Michael Jensen on Anglican Identity for Evangelicals: A New Anglicanism

In my 50+ years as an Episcopalian—up through 2003—I was unaware that there was such a thing as an “evangelical Episcopalian,” although I had attended several different PECUSA churches in several different states (California, Illinois, Missouri, and Arizona).

The phrase itself had for me the mark of a true oxymoron. Prior to 2003, I believed—falsely—that there were no Evangelicals in the PECUSA. Now with the formation of ACNA, we may rapidly be approaching the day when my former misapprehension will become sadly true. Sooner or later, there will be no evangelicals remaining in TEC.

I had no idea what the theology of Anglicanism was all about, having never heard theology preached from the pulpit—nor at any other time in an Episcopal edifice, outside of confirmation classes in 1961. All I knew of “Episcopalian Identity” was the now outmoded definition #2 from the Briar Patch Dictionary:

Episcopalian (noun) - 1: Any person who has ever contributed positively to the ASA of any Episcopal church at any time in the past 10 years. 2 (archaic): A churchgoer who can hold to any theology whatever according to his or her personal preference, but can nonetheless say the Nicene Creed without snickering or crossing his/her fingers.

But now I’m an Anglican.
In light of the above article, I have had to add a third definition for the term “Anglican.”

Anglican (noun) - 1: A former Episcopalian. 2 (rare): Any British subject who has ever been inside any building of the Church of England, or whose parents or grandparents had been inside any building of the Church of England at any time. 3: A member of an obscure sect in Australia.

Being in search for an “Anglican Identity for Evangelicals,” may be a serious issue in Australia, but it seems well off the playing field here in the good ol’ You Ess of Aye. Where can we find an author that will pen an article with the following title?

In Search of an Evangelical Identity for Anglicans

The Rabbit

#1-Br_er Rabbit, Excuse me, but haven’t you left out the majority of Anglicans in the world; those who were never Episcopalians, have never been to England or Australia, but live in Africa or South America?  You might have a point that they can “say the Nicene Creed without snickering or crossing his/her fingers”, but I doubt that they would allow themselves to be called “Episcopalians”; that’s becoming a bad word in much of the AC.

I mean no disrespect, but I have difficulty understanding exactly what is an “evangelical Anglican”.  Are we talking Calvinism here?  Is this an argument about the Reformation?  I come from an Anglo-catholic background and I have never really been exposed to evangelical Anglican ideas until I came to StandFirm.  Yes, I read the article above, but it doesn’t tell me what I need to know. It sounds to me like, “sola scriptura”, but surely he is not saying that you can baptize with flower petals instead of water.  Okay, I was baptized by dunking, not sprinkling, but that isn’t important (except to Baptists).  And Baptists use repeated baptism instead of confession, but isn’t it really the same: confession and absolution.  Do evangelicals believe that priests and bishops can intercede?  Do the 5 solas rule out the three-legged stool of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition?  Or is this about what is necessary for Salvation or Apostolic Succession?

Okay, I’m grasping at straw here.  I really would like to hear an evangelical Anglican explain how they are different in beliefs than, say, an Anglo-catholic?

I have difficulty understanding exactly what is an “evangelical Anglican”

This would be one place to start: http://canterburytrail.wordpress.com/evangelicalism/. The links on this site will take you to more Evangelical Anglican pages.

I’m an Evangelical, still in the Episcopal Church and with no intention of leaving, and am one of those who agrees with the commentators on the sydney.anglicans site who have no interest in Anglicanism at all. It’s just a mixed church, like all the other denominations, with no particular reason for existing now that it’s not the church established by law. As long as I can uphold the gospel according to Scripture in that church, I will, but I won’t add to the gospel any of their silly ideas about episcopacy, liturgy, or the various ideas associated with the Anglo-catholic movement. The only thing I ever thought was good about the Anglican church was that it was Protestant but took no side on all the various issues that have divided Protestants. But the Episcopal Church hasn’t been that church since the 19th Century.

I’m in the minority even among Anglican Evangelicals these days (so please react with tolerant amusement rather than anger), but again as long as I can uphold the gospel according to Scripture in the Anglican Evangelical Movement, I will.

Thanks for that revealing testimony, Br_er Rabbit (#1).  It may only be anecdotal evidence, but your 50+ years of experience speaks volumes about how terribly small and weak the truly evangelical wing of ECUSA/TEC has been for ages.  Hmmm.  Is the Rriar Patch Dictionary available for sale anywhere?  Sounds entertaining.

Ricardo (#2),
I’ll let others attempt a more formal definition or description of what it means to be an “evangelical Anglican,” but let me prime the pump a bit with my own personal view (which won’t go so far as some self-identified evangelicals here at SF would want to go).  As perhaps you know, Ricardo, the term “evangelical” comes from the Greek word for the gospel, euangelium or “evangel.”  So I like to say that an evangelical is a gospel-based, gospel-driven Christian, who insists that everything in the life of the Church must be subordinated to the supreme priority of promoting the spreading and living out of the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

However, historically, the term “evangelical” has had certain related meanings or associations (e.g., low church, Protestant, or revivalistic) that some here would claim are also part and parcel of what it means to be truly evangelical.  For example, in Latin America, all Protestants are generally considered to be “Evangelicals,” even if they’re quite liberal theologically.  In Germany, an “Evangelical” is a Lutheran, as opposted to a Calvinist or Baptist, etc.

In English history, to be an evangelical has tended to carry the connotations of being low church liturgically and conservative theologically, and particularly to identify yourself with the proud heritage of the great Evangelical Revival led by John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefiled in the mid 1700s, and the godly Charles Simeon of Cambridge in the early 1800s.  That is, to be evangelical in that sense is to stress strongly the need for personal conversion and the urgency of evangelism and world missions.

Now, as regular readers of SF know all too well, I like to think of myself as an evangelical Anglican, but I’m NOT low church liturgically, and I’m fully supportive of modern biblical scholarship, which many conservative evangelicals distrust and disdain.  However, as a gospel-based, gospel-driven Christian, I do share the typically evangelical passion for upholding orthodox doctrine, the necessity for personal conversion, and an enthusiasm for evangelism and missionary endeavors.

In other words, unlike some, I would say that it’s perfectly possible to be truly evangelical and still catholic at the same time, and to be fully at home with centrist modern theological scholarship.  Obviously, not everyone would agree with me there.

David Handy+
Still proud to claim the label “evangelical”

Ricardo, thanks for the reply. I will attempt to answer your concerns.

Excuse me, but haven’t you left out the majority of Anglicans in the world; those who were never Episcopalians, have never been to England or Australia, but live in Africa or South America?

Yes, I should have offered an apology for the rather myopic and provincial view from the Briar Patch, where the thorns can obstruct the view so thoroughly. This particular Anglican was rescued from being an Episcopalian by a thoroughly evangelical African, the Archbishop of Uganda, who I came to know and respect greatly. New editions of the Dictionary, hopefully, will be updated accordingly.

You might have a point that they can “say the Nicene Creed without snickering or crossing his/her fingers”, but I doubt that they would allow themselves to be called “Episcopalians”; that’s becoming a bad word in much of the AC.

No, they would not sully themselves with the term ‘Episcopal’ in any way, as long as that word is associated with a cult by that name now reigning in the U.S.

Are we talking Calvinism here?  Is this an argument about the Reformation? 

Not being much of a theologian, I’m afraid I don’t have the answers to all of your questions. For me, the argument usually heard about Calvinism, i.e. ‘predestination’ vs. ‘free will’ is silly and irrelevant. I have no idea how the concept of predestination should have any effect on my behavior, and if the answer is none, it is irrelevant.

I do hold a high regard for Scripture, however. I read the Bible in its entirety as a child, and was influenced a lot more by Scripture than I was by anything that might have taken place in a church. In that regard, I hold a high respect for Luther et al. I already held a high regard for Scripture, and since these ‘reformation’ folk also upheld Scripture, I found them uplifting.

I mean no disrespect, but I have difficulty understanding exactly what is an “evangelical Anglican”.
...
Yes, I read the article above, but it doesn’t tell me what I need to know. It sounds to me like, “sola scriptura”, but surely he is not saying that you can baptize with flower petals instead of water.  Okay, I was baptized by dunking, not sprinkling, but that isn’t important (except to Baptists).  And Baptists use repeated baptism instead of confession, but isn’t it really the same: confession and absolution. 

Re: difficulty understanding, so do I, Ricardo. But by Evangelical, I mean a focus on actively spreading the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, inviting people to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, and dedicating their lives to becoming Disciples of Jesus. How the ‘Anglican’ flavor of evangelical differs from, say, the ‘Baptist’ flavor is indeed the question at hand.

Do evangelicals believe that priests and bishops can intercede? 

I believe in the priesthood of all believers, so I believe that any Christian can intercede. Being a bishop or calling yourself a priest does not disqualify you from interceding.

Do the 5 solas rule out the three-legged stool of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition? 

Sorry, that one’s over my pay grade. You’ll need to ask a theologian.
But there is no “stool.” It is a tricycle, with the leading and steering wheel being Scripture.

Or is this about what is necessary for Salvation ...?

Yes.

Or is this about what is necessary for ... Apostolic Succession?

Apolostic Succession is an Anglican identifier, rather than Evangelical. It is important to me, but it is not salvific. You can be saved without the benefit of the Apolostic Succession with the Laying On of Hands.

I come from an Anglo-catholic background and I have never really been exposed to evangelical Anglican ideas until I came to StandFirm. 
...
Okay, I’m grasping at straw here.  I really would like to hear an evangelical Anglican explain how they are different in beliefs than, say, an Anglo-catholic?

I am not an Anglo-Catholic nor could I define one. You’ll have to define that for me as you understand it, and then I could compare it with what I believe and practice. I do know that when I have encountered Marianism within the Episcopal Church it has made me intensely uncomfortable.

