust reasons for our faith and make a strong case for what we believe. And those have been tested and found to be sound and solid over centuries of Christians who have prayed and lived in accord with that understanding. That's more than just mere opinion or personal sentiment.

But I just can't go that step further and say, "there is no possibility of any error in our truth claim."

Every infallible dogma is a statement of faith made from faith and not an attempt to impose acceptance upon anyone.

But the claim of infallibility goes further than being a statement of faith, in that it seeks to have people accept the claims made, not on their merits, but because the institution making the claims is said to be unable to be in error.

 

[d taylor]

Dear friend, I would not say that 99% of Anglicans do not believe in perseverance of the saints. There are branches of Anglicanism- Anglo-Catholic and Reformed Anglican, of which many of your Reformed Anglicans would hold that position (and possibly some on the other side of the aisle).

I am not speaking about preservation of the saints. I am speaking to, once a person believes in Jesus for Eternal Life. They can never lose the Eternal Life they received at the moment of belief in Jesus. Even if they fall away from their belief in Jesus.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

it seeks to have people accept the claims made, not on their merits, but because the institution making the claims

This is an erroneous statement; the infallibility belongs to the statement and not to the institution even though the institution is the body of Christ and the earthly means of salvation for God's people on Earth.

 

[HosannaHM]

I think I am aiming for something between this and the extreme position of infallibility. I think that we can offer good, robust reasons for our faith and make a strong case for what we believe. And those have been tested and found to be sound and solid over centuries of Christians who have prayed and lived in accord with that understanding. That's more than just mere opinion or personal sentiment.

But I just can't go that step further and say, "there is no possibility of any error in our truth claim."

I appreciate the balance. This is where I find more of an attraction to the historic denominations and the creeds. Slight variation to what you and Xeno were talking about- Would you be comfortable saying that the Nicene and/or Apostle’s creed(s) are communicating infallible truths at any rate? Maybe the rate at which the truths of scripture shine through them?

 

[HosannaHM]

I am not speaking about preservation of the saints. I am speaking to, once a person believes in Jesus for Eternal Life. They can never lose the Eternal Life they received at the moment of belief in Jesus. Even if they fall away from their belief in Jesus.

Perseverance of the Saints is the doctrine that a believer is eternally secure and cannot lose their salvation. Commonly called “once saved, always saved”

Slightly off topic- What if they turn from Jesus and refuse to repent?

 

[d taylor]

Perseverance of the Saints is the doctrine that a believer is eternally secure and cannot lose their salvation. Commonly called “once saved, always saved”

Slightly off topic- What if they turn from Jesus and refuse to repent?

My understanding from what i have heard people on Christian Forums state Perseverance of the Saints is.

Perseverance of the saints is a Christian teaching that asserts that once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they will continue doing good works and believing in God until the end of their life.

That is not the same as once a believer believes in Jesus for Eternal Life and become a born again child of God, They can never become un-born and lose the Eternal Life gifted to them by God a the moment of faith. They are not required to continue to do good works or continue to believe in God until the end of their life.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Perseverance of the saints is a Christian teaching that asserts that once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they will continue doing good works and believing in God until the end of their life.

That is not the same as once a believer believes in Jesus for Eternal Life and become a born again child of God, They can never become un-born and lose the Eternal Life gifted to them by God a the moment of faith. They are not required to continue to do good works or continue to believe in God until the end of their life.

They both look erroneous to me.

 

[Paidiske]

This is an erroneous statement; the infallibility belongs to the statement and not to the institution even though the institution is the body of Christ and the earthly means of salvation for God's people on Earth.

If that were true, how could we speak of an infallible magisterium? That's speaking of the institution, not the particular claim.

Would you be comfortable saying that the Nicene and/or Apostle’s creed(s) are communicating infallible truths at any rate? Maybe the rate at which the truths of scripture shine through them?

Personally I would not be very comfortable with the word "infallible." Nor do I see why it is necessary or helpful.

 

[HosannaHM]

My understanding from what i have heard people on Christian Forums state Perseverance of the Saints is.

Perseverance of the saints is a Christian teaching that asserts that once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they will continue doing good works and believing in God until the end of their life.

That is not the same as once a believer believes in Jesus for Eternal Life and become a born again child of God, They can never become un-born and lose the Eternal Life gifted to them by God a the moment of faith. They are not required to continue to do good works or continue to believe in God until the end of their life.

Your definition of perseverance of the saints as opposed to mine feels like hair-splitting. They will continue the faith until the end of life (persevere). You just described what being eternally secure and not losing your salvation looks like. But I think I understand you clearly.

Anyway, as far as what you said about folks not continuing in good works or belief, that will put no weight into whether or not I pursue Anglicanism because that argument is unbiblical. That’s reason according to how one feels. There are scriptures that literally say the opposite

 

[HosannaHM]

Personally I would not be very comfortable with the word "infallible." Nor do I see why it is necessary or helpful.

Well I think it’s certainly helpful to have a firm idea of what one believes is true if we are to be faithful representatives of Christ’s gospel. If the power of salvation is in the good news, there has to be a level of “I know whom I have believed”. The Apostle Paul was convinced (2 Tim 1:12). It’s probably necessary for us too if we are going to live out the faith with any conviction.

Do you believe that fallible people can understand objective truths?

 

[Paidiske]

Well I think it’s certainly helpful to have a firm idea of what one believes is true if we are to be faithful representatives of Christ’s gospel.

Absolutely. I just think "infallible" takes us into a space beyond that.

Do you believe that fallible people can understand objective truths?

Probably only ever partially and imperfectly.