tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post7682835139039359260..comments2023-10-28T05:58:07.377-07:00Comments on Anglicans Ablaze: Does Authentic Historic Anglicanism Have a Future in North America?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-22160294638395945572011-06-18T05:18:48.506-07:002011-06-18T05:18:48.506-07:00I'm not ordained but ordination vows in the An...I'm not ordained but ordination vows in the Anglican Mission, which are reaffirmed annually, include literal subscription to the 39 Articles.Maurice "Mo" Hagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13766565397999130726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-44828067190086030832011-06-18T05:18:45.083-07:002011-06-18T05:18:45.083-07:00I'm not ordained but ordination vows in the An...I'm not ordained but ordination vows in the Anglican Mission, which are reaffirmed annually, include literal subscription to the 39 Articles.Maurice "Mo" Hagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13766565397999130726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-2050957315924092342011-06-09T12:13:08.701-07:002011-06-09T12:13:08.701-07:00In the reign of James I English religious life was...In the reign of James I English religious life was largely spilt between "Church Calvinists" including George Abbott, Abp Cantuar; his brother who was bishop of Sarum; and the Puritans. The Anglican - Puritan started very largely as a fight within a Calvinist Church which happened to be Episcopally governed. The English Arminians, who morphed into the Old High Churchmen were a tiny minority under James VI & I, but a growing one as Calvinism began to loose something of its stranglehold on Reformed theology outside of the specifically TULIP churches that accepted Dort.+ Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15593635840263637835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-9083915973150353602011-06-05T06:03:24.673-07:002011-06-05T06:03:24.673-07:00Sorry, I was having one of those days. I don'...Sorry, I was having one of those days. I don't mean to be harsh with you. I do read what you post, and I believe you have a valid point of view. I'm trying to give the several points of view in Anglicanism a hearing through some of my reading. I also studied history in college, and love anything and everything to do with it. My knowledge is not complete, and I sometimes jump in where fools fear to tread. You'll just have to be patient with me.<br /><br />The 39 Articles are what establishes the line between Geneva and Luther on the one hand, and Protestantism and Catholicism on the other. The English Reformation was unique, in that the baby wasn't thrown out with the bath water, and therein lies its charm.<br /><br />I came from a Methodist background, so by default, I'm sort of anti-Calvin, in that I'm anti-double predestination. It just makes God too harsh. I guess that doesn't truly make me anti-Calvin, since predestination isn't the only thing he wrote about, and even the Methodists follow some of the things he teaches.<br /><br />I simply think you don't give the pre-Oxford High Church party enough love around here.Fr. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869676716891199486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-47691735448723354232011-06-04T11:36:39.913-07:002011-06-04T11:36:39.913-07:00Steve,
Your remarks are uncalled for. Note that I...Steve,<br /><br />Your remarks are uncalled for. Note that I use the term "Reformed" and draw attention to the fact there was two Reformed groups in the Church of England. John Calvin was not the only Reformed theologian and Calvin borrowed a number of his ideas and illustrations from Henry Bullinger and other Reformed theologians. Note Packer uses the term "Calvinistic," which is not the same as "Calvinist." The fact of the matter is the theology of the Church of England was Reformed in the sixteenth century and even into the reign of Charles I. Reformed theology did not wither away nor was it confined to those who have been described as the Puritans. Indeed Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher was Reformed in his theology and was highly respected by his fellow Caroline bishops and the Presbyterian Puritan Party. Oliver Cromwell gave him a state funeral. <br /><br />In the Elizabethan Church a rather broad group would fit the description of Puritan, including Bishop John Jewel, the author of An Apology for the Church of England and a number of the Homilies. What I think that you are doing is confusing Puritans in general with the more radical wing of the Puritan movement. Not all Puritans were Presbyterians. Some were episcopalians; others, congregationalists.