While I was composing this, Philip Wainwright also attempted to answer your questions. I would be interested in the links he provided, and I agree with most of what he posted, especially hanging in there “as long as I can uphold the Gospel according to Scripture.” But I do believe that the Episcopacy was an important gift to the Church of great value. Nevertheless, I would flee from that bishop who becomes adamantly heretical.

With Fr. Handy, I would agree that being “low church” or “high church” is not an identifier needed for being “evangelical.” I have known evangelicals, and attended evangelical services, from both the “low church” and “high church” practices in the Anglican Communion. I also know some who are switch hitters, notably Fr. Jerry Kramer.

Brer Rabbit, I thought your post was excellent, with several pointed kernels of truth in among the humour.

But I have to second Ricardo’s comment: We “Anglicans” are continually surprised at the western episcopalians/anglicans who say they have never heard of us, because we are in fact the majority of Anglicans in the communion, and we have been so for a long time!

Your witty post highlights the fact that many western Anglicans have an excessively narrow view of the communion, which often doesn’t include anyone outside Britain, USA or Canada.

As I have posted before, if there is such a thing as the “typical Anglican”, she is female, dirt-poor, lives in Africa, and is quite at home with the theology of +++Akinola, +++Venables or ++Jensen. 

Many people in the wealthy introspective west didn’t notice when the global south bishops walked out of Lambeth in 1978, nor the many pronouncements from the orthodox primates since. But there are plenty of Anglicans (and others) out in the wide world who do listen. The same goes for Gafcon - it was the leaders of the majority of the world’s Anglicans who attended and assented to the Jerusalem Declaration.

The five solas of the reformation are quite compatible with “high” liturgy…so I would agree with those who suggest that evangelical does not necessarily imply “low church” liturgy.

Two of the reasons main reasons I am a Calvinist Anglican rather than belonging to a Presbyterian or Reformed denomination are:

1. I take the normative rather than the regulative view of scripture and so, with Cranmer, I want to retain as much of our Catholic heritage as we may in so far as it does not conflict with scripture.

2. God is the source of beauty and all beauty is a reflection of his own. The divinely revealed design for the tabernacle, temple, priestly vestments, articles for use in worship—all point to a divine concern that the worship of the people of God must also reflect the beauty of God. I do not see that concern in most reformed denominations. The once healthy fear of idolatry seems to have blinded many of my fellow Calvinists to the beauty of biblical worship…Anglicans retain that.

Sorry, Brer Rabbit, I should have said that my post at #7 was referring to your post at #1!

To take up Ricardo’s questions, I think I am inclined to agree with Brer Rabbit’s post at #5 - I think of myself as “calvinist”, but really most of my theology is pretty well summed up by Brer Rabbit’s post. To me, my Anglican identity is very important.

I really would like to hear an evangelical Anglican explain how they are different in beliefs than, say, an Anglo-catholic?

This sort of question is very difficult to answer. Both of the words, “evangelical” and “anglo-catholic” encompass a *very* wide spectrum of meanings. I have found in practice that both terms include people with theology compatible to mine AND those who most definitely are not!

I think it is often better to discuss particular issues, and always with scripture close at hand. That way, not only do we find out what we agree/disagree about with some precision, but we are also edified in the process, regardless of the outcome!

With Fr. Kennedy, I want to update my post with some background on “why I’m an Anglican,” even though my ancestors were German. The short answer is, because my parents were.

The longer answer relates to a holiness/charismatic/unification movement triggered by a presbyterian minister in Scotland in 1830. The prayer group meeting in his house was praying for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and like the events on Azusa Street 90 years later, the gifts fell upon the believers, especially the gift of prophecy.

News of what happened spread across Britain and through Europe, attracting followers resulting in 200 congregations across Britain who had been put out of their churches for practicing the Gifts of the Spirit, and also some congregations in Germany and Austria. These folk became known as the Catholic Apostolic Church, and alas, their dream of unification was not to be.

Some of them came to America, as did my great-grandparents while fleeing persecution for leaving the Lutheran church, but by the 1940’s they were dying out. When my great-grandmother found out that my grandparents were not attending church, she raised herself up in fury, pointed her finger at my grandfather and said, “Go to the Episcopal Church, because they’re the closest!”

They were the “closest” because they raised up an awareness of the Holiness of God that one cannot find at, say, a Baptist or Assemblies of God church. It had a profound effect on my mother, who at 94 is the last surviving member of the Catholic Apostolic Church in the United States. (There are reputedly some remaining adherents in Vienna.)

This same sense of the Holiness of God brought me back to the Episcopal Church after being a Men’s Home Director in Victory Outreach and a Pastor with the Assemblies of God, places where such a sense was missing. Finding evangelicals in TEC was what kept me there.

So in some sense, there is another element that attracts me to being an Anglican, something ephemeral that relates to Fr. Kennedy’s remark that “God is the source of beauty and all beauty is a reflection of his own,” and also relates to the ascendant holiness of God.

RicardoCR, in response to your question, I am Reformed, [though not a Calvinist] so that’s one way I am not an AngloCatholic.  I believe that God must regenerate the heart before man is free to choose Him.  So the Reformed “ordo salutis” is different, along with the differences between infused and imputed grace, along with my believing in the sanctifying effect of the sacraments [rather than the justifying effect], along with my differences on the nature of the Church . . . along with hosts of other differences [see other RC/Prot thread—those differences aren’t on-topic on this thread].

So having dealt with some of the differences between evangelicals and AngloCatholics, why aren’t I an evangelical in another denomination?  Along with Matt’s reasons [big ones for me] I also greatly value Hooker’s and Cranmer’s theology regarding adiaphora and primary issues of theology, which led to the 39 Articles [which I can affirm] but not other confessions such as the Augsburg or Westminster.  And further—[other than the Roman Catholics]—I haven’t found any other denomination that affirms the Biblical sacramental, as described by Chesterton in the chapter The Ethics of Elfland in Orthodoxy. 

That just brushes the surface of why I’m an Anglican first, evangelical second.

[11] Sarah

I am Reformed, [though not a Calvinist] ...

I thought to ask you what you mean by this, since you have said it several times over the years.  Calvinism is according to classical definition a necesary condition for being Reformed.  But then what do I read in the very next sentence?

I believe that God must regenerate the heart before man is free to choose Him.

Now this is exciting.  The necessity of regeneration preceding the free choice of faith is the central Calvinist claim regarding justification.  You have in this simple statement affirmed T,U, and I in their entirety.  I will assume the presence of P, which means that all that remains is L.  Unless, of course, you were making a reference to prevenient grace?  Unlikely since you made reference to the Ordo Salutis.  Things are proceeding nicely.

carl
Who attended his very first Anglican worship service today

Following the link to Michael Jensen’s talk, I found the following post to his own blog (#32) very interesting:

...this year we [i.e. Moore College, Sydney] have had bishops from Mauritius, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Uganda visit us here at college, and we have sent people to teach in the diocese of Egypt.

The Archdiocese of Sydney over the years has had a tendency to think in isolation, which is understandable when you look at the history of the Anglican church in Australia. That isolationist thinking has been very useful in resisting the advances of liberalism, which has triumphed in most dioceses in Australian, just as it has in TEC.

Nevertheless, there are great dangers in isolationism also. Fortunately, ++ Jensen’s support of Gafcon is starting to rub off on his archdiocese (although somewhat slowly, as Michael Jensen laments in the above article). But we are becoming much more aware of how widespread orthodoxy is in the Communion and fostering links with those of like mind. Hopefully the visits by bishops in other countries to Moore College will continue.

RE: “I thought to ask you what you mean by this, since you have said it several times over the years.  Calvinism is according to classical definition a necesary condition for being Reformed.”

No—Calvinism is a sub-set of Reformed theology.  Indeed, even Arminius was Reformed.  Luther also . . . and many others . . . who were not Calvinists—like Cranmer.

Reformed is merely the opposite side of Roman Catholic.  All who have been through the Reformation are Reformed.  Calvinism simply further subdivides Reformed theology.

And of course . . . we all claim Augustine, no matter what.  ; > )

Well said, Sarah.

I do think labels like “calvinist”, “anglo-catholic”, “reformed” etc are useful, but we frequently have to go back and check what we and others mean by them.

I know many in Sydney like myself who call themselves “calvinist” because his Institutes of the Chistian Religion best sum up what we read in scripture - but we never talk about “TULIP”, so I guess some would say we aren’t calvinist at all! (on the same basis, perhaps even John Calvin himself wouldn’t have made the cut…)

Its good to keep coming back to scripture and checking our theology against it, whatever our “brand” might be.

Reformed Churches: Though sometimes used to include all the Protestant Churches, the term usually denotes the Calvinist bodies, esp. as contrasted with the Lutherans.
—Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

Hmmm.  I wonder which definition I used?

A further thought: the Archbishop of Sydney’s DPhil from Oxford was in Elizabethan Protestantism. This may have contributed to his broader view of the Anglican Communion, as compared to many of his own clergy and influential laity who tend to be focussed on the affairs of Sydney alone. ++Jensen has been very much ahead of the rest of his archdiocese in support for Gafcon. Hopefully he will drag them out of their tendency to isolation.

++Jensen has been very much ahead of the rest of his archdiocese in support for Gafcon. Hopefully he will drag them out of their tendency to isolation. 

An astute observation. I think there is, in the diocese, that isolationism that you speak of. It is born, at least in my opinion, out of the geographical isolation of the place and the rejection of any number of revisions coming from other places in Australia.

However, those who attended GAFCON found that it had a profound effect upon them - and readers will be gratified to know that they include many prominent people.

Sarah,

As a Lutheran I take strong exception to your inclusion of Luther among the “Reformed.”  Unless you are using “Reformed” simply as a synonym of “Protestant,” it makes no sense to call Luther (or any Lutheran) “Reformed.”