<br /><br />Reformed theology did not disappear from the Church of England with the ejection of the non-conformists in 1662. At least one of the Restoration bishops was a Puritan and Reformed. The two are, by the way, not synonymous. (Neither is being Reformed and being Presbyterian.)A number of leading figures in Church of England from the reign of Charles II to George I were Reformed. <br /><br />Arminianism has a checkered history in the Church of England. Charles I appointed a number of Arminian bishops. However, Arminianism during his reign was largely confined to these bishops and their protegees and the Royalist party. A large part of the Church of England was solidly Reformed. <br /><br />One of the phenomena observable in the Stuart Church is how extreme views on both sides of an issue push each side of the issue to take even extremer views. <br /><br />I have spent a good part of my life studying the history of the Church of England, the Anglican Church, and Anglicanism, an interest that began in the 1980s while I was a member of the Episcopal Church. I read history in university. As far as the history of the Church of England particular areas of interest have been the English Reformation, the Elizabethan Church, the Stuart Church, the Evangelical Revival, and the Romeward Movement. I am well acquainted with the works of a number of Caroline High Churchmen as well as the Puritans. I am also acquainted with the works of the Non-Jurors and John Wesley and his brother Charles. <br /><br />To suggest that I should become a Presbyterian is really beneath you. The Thirty-Nine Articles are Reformed. There is no escaping it. Are they Calvinist? That is a matter of debate, depending upon your understanding of Calvinism. Are they Calvinistic? In the old sense of the word, which really had nothing to do with John Calvin and his theology, but rather the nineteenth century tendency to identify Reformed theology with Calvin, they are indeed Calvinistic. However, Reformed theology existed before Calvin arrived at Geneva and Calvin was not the only Reformed theologian as I have already noted.<br /><br />Most Baptists, by the way, are Arminians.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-29815306908406682192011-06-04T10:10:10.230-07:002011-06-04T10:10:10.230-07:00The Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church has re...The Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church has required all clergy and ordinands to subscribe to the 39 Articles of Religion since it's founding in 1884. This subscription is to be renewed annually.<br /><br />I am given to understand that throughout the history of the old PECUSA - while not canonically prescribed - several diocesan ordinaries required subscription to the Articles, in particular the diocese of Pittsburg.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br /><br />Charles Morley<br />PB, TPECCharles Morleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12082596935304902224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-62375668147242819712011-06-04T09:38:28.208-07:002011-06-04T09:38:28.208-07:00And I could drag out any number of writers, includ...And I could drag out any number of writers, including among the Reformers themselves, that show that the only Calvinists running around WERE the Puritans, and that the people with cooler heads prevailed. Anglicanism is not Calvinist. It agrees with Calvin in certain areas, but it is not Calvinistic. You've been attending that Baptist church too long. Perhaps you should switch to a Presbyterian church. It would probably fit your point of view better.Fr. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869676716891199486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-59939551846276348462011-06-04T00:08:34.143-07:002011-06-04T00:08:34.143-07:00Steve,
I am sorry to disillusion you but the Arti...Steve,<br /><br />I am sorry to disillusion you but the Articles were not intentionally written vaguely. J. I. Packer deals with this charge in <i>The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today</i>.He characterizes this charge as "both misguided and untrue." He writes:<br /><br />"As their title declares, the Articles were drawn up 'for the avoiding of diversities of opinion, and for the establishing of consent touching religion,' a purpose which deliberate ambiguity would actually have defeated; since ambiguity is a device not for avoiding diversities of opinion, but allowing them. In fact, however, in relation to the disputes that they were meant to settle they are , as Routley says, ‘singularly precise.’ Moreover, their determinations of these disputes are such to line them up at every point with the rest of the confessions of Reformed (Calvinistic) Christendom. In expounding the Articles, Thomas Rogers demonstrated at every point their substantial concord with their continental counterparts and when in1581 <i>A Harmony of the Confessions of Faith of the Orthodox and Reformed Churches</i> was published at Geneva, the Thirty-Nine Articles had a place in it.”<br /><br />Thomas Rogers was the first expositor of the Thirty-Nine Articles. His exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, <i>The English Creede</i>, was originally published in 1579 and 1586. A revised edition, <i>The Catholic Doctrine Believed and Professed in the Church of England</i>, was published in 1607.<br /><br />Packer notes that the best source of information about the theological intentions of each Article is still the section of “Notes and illustrations, appended to Charles Hardwick’s <i>History of the Articles </i> (2nd edition, 1859), which all later expositions use. <br /><br />There were two Reformed groups in the Elizabethan period. Their origins can be traced to the English Protestants who fled to the Continent during the Marian persecutions. One group ended up in Geneva and was influenced by John Calvin; the other ended up in Zurich and was influenced by Henry Bullinger and Peter Martyr Vermigli. Their stay on the Continent reinforced their existing Reformed views. Both groups returned to England after Elizabeth I ascended the throne. Both groups had representatives among the bishops and clergy of the Elizabethan Church. While they disagreed upon a number of issues, e.g. church discipline, church-state relations, they agreed upon the essentials of Reformed theology. It is erroneous to try to separate the Elizabethan Church into Anglicans and Puritans. Reformed theology in the Church of England did not disappear during the reign of Charles I nor did it disappear after the Restoration. See Stephen Hamilton’s <i>Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I</i> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). <br /><br />[9] Eric Routley, <i>Creeds and Confessions</i>, (London: Duckworth, 1962), p. 99.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-27904637053377657012011-06-03T21:07:44.219-07:002011-06-03T21:07:44.219-07:00There you go again, Robin, kicking everyone but th...There you go again, Robin, kicking everyone but the Puritans out of Anglicanism. Has it ever occurred to you that there is not one set thing that is Anglican save the 39 Articles? And they were intentionally written vaguely so they could be interpreted by both parties during the Reformation?Fr. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869676716891199486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-40906733935212209732011-06-03T11:27:32.303-07:002011-06-03T11:27:32.303-07:00George,
The Prayer Book does not need to use the t...George,<br />The Prayer Book does not need to use the terms "Protestant" and "Reformed" to be Protestant and Reformed. That argument is spurious. It is also not original. It was made by the Tractarians who sought to reinterpret the 1662 Prayer Book in "a Catholic sense." <br /><br />The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is essentially the Reformed liturgy of 1552 with a some alterations and additions. The Restoration bishops could have produced a more radical revision of the 1604 Prayer Book but chose not to do so.<br /> <br />Charles Neil and L.M. Willoughby document in <i>The Tutorial Prayer Book</i> how the Tractarians conducted a minute search of every part of the 1662 Prayer Book for words and phrases, which might be used to establish an interpretation of the 1662 Prayer Book "unknown to its authors, and to three centuries of Christain life and thought<br /><br />Dyson Hague in <i>The Protestantism of the Prayer Book</i> shows that the 1662 Prayer Book is indisputably Protestant. The Church Association published numerous tracts refuting the claims of the Tractarians in regards to the 1662 Prayer Book. <br /><br />I also refer readers to R. P. Blakeney's <i>Handbook of the Liturgy of the Church of England</i>, R. P. Blakeney's <i>The Book of Common Prayer in Its History and Its Interpretation</i>, Charles Hole's <i>A Manual of the Book of Common Prayer</i>, Frederick Meyrick's <i>Scriptural and Catholic Truth and Worship</i>, <i>The Doctrine of the Church of England on the Holy Communion</i>, and <i>An Appeal from the Twentieth century to the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries</i>, J. T. Tomlinson's <i>Collected Tracts on Ritual</i>, and Charles H. H. Wright and Charles Neil's <i>A Protestant Dictionary</i>. All these works contain more than ample evidence showing the spurious nature of such an assertion.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-26760500311346332942011-06-03T08:51:03.314-07:002011-06-03T08:51:03.314-07:00Where in the English version of the BCP (1662) doe...Where in the English version of the BCP (1662) does it use the term "Protestant". It isn't found anywhere. However, the American version does but only in the name "The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States..". I am fairly certain the term "reformed" isn't in there either. You will find "catholic" in there. The Church of England has viewed itself as the "Catholic" church in England. <br /><br />I find interesting if their is no heir to what you describe as "historic anglicanism" and it seems it never really existed even at the time when England was reforming the errors out of catholic teachings that the Church of Rome had added. What is the point of still trying to find it if it never existed in the first place according to your terms of defining Anglicanism?Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18402467584294418765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-56408602493669189452011-06-03T08:50:57.177-07:002011-06-03T08:50:57.177-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18402467584294418765noreply@blogger.com