Terms like “Lutheran,” “Reformed,” “Arminian,” and “Protestant” have specific meanings which reflect the history of the Reformation and the various confessions and schools of thought within the broad Reformation movement.  You don’t get to make up your own meanings for these words, and if you wish to be understood you would do well to use such terms according to the way they are generally understood.

It is true that “Reformed” covers a wider range of meaning than “Calvinist,” and it is also true that there are many important figures in the Reformed movement besides Calvin.  Nevertheless Calvin remains the single most important figure in the Reformed camp and the doctrinal system called “Calvinism” remains the intellectual center of the Reformed movement.

And that group of important figures in the Reformed movement emphatically does not include Luther, and the distinctives of Reformed thought are specifically and dogmatically rejected by Lutheranism.

Chris,

Thanks for your comment from the Lutheran perspective. In fairness, Sarah’s rather broad use of the word “reformed” is not unknown, even though many wouldn’t understand it that way - as you indicate, some people do use it simply as a synonym for “protestant”. Strictly speaking, they may be the most correct - after all, “reformed” is an adjective deriving from “reformation”. But of course your usage is the most common one.

Equating “Reformed” with the churches of the Protestant Reformation is much like equating . . .
—“Allude” with “Elude”
—“Comprise” with “compose”
—“Discrete” with “Discreet”
—“Elicit” with “Illicit”—“Climactic” with “climatic”
—“Fortuitous” with “fortunate”
—“Immanent” with “imminent”

Yes, some people use one for the other. But “Reformed” generally refers to the Calvinist and Zwinglian traditions.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Note that terms like “Protestant, “Lutheran,” “Anabaptist,” and “Quaker” had pejorative origins: e.g., as though Lutherans worshiped Luther and Protestants were merely a loud minority.

Good point. “Lollard” wasn’t exactly a term of respect either!

RE: “Equating “Reformed” with the churches of the Protestant Reformation is much like equating . . .”

Well not really as the words that you name mean utterly different things, and the word “Reformed”—as your own selected source said—may mean both churches of the Reformation and Calvinist.

I’m on secure ground—my professors at Gordon Conwell confirmed the same thing.  To name just one, my Wesleyan professor pointed out that Arminius himself rejected the RC ordo salutis, as with other definitions and was thus Reformed.  Reformed is in fact a much broader ethos than simply “he believes in predestination and total depravity and the rest of Tulip.

That being the case, I return to Carl’s assertion.  No it is not necessary at all to be Calvinist in order to be Reformed in theology, as so many Anglican leaders demonstrate.  Fleming Rutledge—in her series on the cross some years ago—spoke of her Reformed theology but also stated that she did not agree with all of TULIP.  It was an interesting conversation to learn which one of TULIP she did not agree with.

Nevertheless it was crystal clear from her teaching that she was indeed Reformed.  Sadly, despite her incredible ability to articulate the truths of the Reformation over against the falsehoods of er . . . other denominations . . . I note that she is currently into “generous orthodoxy” which is essentially a meme for “let’s not talk about the whole gay issue.”

RE: “Terms like “Lutheran,” “Reformed,” “Arminian,” and “Protestant” have specific meanings which reflect the history of the Reformation and the various confessions and schools of thought within the broad Reformation movement.”

I completely agree.  That was, in fact, my point.

RE: “You don’t get to make up your own meanings for these words, and if you wish to be understood you would do well to use such terms according to the way they are generally understood.”

I completely agree.  But as I carefully explained to Carl just precisely what I meant by the use of the word “Reformed” and as I did not make up any meaning at all for the word Reformed—it was a quite common usage at GCTS—I am content that I have not been misunderstood.  Perhaps . . . disagreed with . . . but not misunderstood.

RE: “It is true that “Reformed” covers a wider range of meaning than “Calvinist,” and it is also true that there are many important figures in the Reformed movement besides Calvin.  Nevertheless Calvin remains the single most important figure in the Reformed camp and the doctrinal system called “Calvinism” remains the intellectual center of the Reformed movement.”

I completely agree.

But you have merely further honed in on my point, and so I am content.

I am Reformed in my theology.  I am not, however, a Calvinist.

Hopefully he will drag them out of their tendency to isolation.

There may be isolationism among Evangelicals in Sydney and elsewhere, but it’s not a tendency, it’s a deliberately chosen defence against any dilution of the Gospel according to Scripture. The less we listen to other voices, the less likely we are to find them tempting.

Those Evangelicals, like me, who ignore GAFCON or FCA do so not because we have a tendency to isolationism but because we suspect it’s just another dilution of the Gospel according to Scripture. I’d explain that suspicion this way:

The GAFCON statement begins like this: ‘GAFCON, which was held in Jerusalem from 22-29 June 2008, is a spiritual movement to preserve and promote the truth and power of the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as we Anglicans have received it.’ It is necessarily the case that either Anglicans have received the Gospel exactly as described in Scripture, or they have added something to it or subtracted something from it, which variation makes them Anglican.

If the former is the case, what we want to preserve and promote is the Gospel as described in Scripture, which is what Evangelicals have always been about, and the bit about how Anglicans received it is irrelevant.

If the latter is the case, the gospel we have received as Anglicans is not the gospel according to Scripture, and as Evangelicals we oppose and undermine in whatever way possible.

I can be an Evangelical in an Anglican church (including the Episcopal Church), but if I’m serious about Sola Scriptura, the ‘Anglican’ part is irrelevant at best, and isolation from those who think otherwise is a good policy.

RE: “It is necessarily the case that either Anglicans have received the Gospel exactly as described in Scripture, or they have added something to it or subtracted something from it, which variation makes them Anglican.”

I disagree.  I consider Anglicanism to be a vehicle for the Gospel message—and as an Anglican I consider it to be the best vehicle.  [Otherwise, I’d be in another denomination which I considered to be the best vehicle.]  It is possible, therefore, to perceive Anglicanism as the best vehicle for the Gospel without adding or subtracting something from the Gospel.

RE: “if I’m serious about Sola Scriptura, the ‘Anglican’ part is irrelevant at best, and isolation from those who think otherwise is a good policy. . . . “

Then your reading days at SF are at an end . . . ; > )

Any discussion of Thomas Cranmer and “high,” “low,” and “broad”church ought to start with Cranmer’s “Of Ceremonies,” first printed at the end of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. In this version “Of Ceremonies” the spelling has been modernized

Of such Ceremonies as be used in the Church, and have had their beginning by the institution of man, some at the first were of godly intent and purpose devised, and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition: some entered into the Church by undiscreet devotion, and such a zeal as was without knowledge; and for because they were winked at in the beginning, they grew daily to more and more abuses, which not only for their unprofitableness, but also because they have much blinded the people, and obscured the glory of God, are worthy to be cut away, and clean rejected: other there be, which although they have been devised by man, yet it is thought good to reserve them still, as well for a decent order in the Church, (for the which they were first devised) as because they pertain to edification, whereunto all things done in the Church (as the Apostle teacheth) ought to be referred (my emphasis).

And although the keeping or omitting of a Ceremony, in itself considered, is but a small thing; yet the wilful and contemptuous transgression and breaking of a common order and discipline is no small offence before God, Let all things be done among you, saith Saint Paul, in a seemly and due order: the appointment of the which order pertaineth not to private men; therefore no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint or alter any publick or common Order in Christ’s Church, except he be lawfully called and authorized thereunto.

And whereas in this our time, the minds of men are so diverse, that some think it a great matter of conscience to depart from a piece of the least of their Ceremonies, they be so addicted to their old customs (my emphasis); and again on the other side, some be so newfangled, that they would innovate all things, and so despise the old, that nothing can like them, but that is new: it was thought expedient, not so much to have respect how to please and satisfy either of these parties, as how to please God, and profit them both. And yet lest any man should be offended, whom good reason might satisfy, here be certain causes rendered, why some of the accustomed Ceremonies be put away, and some retained and kept still.

Some are put away, because the great excess and multitude of them hath so increased in these latter days, that the burden of them was intolerable; whereof Saint Augustine in his time complained, that they were grown to such a number, that the estate of Christian people was in worse case concerning that matter, than were the Jews. And he counselled that such yoke and burden should be taken away, as time would serve quietly to do it. But what would Saint Augustine have said, if he had seen the Ceremonies of late days used among us; whereunto the multitude used in his time was not to be compared? This our excessive multitude of Ceremonies was so great, and many of them so dark, that they did more confound and darken, than declare and set forth Christ’s benefits unto us. And besides this, Christ’s Gospel is not a Ceremonial Law, (as much of Moses’ Law was,) but it is a Religion to serve God, not in bondage of the figure or shadow, but in the freedom of the Spirit; being content only with those Ceremonies which do serve to a decent order and godly discipline, and such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signification, whereby he might be edified (my emphasis). Furthermore, the most weighty cause of the abolishment of certain Ceremonies was, That they were so far abused, partly by the superstitious blindness of the rude and unlearned, and partly by the unsatiable avarice of such as sought more their own lucre, than the glory of God, that the abuses could not well be taken away, the thing remaining still.

But now as concerning those persons, which peradventure will be offended, for that some of the old Ceremonies are retained still: If they consider that without some Ceremonies it is not possible to keep any order, or quiet discipline in the Church, they shall easily perceive just cause to reform their judgements. And if they think much, that any of the old do remain, and would rather have all devised anew: then such men granting some Ceremonies convenient to be had, surely where the old may be well used, there they cannot reasonably reprove the old only for their age, without bewraying of their own folly. For in such a case they ought rather to have reverence unto them for their antiquity, if they will declare themselves to be more studious of unity and concord, than of innovations and new-fangleness, which (as much as may be with the true setting forth of Christ’s Religion) is always to be eschewed. Furthermore, such shall have no just cause with the Ceremonies reserved to be offended. For as those be taken away which were most abused, and did burden men’s consciences without any cause; so the other that remain, are retained for a discipline and order, which (upon just causes) may be altered and changed, and therefore are not to be esteemed equal with God’s Law. And moreover, they be neither dark nor dumb Ceremonies, but are so set forth, that every man may understand what they do mean, and to what use they do serve (my emphasis). So that it is not like that they in time to come should be abused as other have been. And in these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people only: For we think it convenient that every country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God’s honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a most perfect and godly living, without error or superstition; and that they should put away other things, which from time to time they perceive to be most abused, as in men’s ordinances it often chanceth diversely in divers countries.

It is evident from “Of Ceremonies” that Cranmer was willing to use the old where it might still be well used and not willing to abandon it just because it was old. At the same it also clear that he was not willing to use the old solely on the basis that it was old. Any ceremony used in worship had to be understandable and edifying. It also had to be meaningful and to serve a use. From Cranmer’s point of view a priest repeatedly signing himself with the cross during a service and making repeated signs of the cross over the bread and wine during the consecration would fall into the realm of what he describes as “dark “and “dumb” ceremonies. A lot of “high” church ceremonial comes within this category.

Cranmer and the English Reformers also acutely aware that a minister wears (vestments) as well as what he does (ceremony, gesture, posture, etc.) is not theologically neutral. It embodies and expresses a particular theology. Hence Archbishop Matthew Parker’s Advertisements authorize only the wearing of the surplice in parish churches and the cope in cathedrals and college chapels. Eucharistic vestments such as the chasuble, stole, tippet, and amice had too strong an association with the doctrines of eucharistic sacrifice and transubstantiation and the notion of the minister as a sacrificing priest.  For the same reason the rubrics of the 1549 Prayer Book direct the priest to place the bread and wine on the table at the offertory and not to offer it to God and forbid the priest from elevating or showing the sacrament to the people. For this reason the rubrics of the 1552 and 1559 Prayer Books direct the minister to stand at the north end or side of the table and not in front of it, with his back to the congregation.

The Caroline High Churchmen, a substantial number of whom were Arminians and not Calvinists, used the argument that since the Bible did not specifically prohibit practice, they were not prevented from adopting it. They also argue that God created and loves beauty and used this argument to justify their notions of beautifying worship. But the Bible does not have to specifically prohibit a practice for it to be inconsistent with Scripture. If the Bible does not teach that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, then it is not consist with the Bible to adopt practices that convey the message that it is. God’s creation and love of beauty is also a flimsy argument to justifying doing so.

What a minister wears and does on Sunday mornings to my mind should be determined not by loyalty to a particular tradition—“high,” “low,” or “broad,” or the custom of the parish or church but the need for consistency between the message that a particular garb or a specific action conveys and the message the minister preaches from the pulpit. If a minister preaches about the priesthood of all believers but then dresses and acts as if his priesthood differs from that of the congregation, that he is a mediator between the congregation and God, and insists upon doing everything of any importance in the service himself, he is contradicting what he says. Actions do speak louder than words. So do vestments.

sub

“Then your reading days at SF are at an end . . . ; > )”

Good isolation units have a window, and this one has some particularly interesting views. I’d be sorry to lose it!

AnglicansAblaze at #28,

A very erudiate, balanced and scriptural post. Many thanks!

Sarah at #27,

Thanks for your response to Phillip at #26. This Sydney Anglican couldn’t have put it better!

I am not aware of any church anywhere that can truly claim to be fully consistent with Scripture - every denomination wages a constant battle against the sinful tendencies that the Apostles warned us about.

I personally do think that the Anglican denomination is the best vehicle for delivering the gospel message, but its no more perfect than any other church - and if it ever was, I spoiled it by joining!

I find it fascination that some see being an ‘Evangelical Anglican’ as being unusual. In Australia, 1/3 of all Anglicans (3 million or so) are from the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and Reformed/Evangelical churchmanship is the dominant churchmanship. In OZ the Sydney Diocese is known as the bastion of Reformed/Evangelical Anglicanism. (Though there is diversity in the diocese regarding 2nd order issues).
I categorise myself as
1. Christian
2. Anglican
3. Reformed
One thing I have learned over the years is that different terms mean different things in different places. When I was in Scotland, the term Evangelical tended to mean ‘Baptist’ and this in turn was associated with Charismatic (Happy Clappy) theology and practice. I have even noticed that ‘Evangelical’is sometimes equated with being a Fundamentalist (and having a literalistic hermaneutic).

In the diocese I am serving in now, people know me as a Reformed Anglican, I tend to avoid the term Evangelical as I suspect that the definition is losing its clarity. I see no dichotomy being Reformed and being Anglican, nor any inconsistencies with the 5 Solas and the 39 Articles, the BCP, the ordinal nor the creeds. As for the threefold order of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, this is all good, though as a Reformed Anglican I would say that Scripture is the ultimate authority and has primacy over tradition and reason.
PS one last thing, the reason that some Anglicans may say that they are ‘Reformed but not Calvinist’ would be due to that when it comes to TULIP, the L is not held to. I know many Anglicans (from Sydney) who would say they are Reformed but are not 5 Point Calvinists, but would be 4 point Calvinists or 4.5 (like Mark Driscoll)

[25] Sarah

Perhaps . . . disagreed with . . . but not misunderstood.

OK, fair enough.  I now understand your position.  However, using ‘Reformed’ as a synonym for ‘Protestant’ is very much a minority usage, and you will find yourself having to make this clarification over and over again.  The meaning of the word ‘Reformed’ is already contested among those who wish to expand the necessary doctrines that define it.  Reformed Paedobaptists will for example often say that Reformed Baptists are not Truly Reformed (to coin a phrase) on that account alone.  A more general definition of the word simply adds to the confusion. 

carl

*runs for the door as carl tells Charles Spurgeon that he is not truly reformed*
Joshua Bovis at #33, I concur.
For myself and I believe many others in Sydney Diocese, T.C. Hammond’s “In Understanding Be Men” is a a basic theological foundation, and it lays very little emphasis on TULIP as such, although a great deal on “calvinist” theology.

[35] MichaelA

Nahh.  Not me.  I use a fairly narrow definition of Reformed that centers on the Doctrines of Grace.  But I have RB friends who hear this kind of argument all the time.  I would very much prefer it if the definiton of ‘Reformed’ was so narrowed by general convention.  That way I wouldn’t have to call myself a Calvinist.  I dislike that word greatly, and I presume Calvin himself would agree.  It’s not about the Reformer.  It’s about the Truth to which the Reformer pointed.

carl

RE: “I know many Anglicans (from Sydney) who would say they are Reformed but are not 5 Point Calvinists, but would be 4 point Calvinists or 4.5 (like Mark Driscoll) . . . “

MichaelA—yep—me too.

Numerous Anglicans—both clergy and lay—have made that distinction to me [and I to them] as well as pointing out that they are Reformed but not Calvinists.

RE: “However, using ‘Reformed’ as a synonym for ‘Protestant’ is very much a minority usage . . . “

It certainly is.  However, I did not do so.

Let me put this another way.

We were asked—above—how we could describe ourselves as evangelical Anglicans [rather than AngloCatholics] and I explained the differences [which were requested].  One of those differences [among several] was my Reformed theology, particularly regarding salvation and its means.

Now travel to the recent RC/Prot thread and view my responses about why I do not accept Roman Catholic doctrine or dogma.  I believe that it would approach ludicrousness for me to have said “yes, I am asserting these things, but I am not Reformed, since I am not a Calvinist.”  That would cause the RC’s eyes to roll back into their heads . . .

And then . . . travel to other threads regarding Calvinism/WC/Presbyterians—and it would surely approach ludicrousness for me to claim that I was a Calvinist.

My AngloCatholic friends would goggle were I to say “I am not Reformed”.  My Calvinist friends would goggle were I to claim “yes indeed I am a Calvinist”.

It sounds as if some people on this thread are offended that I would have the audacity to claim that I am Reformed—but I am unable to come up with a better appellation for my clearly and oft-stated beliefs in contradiction to Roman Catholic beliefs, and most indubitably the beliefs that are NOT AnaBaptist or the odd “works salvation” found amongst some Protestant fundamentalists.

It sounds as if some other people on this thread are offended that I would have the audacity to claim that I am not a Calvinist.  But since I do not believe all five points of TULIP—and since I believe that the Calvinist system is an extremely inadequate and inaccurate grid to place over Scripture, the nature of God, and tradition, I am unable to come up with a better appellation to describe my non-acceptance of calvinism than . . . “I am not a Calvinist.”

Honestly this conversation boggles the mind.

It reminds me of the Roman Catholics announcing that nobody is “catholic” because they own the word “catholic.”

I have spent 20 years now hearing reformed Anglicans describing themselves in the exact same way I have above.  I am sorry that others have never heard of this before—but it is quite quite common amongst the Reformed evangelical Anglicans with whom I have hung out for my two decades in TEC.

Sarah, you are too kind, but its not me you are responding to, but Joshua Bovis at #33. I actually agreed with your original post!

May I offer a few suggestions about Sarah’s use of the word “Reformed” and the debate that that has sparked?

The usual understanding of the adjective Reformed (with a capital R) is Calvinist or Zwinglian. We can argue about whether secondary meanings are possible, but I think it’s indisputable that that is the primary meaning. A second use of the word “reformed” (typically with a small r) arises in Anglican circles. Many Anglicans not particularly sympathetic to the ideas of the Protestant Reformation would still in good conscience say that their church is “reformed”. But they don’t really mean that it is Calvinist or Zwinglian or even Lutheran or Arminian for that matter.

I’m not suggesting that Sarah holds this second view. I think quite clearly if she identifies with the Reformation then she is going to embrace the Reformation influences—including those from the Continental Reformers—on her church and her own theology in a way that many “small r” reformed Anglicans would not.

German is useful here in making a distinction between “reformiert” (= Reformed in my first sense) and “reformatorisch” (= of or pertaining to the Reformation; “reformational” would be the closest English equivalent, although it doesn’t quite have the same ring to it). Both adjectives ultimately derive from the same root but there is a clear distinction in meaning. In German you would say that Lutherans are “reformatorisch” (= “reformational”) but you would NOT say that they are “reformiert” (= Reformed in the first sense). And Calvinists would be BOTH “reformatorisch” AND “reformiert” (because “reformiert” is one way of being “reformatorisch” and “lutherisch” is another way of being “reformatorisch” etc).

While I’m not suggesting that we should all take up speaking in theological German here it would be nice if English was as precise as German in clearly marking out the territory of each of these distinctive adjectives which ultimately derive from the same root. I take it that Sarah is saying she is “reformatorisch” (“reformational” = of or pertaining to the Reformation) but not “reformiert” (“Reformed” = Calvinist/Zwinglian). Of course saying that a person or church is “reformational” in English doesn’t quite have the same ring to it as the equivalent term in German.

I find it fascination that some see being an ‘Evangelical Anglican’ as being unusual.—#33

In the Global South, it’s the norm. But in rich English-speaking countries, Liberal Protestantism has both subverted evangelical institutions and helped drive away evangelicals.

Consider what’s happened in the United States:

—ECUSA’s national organization, established by evangelicals to promote evangelism, now scorns evangelicals and promotes heresy.

—Virginia Theological Seminary is predominantly revisionist.

—Graduates of Trinity School for Ministry, the premier evangelical seminary, face rejection from a majority of ECUSA bishops.

—The evangelical and charismatic revival of the late 1960s and the 1970s was probably the best thing that happened in ECUSA during the 20th century. But its gains have been largely squandered.

In sum, evangelical Anglicans in ECUSA: have shrunk in numbers and influence; control only a few dioceses; and are living on borrowed time.

Hapax [#39] rightly notes how German has a clearer, more precise set of terms for the Reformed tradition. These terms are, I might add, also more positive and respectful than “Calvinist.”

The German equivalents of “Lutheran” and “Protestant” are also more positive and respectful than their English counterparts. (I’m working from memory and invite correction as appropriate.)

—Luther and his followers called themselves evangelisch. Like the English “evangelical,” this word comes from “evangel,” the Greek word for the Gospel. Lutherans sought to recover and practice “Gospel Christianity.” Evangelisch highlights this objective and avoids any false implication that they worshiped Luther.

—And what do you call Evangelicals as we might find them in the English-speaking world? Evangelikalisch: six syllables instead of four, and closer to our “evangelical.”

—Evangelisch also means “Protestant” (Lutherans were the dominant Protestant group). It avoids the negativist and pejorative overtones of that term. After all, why embrace a derogatory term for yourself?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

If you want to make clear that you’re referring to Lutherans, and not Protestants generally, you say evangelisch-lutherisch—i.e., Gospel Christians of the Lutheran type. Again the emphasis on the Gospel.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

We should all remember the importance of the labels we use for ourselves—and the labels we let others get away with applying to us. Labels help frame the debate. Labels affect others’ perceptions of us. They also affect how we think of ourselves.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Irenaeus
(who, if you must know, regards himself as Anglican, not Protestant)

In comment [2] Ricardo expressed “difficulty understanding exactly what is an ‘evangelical Anglican’.” Ricardo posed the following questions:

Are we talking Calvinism here?  Is this an argument about the Reformation?  ... the article above ... doesn’t tell me what I need to know. It sounds to me like, “sola scriptura”, but surely he is not saying that you can baptize with flower petals instead of water.

Let’s take these one by one, noting the disclaimer that although I will try to speak for evangelicals as broadly as possible the views I give are necessarily my own and it is possible that someone who considers himself an evangelical Anglican doesn’t agree with what I say.

(1) Are we talking Calvinism?. Not really. In part yes, but that’s not what the discussion is really about. Some Anglican evangelicals would readily identify with Calvinism, others not. There are Calvinistic evangelical Anglicans and non-Calvinistic evangelical Anglicans. Calvinism is not the defining feature of evangelical Anglicanism although many (but certainly not all) evangelical Anglicans are Calvinists.

(2) An argument about the Reformation?
Yes, to a very large extent—but again not wholly. For evangelical Anglicans the Reformation and a particular understanding of the Reformation is fairly central and people who took the opposite view could arguably not be “evangelical” in the sense that evangelical Anglicans claim to be. But it would also be possible to hold to the evangelicals’ view of the Reformation AND still not be an “evangelical”. There are other things besides a particular view of the Reformation which make an evangelical.

One of the sharpest divides in Anglican churchmanship arises over the question of the Reformation. Everyone agrees *that* it took place, but beyond that there are disagreements about (a) what exactly it entailed and (b) the ongoing significance of it. To massively oversimplify things: for evangelical Anglicans the Reformation was desperately needed; the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone had been obscured and needed to be recovered and placed at the centre of the church. In this respect Anglican evangelicals would see themselves no different from Protestants in the Lutheran and Reformed churches on the European Continent. Anglican Evangelicals are not embarrassed to use the word “Protestant” (i.e.siding with the Protestant Reformers against Rome) and “evangelical” (i.e. of or pertaining to the gospel) to describe their church and its theology. I’m not saying that that is all they would say about their church and its theology. Quite clearly not. Evangelicals also claim to be “catholic” in some sense of the word (although that might mean something different for me than for an Anglo-Catholic) but like the Reformers they believe that the church should have the Biblical gospel of sola fide, sola gratia, solo Christo at its centre.

But as others have pointed out already, it’s not just about the Reformation. Evangelicals would also place great emphasis on the evangelical movement under such people as the Wesleys, Whitfield and Simeon. Central to evangelicalism is the need for personal faith and repentance. Assurance of salvation is another biggy for evangelicals. Because our salvation depends wholly on the completed work of Christ we can be sure of our salvation. Faith does not come by works but by grace. And saving grace does not come to us sacramentally or sacerdotally but directly by the work of the Holy Spirit who causes us to be born again upon the exercise of repentance and faith in the gospel message.

(3) Sola scriptura? Yes—well sort of.
Article 6 of the 39 Articles is instructive:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

And Article 8 is particularly telling as to why we accept the authority of the creeds:

The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture. [emphasis added; cf also Art 21 which makes a similar point about the authority of General councils]

For evangelical Anglicans Scripture is the supreme authority in the church. As Article 20 puts it, we do recognise a lesser authority of the church

to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith

but the church may not

ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

So evangelical Anglicans believe in the supremacy of scripture. Correctly understood I think this is what “sola scriptura” means but that term is apt to mislead. As Art 20 makes it plain we do not hold to nuda scriptura. Scripture is the supreme authority. When it comes to what is “necessary for salvation” it is our sole authority. In the questions of rites, ceremonies etc the church has power to decree things not contained in Scripture but it may not decree things contrary to Scripture.

(4) Other Matters You Raise

Do evangelicals believe that priests and bishops can intercede?

No they don’t. They would stand with the Protestant Reformers on this point and assert the “priesthood of all believers” and specifically with the Anglican Reformers that the word “priest” in Anglican usage does not signify a sacrificing (sacerdotal) ministry but rather that of “presbyter” or elder. Presbyters (elders) and bishops (overseers) are teaching and pastoral offices in the church. Jesus Christ himself is our great high priest who in the words of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 “by his one oblation of himself once offered” made “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world”. There is no more need for priestly intercession, since the Old Testament office of priest has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and we are now a kingdom of priests.

Do the 5 solas rule out the three-legged stool of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition?

Speaking personally (I can’t claim to speak for all evangelicals) the image of the three-legged stool is a mischaracterisation of Hooker’s position. I understand Hooker to be with us evangelicals and Articles 6, 20 etc on the supremacy of Scripture. Reason and tradition are of course employed in our reading of Scripture but are nevertheless themselves subordinate to it. If tradition says A and scripture says not-A then scripture prevails. If reason says B and scripture says not-B then scripture prevails. If reason and tradition both say C but Scripture says not-C then Scripture prevails. But if scripture says either D or E then we might use reason and tradition to support practice D over E (or vice versa). An example of this would be episcopacy (at least for evangelicals of the Low Church variety—I realise there may be some who take a higher-church view on this question) would oppose the doctrine of (so-called) apostolic succession, instead siding with the Anglican Reformers who believed that the institution of episcopacy is not compelled by a reading of scripture but is something that is open to us.

Or is this about what is necessary for Salvation or Apostolic Succession?

Not too sure what you mean here.
*Evangelicals of the Low Church variety would deny the doctrine of apostolic succession: it is not a mark of the church.
*Articles 6, 20 and 21 refer to necessity of salvation. All that we need to know about our salvation is found in the Bible. In order to be saved and live a life in faithful obedience to Christ I do not need to know anything in addition to what the Bible says. When the Bishop of Rome says that all faithful Christians need to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary or her assumption into heaven our church says no, the teaching of Scripture is sufficient on these questions: no church can require a Christian to believe more than what Scripture teaches.

Now the flip side of sufficiency “for salvation” is this: The Bible says quite a bit about all kinds of topics not related to “salvation” such as the history of Ancient Egypt but the Bible does not purport to be “sufficient” as regards these questions. If you wanted to become an expert on ancient Egypt I would say you need to look beyond the Bible. Similarly the Bible does not contain all things necessary to learn how to be an astrophysicist or a concert pianist. And—I take it the Anglican position is—the Bible does not purport to be a complete guide to questions of church order. The Anglican position appears to reject the “regulative principle” of worship in favour of a “normative” principle. On matters about which Scripture is silent the church may make decrees about rites and ceremonies etc. That is why we can have a Prayer Book which authorises liturgy A but not liturgy B even though neither either A nor B is explicitly mandated by Scripture. Scripture is not “sufficient” with regard to these kinds of questions.

@ Iraeneus [41]: Almost! The German word for “evangelical” in the sense modern English speakers would use it is evangelikal (four syllables—same number as in English) and not evangelikalisch (six syllables) as you suggested. Other than that what you said was spot on. Evangelisch is used to refer to Protestants generally and depending on the context (at least in Germany and Austria; usage in German speaking Switzerland which is largely “reformiert” and not “lutherisch” can be a different) also tends to be used to refer to Lutherans as opposed to Calvinists.

So an “evangelical” in the modern English sense of that word would say something like:
“Ich bin evangelikaler Christ” (= I’m an evangelical Christian) or “Ich gehöre einer evangelikalen Gemeinde” (= I belong to an evangelical church). Of course for those not au fait with German grammar the reason why evangelikal has an extra syllable on the end in these examples is due to the declension of the adjective to make it correspond to the case and number of the noun

And incidentally, Evangelikal is not a word that is readily understood outside of theological circles. A lot of non-church goers wouldn’t really know what it means and many might not think it’s a real German word. It’s very much a neologism that came into German, I think during the 1960s. A lot of German-speaking evangelicals (particularly in the “mainstream” denominations) would tend to use a word such as bibeltreu (= faithful to the Bible) or pietistisch (= pietist) to distinguish themselves from the liberal Protestants around them. Of course these alternative terms are not exactly the same as the ground covered by the English “evangelical” but then we’d be getting into a debate about the respective church histories of the English and German speaking countries. And that would be wildly off topic :-D

Peace,
Hapax.

Oops! Evangelical and evangelikal have five syllables and not four as I stated. I didn’t bother counting them but just took Irenaeus’ original figure of four on trust.

Hapax [#43]: Many thanks for the reply. I learned evangelikalisch from German evangelicals while in Germany during the 1970s. Sounds like that usage didn’t win out.

In discussing who evangelical Anglicans are, it may be helpful to note some historical figures. My list might include:
—Richard Baxter: Puritan theologian who remained in Church of England
—William Cowper: poet and hymn writer
—John Wesley
—John Newton: author of Amazing Grace
—William Wilberforce: abolitionist leader
—J.C. Ryle: bishop and theologian
—John Stott
—C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis is a special case: he described himself as standing between Low Church and High Church. I would have affirmed most of what Anglican evangelicals of his time affirmed, but without their anti-Roman views.

Hapax [#44]: I know I’m tired when I can’t accurately count to 5!

Ricardo: More in response to #3.

Evangelical Anglicanism is not predominantly Calvinist. Many evangelical Anglicans would consider TULIP-style hyper-Calvinism revolting.

Evangelicals traditionally wanted simple liturgy, but since the mid-19th century have accepted an increasingly broader range of High Church practices.

Sola scriptura seems to have a range of meanings. As expounded by Richard Hooker, it has ample room for catholic tradition.

I would have included J Packer.
Iraneus,

Evangelical Anglicanism is not predominantly Calvinist. Many evangelical Anglicans would consider TULIP-style hyper-Calvinism revolting.

Can I meekly suggest that “TULIP style hyper Calvinism is a contradiction. TULIP style is not hyper-calvinism. Limited Atonement(or definite atonement as I prefer to call it) does not nullify the mandate of the gospel, to proclaim it to everybody, nor abrogate human responsibility when it comes to believing in Christ.

Hapax at #42
What an excellent post! It pretty well sums up what I believe, so there is at least two of us. I think most global south anglicans would agree with it too…

I paticularly liked your exposition of sola scriptura, which could be better expressed as “scripture over all” rather than “scripture alone”. Luther’s doctrine differed little from that of Wyclif and other medieval divines. The Anglican normative view exemplifies this.

To Irenaeus’ list (46) we might want to add Charles Simeon, a kind of founding father.  And Joshua Bovis is right about J.I. Packer.  But there’s no end of list-making, once you start.  The thing is, though, all these evangelicals are English, except C.S. Lewis, who was Irish (and lived in England).

That’s part of how the disconnect which Br_er Rabbit referred to starts;  and it’s another (there are so many) of the differences between TEC and the Church of England.

We also could add David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, whose public arguments with John Stott may have been part of the problem for British evangelicals. No prizes for guessing that he was Welsh!

Perhaps also T. C. Hammond. He was Irish but did a lot of his work in Sydney diocese, which would have been viewed as a backwater then, but now Sydney’s influence is causing his books to be more widely known.

I think Hapax has it basically correct in his No 42, except possibly in his last paragraph regarding the sufficiency or not of Scripture in different matters. I don’t think most Evangelicals would agree that Scripture is ‘not sufficient’ in the matter of church order. Historically, the evangelical position has been that Scripture is sufficient in this matter, and that because Scripture does not mandate a particular church order, a church is free to adopt the one that suits it best, as long as it does not make that choice necessary for salvation. Article XXIII recognises the validity of different church orders, and before 1662 clergy transferring from Protestant churches without the episcopate were not usually re-ordained before serving in English parishes. The claim made for episcopacy was that it was not ‘of itself… superstitious and ungodly’ (Article XXXVI), not that it was necessary.

And as far as I’ve been able to discover, even during the hottest arguments about episcopacy in the Church of England, most people on both sides of the issue accepted that it was a matter of interpretation of Scripture, not addition to Scripture. Those against diocesan episcopacy (as opposed to parochial episcopacy) believed their opponents were misreading scripture, not adding to it, and those for diocesan episcopacy claimed that they were arguing for what Scripture said, not adding to it. I’m not convinced that any of them would have agreed that Scripture ‘does not purport to be a complete guide to questions of church order’, and some Anglican Evangelicals even today would disagree also.

@MichaelA [50]: Thanks. And yes I would agree with you and others such as Irenaeus and Soapy Sam that other names can be added to the list. I wasn’t trying to be exhaustive and I had already reached my word limit and had to cut back on a few things to post what I did.
************
In light of the debate going on about “Calvinism”, I think a word on “Calvinism” and Evangelical Anglicanism is in order. Again I give the disclaimer that it is possible that someone who considers herself a Calvinistic Anglican doesn’t think my portrayal applies to her. But cut me some slack, I’m painting with a broad brush here

What you understand by the term “Calvinism” will to a large extent depend on the beliefs and practices of others around you who call themselves “Calvinists”. And for the most part evangelical Anglicans of the “Calvinist” variety (of which I’d consider myself one) are quite different from Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, Dutch Reformed etc in the United States. So if you’re unfamiliar with Calvinistic Anglicanism but have some experience of Calvinism in other denominations don’t automatically assume that Calvinistic Anglicans are like them. In some respects of course they will be, but in others they won’t be. For all you people who think that “Calvinsim = TULIP” I can tell you that that is just not where Calvinistic evangelic Anglicans are at.

Unlike many of their cousins in other denominations, TULIP is not what makes most Calvinistic Anglicans “tick”. And importantly it is not an interpretive grid through which they read Scripture. Most Calvinistic Anglicans (at least in Britain, Ireland and Australia—I can’t really speak for other parts of the world) would be Calvinists in the sense that Charles Simeon considered himself a Calvinist. Simeon was a self-professed “moderate Calvinist” but stressed the Bible over theological systems:

God has not revealed his truth in a system; the Bible has no system as such. Lay aside system and fly to the Bible; receive its words with simple submission,  and without an eye to any system. Be Bible Christians not system Christians.

Most Calvinistic Anglicans in Britain, Ireland and Australia have been shaped by this kind of “Calvinism” and not “TULIP”. On the big questions such as the depravity of man, the nature of our election, perseverance of the saints etc they will will side with “Calvinism” over “Arminianism”. But their Calvinism is not so much a theological system (eg TULIP) but a set of views they hold because they believe the Bible taken as a whole to teach those truths and not the contrary position.

A lot of Calvinistic Anglicans wouldn’t even know what “TULIP” refers to and yet they would still be able to give you answers to those questions if you posed the questions individually. Others do indeed know what TULIP refers to and would be able to say whether they are 4, 4½ or 5 point etc Calvinists but even here for most Calvinistic Anglicans “TULIP” is peripheral not central because in Charles Simeon’s turn of phrase they seek to be “Bible Christians” and not “system Christians”.

And this attitude is found among preachers as well. In most Calvinistic parishes you will never hear “TULIP” proceed from the mouth of the preacher for our preachers also strive to be “Bible Christians” and not “system Christians”. They preach the Bible and not TULIP and if the passage of the Bible they are preaching on doesn’t explicitly teach TULIP then they won’t contort the passage to make it say TULIP. I also should point out that it would be almost unheard of in an Anglican church to do a sermon series or even do a Bible study on “the five points of Calvinism”. The “Five points” (or four or four and a half) is not what Anglican “Calvinism” is about.

One final historical and confessional point which may help explain why Anglican Calvinists differ in emphasis from Calvinists in other denominations: Some other denominations have confessional statements that are more explicit on the questions of Calvinism than the Anglican ones are. Most Calvinistic Anglicans would say they are Calvinist in the sense that the Prayer Book and 39 Articles are. The 39 Articles do not address the “Five Points of Calvinism” (one very obvious reason being that the “five points” were first formulated after the 39 Articles were penned) but Calvinistic Anglicans would read the 39 Articles as siding with “Calvinism” on the “big questions” I referred to above (see for example Articles 9, 10, 17).

@ Philip [53]: Thanks for your comments. I agree that the Bible is sufficient in questions of church order in the sense that it contains enough for us as a church to be obedient to God. If someone said “You Anglicans really ought to be doing X in church” and X wasn’t a scriptural requirement then of course I would reply that Scripture is sufficient—even in questions of church order. If Scripture does not tell us to do it then we don’t need to do it.

For the record—C. S. Lewis was an Anglo-Catholic.

56 “For the record—C. S. Lewis was an Anglo-Catholic.”
That is your opinion, not part of any “record”, and as a flat unqualified statement would be considered an eccentric one.

I’d like to say a word or two in reply to Philip Wainright’s comments at [26].

I think I understand where Philip is coming from. If I’ve understood him rightly then he is raising right concerns and I agree with him to a point—but only to a point . First, let me state my agreement with what I take Philip to be saying.

(1) I agree that you can be a good gospel-centred Christian in the Anglican church and you can be a good gospel-centred Christian in a non-Anglican church such as a Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran &c &c church. You therefore have a choice and in a sense of course Anglicanism “doesn’t matter”. Yes we Anglicans have received exactly the same gospel as Christians in other denominations because there is only one gospel. There is not a separate “Anglican”, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist &c gospel. I rejoice in the common faith I share with fellow believers in other denominations, cultures and ages and the fellowship I can share with them. I rejoice that I as an Anglican am a partner in the gospel with them. And I certainly don’t regard them as somehow being second-class or inferior Christians because they are not Anglican. I can tell you about my time living in Germany. I’m Australian (originally from the Anglican Diocese of Sydney but no longer living there) but have also lived in Germany where I attended German speaking churches (a combination of Lutheran churches and free evangelical churches). The people there for the most part didn’t really know what Anglicanism was and nor did they care. And I wasn’t interested in turning them into Anglicans. As an Anglican I was quite happy to join these non-Anglican churches.

(2) I also agree that the gospel takes priority over “Anglicanism” or indeed any particular expression of the visible church. If the Anglican church abandons or obscures the gospel then we have a duty to call it to repentance and reformation. And ultimately this may mean separation (which I realise can be quite painful and should not be undertaken lightly). If I moved to a place where the local Anglican church denied the gospel but the Lutheran (for instance) church did not then I would start attending the Lutheran church.

So when Philip says:

I can be an Evangelical in an Anglican church (including the Episcopal Church)

I add a hearty Amen. Yes you can. And praise God for that! And likewise praise God for the fact that you can be an Evangelical Christian in other non-Anglican churches as well.

But I do not agree with him when he says:

but if I’m serious about Sola Scriptura, the ‘Anglican’ part is irrelevant at best

That, I would respectfully submit, is a non-sequitur. Rightly understood, sola scriptura does not lead to the conclusion that “the Anglican part” is (at best) irrelevant. On the contrary it is highly relevant because it provides the framework in which sola scriptura functions.

What, after all, does sola scriptura mean? It does not mean “just the Bible”. Rather, as MichaelA expressed it so pertinently in [50] it means “Scripture over all”. For every Christian who claims to believe “just the Bible” there will be a different view on what it says (or means). There are Christians who are convinced the Bible says “we have to sing Psalms in Church” and there are Christians who are convinced it says “we do not have to do so”. There are Christians who are convinced the Bible says “we need to celebrate the Lord’s Supper weekly” and there are Christians who are convinced that it says we do not have to. I could go on and on but hopefully you get the idea.

One thing denominations such as Anglicanism do in their confessional statements is say “we believe the Bible is our supreme authority and this statement represents what we as a church understand the Bible to be saying about certain issues”. Take Baptism for instance. Baptists believe the Bible teaches that only those who consciously profess Christian faith (and typically above a certain age) may be baptized. Anglicans, however, believe that in addition to this kind of baptism it is also appropriate to baptize the infants of professing Christians. Yes Baptists and Anglicans both claim to believe in sola scriptura, but we have different—and irreconcilable—opinions on what Scripture teaches on certain issues. Our different denominations allow Christians who believe in the same gospel but who in good conscience disagree over certain secondary matters to find a home and respect one another’s differences, all the while remaining brothers in Christ and partners in the gospel.

Another thing that denominations do is provide a context for gathered Christian worship. That is, there is an Anglican way of “doing” church and this is different from the Baptist way or the Presbyterian way etc. Yes, these questions are of secondary importance to the gospel which we hopefully share in common with those of other denominations. But to say they are of secondary importance does not mean that they are not important. This is a mistake that many evangelicals make. Many would say “only the gospel is important; all else is insignificant” whereas I would say “the gospel is of paramount importance; other things are of secondary importance, but they are still important”. It’s a question of seeing things in right perspective, not of saying only the gospel is important.

I am an Anglican, I like the Anglican way of “doing” church, I happen to think it’s one of the best, most God-honouring and most edifying ways and other things being equal I prefer it to other ways such as the Baptist or Presbyterian or Lutheran etc ways. That’s not necessarily a disparagement of other ways. Rather it’s me saying that Christians who are agreed in the gospel but who differ in terms of things such as how best to “do” church can in good conscience find homes in different denominations.

Now you personally may not care much about Anglican distinctives. That’s fine. I still hope that you feel at home in Anglicanism and I’m certainly not saying that you have to start feeling committed to the “Anglican way”. However, I don’t think you can then state evangelical Christians should only be focused on the gospel and that all else doesn’t matter. There are evangelical Christians who are committed to the same gospel as you but who are also committed to the “Anglican way”. This commitment is not on a par with their commitment to the gospel but it is a commitment nonetheless. I would submit that that is a good thing and that it is right and proper that they play a role in structures such as GAFCON, FCA etc and encouraging fellow Anglicans (and indeed non-Anglicans for that matter) in other parts of the world.

Anyway, there’s no doubt much more that could be said. But that’s a start.

Much love in Christ,
hapax

Regarding 26, I hope I didn’t come across as saying that all Evangelicals should share the view I described there. My purpose was only to explain why not all Evangelicals would cheer Michael’s article. I obviously share the view described in that post, but I wouldn’t want to unchurch—or unEvangelical—anyone who didn’t.

I am at home in the Anglican Church, and many of its ways of ‘doing church’ are what I would choose myself. I think what makes me an Anglican Evangelical is that I live by those interpretations the Church has decided to impose on all of us, even if I don’t believe they are correct interpretations. I suppose if all the interpretations the church imposes were the ones I would choose myself, I might be tempted to think that Anglicanism had a value of its own, but as it is I don’t have to wrestle with that. My commitment is not to the ‘Anglican Way’ but to the principle that any church must, for the sake of good order, settle matters by fiat from time to time (Article XXXIV), and that it is to be obeyed for the sake of good order as long as it does not ordain something contrary to Scripture. At one time that would have been considered the Anglican way, I believe. The seventeenth century Church of Ireland primate, Bishop Bramhall, once said to an ordinand who confessed he had difficulty with some of the XXXIX Articles, that he did not have to believe them, he could be ordained as long as he agreed not to contradict them.

[37] Sarah

But since I do not believe all five points of TULIP—and since I believe that the Calvinist system is an extremely inadequate and inaccurate grid to place over Scripture, the nature of God, and tradition, I am unable to come up with a better appellation to describe my non-acceptance of calvinism than . . . “I am not a Calvinist.”

I would have described your position as Amyraldian.  Do you find this label inadequate to describe your position?  I suspect you find it to be inadequate because your objections extend beyond limited atonement.  Am I correct?

carl

A little note on T.C. Hammond’s In Understanding Be Men: it was published in 1936, as the KJV-quoting title suggests, and revised by David F. Wright as long ago as 1968.

MichaelA @ [52]. I suspect David Martyn Lloyd-Jones would be horrified to be listed as an ‘evangelical Anglican’! He was decidedly free church and Westminster Chapel changed from Congregational to be part of the The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches in Lloyd-Jones’ time.

Anglican Evangelicalism…. “Evangelical” defined definitively by Bishop J.C. Ryle:  [url=http://anglicansinthewilderness.com/point-of-view/ang]http://anglicansinthewilderness.com/point-of-view/ang [/url]

Also, see “Anglicanism’s Nicene Creed is Calvinistic… A TULIP by any other name is still a TULIP”  [url=http://anglicansinthewilderness.com/point-of-view/the-nicene]http://anglicansinthewilderness.com/point-of-view/the-nicene [/url]  An introduction to the concept that there are no discrepancies between The Nicene Creed, the 39 Articles and the “5 points of Calvinism.”

First of all, there is not such thing as “Anglicanism’s Nicene Creed.”

Secondly, since the Nicene Creed simply does not address the issues that are points of dispute between Calvin, Luther, Roman Catholics, and the many, many other flavors of Christinity, it is an easy thing to say that there are no discrepancies between The Nicene Creed and Calvanism.  In a like matter, there are no discrepancies between Islam and the assertion that “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth” yet to assert that God is Creator does not make require me to be Muslim.

I see very little wiggle room for an Anglican (who must of necessity subscribe to the entirety of the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, Athanasian Creed and 39 Articles) to NOT also be tuned to the Solas of the Reformation and the so-called “5 points of Calvinism”.  The fact that so many Anglicans never cease from wiggling out of these Confessions of Faith demonstrates not the broadness and generosity of Anglicanism but rather its leadership’s unfaithfulness toward Biblical doctrine and lack of disciplined stewardship of Apostolic teaching.

Aaytch, a Roman Catholic can subscribe to the three Creeds and not subscribe to the 5 points or the Solas.  A Lutheran or a Baptist can subscribe to Solas but not the 5 points. 

The real question is:  Do the 39 Articles require 5-Point Calvanism?  I’ll leave the answer to that as an exercise for those with more invested in the debate than myself.

RE: “I see very little wiggle room for an Anglican (who must of necessity subscribe to the entirety of the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, Athanasian Creed and 39 Articles) to NOT also be tuned to . . . the so-called “5 points of Calvinism”.

Certainly I can see why Calvinists who are Anglicans would wish to assert so.  But recall also that I do not ascribe to the *system* of Calvinism, not merely TULIP in entirety.  As I said: “I believe that the Calvinist system is an extremely inadequate and inaccurate grid to place over Scripture, the nature of God, and tradition.”

But again, I can understand why *some* [not all] Calvinist Anglicans would wish to assert that one cannot be an Anglican without also being a Calvinist.

#67…. I therefore understand you to say that you don’t think the 3 Creeds and the Articles contain the Solas and the “5 points”... a point that I have tried to demonstrate but that you have not actually refuted. 

Cranmer and other reformers of the English Reformation were not unaware of the issues of their day as respects Catholic, Lutheran, Anabaptist, Calvinist and Zwinglian systems of theology.  Indeed, the heresies addressed by first 4 councils of the Church are closely related to the heresies addressed by the 39 Articles… and the heresies that continue to this day.  It is a mistake to suppose that there is anything new under the sun.

I just wonder whether your real argument is that Anglican “doctrine” should be debased to incorporate Roman Catholics, Baptists and Lutherans… each of which is also expected to abandon their distinctives while coming into the broad ecumenical tent.

Sarah, the question is not whether your personal theology is systematic but rather whether the theology of the Creeds and the Articles are consistent with each other and whether they comprise a system.  I believe the answer is ‘yes’. 

To somebody else that posted in this thread, I say it is clear that from its very beginning, the Apostolic faith as taught by the Church has tried to be systematic, and has largely succeeded at it.  Systematic theology is a teaching tool well respected and it is bewildering how anyone can wish to throw out that tool while hoping to understand God’s plan of salvation.

RE: “but rather whether the theology of the Creeds and the Articles are consistent with each other and whether they comprise a system.  I believe the answer is ‘yes’.”

I certainly agree.  Indeed even simply the Nicene Creed comprises a “broad” system.  I simply don’t grant that the Creed and the Articles have created the Calvinist system, which as I said earlier is “an extremely inadequate and inaccurate grid to place over Scripture, the nature of God, and tradition.”

RE: “Systematic theology is a teaching tool well respected and it is bewildering how anyone can wish to throw out that tool while hoping to understand God’s plan of salvation.”

Yes indeed—systematic theology certainly has its place and there are certainly a whole lot of interesting systems out there, including Calvinism.  But when the system is inadequate and inaccurate it can be most unhelpful.  ; > )

#67…. I therefore understand you to say that you don’t think the 3 Creeds and the Articles contain the Solas and the “5 points”... a point that I have tried to demonstrate but that you have not actually refuted.

Your demonstration, to this point, has been nothing more than linking to a single blog article, and one that uses the sort of “The answer is 5 therefore 2+2 must equal 5” arguments I’ve recently seen applied to Acts 15 in another ongoing discussion. 

Let me repeat myself.  I readily concede that the 3 Creeds are not incompatible with Calvinism.  I readily concede that “Jesus wept” is compatible with Calvinism.  Jesus weeping, however, does not require Calvinism, and neither do the 3 Creeds. 

and the Articles

Actually, I have said nothing at all about whether or not I think the 39 Articles require Calvinism, just as the Apostles Creed, for example, says anything at all about Limited Atonement. 

I am detecting a pattern here. 

I just wonder whether your real argument is that Anglican “doctrine” should be debased to incorporate Roman Catholics, Baptists and Lutherans… each of which is also expected to abandon their distinctives while coming into the broad ecumenical tent.

I’d like to see you try to prove that this is my argument.  It might give me insight into the thinking process you use to make your argument.

Perhaps you would point me articles on how Catholics, Lutherans, Anabaptists, or whatever would incorporate the 3 Creeds, the Articles and the 1662 BCP into their systems.  I have never seen such an attempt, at least one that is plausible.  On the other hand it is fairly well documented how Anglicanism does have a systematic theology embedded in those documents and that it fits closely if not precisely with a grid that contains the “Solas” and the “5 points”.

Every AngloCatholic and “open” AngloEvangelical that I know makes no attempt to discover a different systematic theology in Anglicanism’s foundational documents.  It’s pointless.  Rather, their effort is entirely devoted to saying either that the Articles and the 1662 BCP are wrong, or to asserting that other documents must be allowed to supersede them.  Simply put, it’s anarchy.

#73…. So your entire point is that I have done…

nothing more than linking to a single blog article, and one that uses the sort of “The answer is 5 therefore 2+2 must equal 5” arguments I’ve recently seen applied to Acts 15 in another ongoing discussion.

Actually, it’s two blog articles, each of which goes to some length to explain how a Calvinist grid was and is the Anglican grid in terms of systematic theology.  They may not be perfectly written articles and they’re certainly not exhaustive of the subject, but I am still waiting for an alternative explanation to appear.  In the meantime, I don’t know how you might think Acts 15 pertains here.  Also, please tell me where precisely in those blog articles you see a point that is of the sort that “The answer is 5 therefore 2+2 must equal 5”.

Perhaps you would point me articles on how Catholics, Lutherans, Anabaptists, or whatever would incorporate the 3 Creeds, the Articles and the 1662 BCP into their systems.

This is getting silly.  I’ve never, ever, in this thread or any others, made any arguments whatsoever about whether or not the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP are compatable with Catholics, Lutherans, or Anabaptists.  I was simply trying to make a point about the Creeds. 

Every AngloCatholic and “open” AngloEvangelical that I know makes no attempt to discover a different systematic theology in Anglicanism’s foundational documents.

The attempts have certainly been made.  Whether or not the attempts have been convincing is an argument I don’t feel like getting into at this time.

Also, please tell me where precisely in those blog articles you see a point that is of the sort that “The answer is 5 therefore 2+2 must equal 5”.

The attempt to say that the Nicene Creed requires TULIP when in fact the Nicene Creed simply does not address total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irrestible grace or the preseverence of the saints.

Clearly you did not read it.  Here again is the link: 
“Anglicanism’s Nicene Creed is Calvinistic… A TULIP by any other name is still a TULIP”  http://anglicansinthewilderness.com/point-of-view/the-nicene   An introduction to the concept that there are no discrepancies between The Nicene Creed, the 39 Articles and the “5 points of Calvinism.”

RE: “An introduction to the concept that there are no discrepancies between The Nicene Creed, the 39 Articles and the “5 points of Calvinism.””

See any differences between the above and Andrew’s point? “The attempt to say that the Nicene Creed requires TULIP when in fact the Nicene Creed simply does not address total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irrestible grace or the preseverence of the saints.”

The rest of us sure do.

“No discrepancies” versus “requires”.

It’s quite clear.

The nature of a rational inquiry is to look for patterns and for a system that fits those patterns.  It is not to look for proofs and flashing neon signs. 

I really don’t think it’s fair to ask me to show you where the Nicene Creed, by itself, “requires” the Solas and the 5 points of Calvinism (something I never claimed), but it would be fair to ask me to show you where the combined evidence of 3 Creeds and the 1662 BCP requires it.  Would you like to revise your demand in that fashion, and to show me how I have not already answered it?

It is also fair of me to ask you to supply an alternative theory, and specific refutations.  Neither of which are here.

RE: “The nature of a rational inquiry is to look for patterns and for a system that fits those patterns.”

Yes indeed—and when the system is inadequate and inaccurate and does not fit those patterns, it’s simply an interesting thing to note, and from which to move on.

RE: “I really don’t think it’s fair to ask me to show you where the Nicene Creed, by itself, “requires” the Solas and the 5 points of Calvinism (something I never claimed) . . . “

Well of course you did.  You stated in fact “I see very little wiggle room for an Anglican (who must of necessity subscribe to the entirety of the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, Athanasian Creed and 39 Articles) to NOT also be tuned to the Solas of the Reformation and the so-called “5 points of Calvinism”.

And then you further went on to make the silly claim that those Anglicans who *were not* Calvinists were “wiggling out of these Confessions of Faith” and demonstrating “unfaithfulness toward Biblical doctrine and lack of disciplined stewardship of Apostolic teaching.”

It’s good to see that you’re now pulling back from that statement.  Or . . . merely waffling back and forth depending on to whom you’re responding?

RE: “It is also fair of me to ask you to supply an alternative theory, and specific refutations.”

You certainly may ask anything you like—but it’s equally fair for me to point out that I’m not trying to convince you of any sort of system at all, nor am I trying to convince you that Calvinism is not accurate or truthful . . . and further that any comments attempting to do so would be a waste of my limited time—just as comments from you trying to convince me that Calvinism is accurate or truthful would be a waste of your limited time.  I’m indifferent as to whether you assert the truth of Calvinism and have no desire at all to attempt to argue you out of it, any more than I wish to argue a Roman Catholic out of his assertions that the Pope’s ex cathedra’s statements are infallible.

Believe me, if the opinions and rationales and arguments of certain wonderful scholars and teachers whom I respect fail to convince me, I can assure you that yours will fail as well—so far I’ve been unimpressed with your basic knowledge of logic and the numerous general fallacies that have littered your comments.

I merely pointed out that I utterly repudiate your assertion that true Anglicans must be Calvinists, and further pointed out the various inconsistencies in your assertions.

At this point, I note that your next comments will merely be re-assertions that yes, Anglicans must be Calvinists. 

Take it as read, then, that I’ll assert differently.

I really don’t think it’s fair to ask me to show you where the Nicene Creed, by itself, “requires” the Solas and the 5 points of Calvinism

My original dispute with the claim that:
“Anglicanism’s Nicene Creed is Calvinistic” and that the Nicene Creed is TULIP by another name. 

My assertion was that the three Creeds, individually and collectively, do not require a Calvanistic interpetation or assert TULIP, since they simply do not address the things that TULIP addresses.  I’ve declined to make any argument about the 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles.

Yes Andrew I know that your complaint pertains only to my assertion that the Nicene Creed lends itself [only] to Calvinistic interpretation, teaching that God’s plan of salvation is sovereign, unconditional, particular, irresistible and purposeful. 

Sarah, I can see that you’re angry about my assertion that Anglicanism is in a state of anarchy because its foundational documents are held to be of less importance for “Anglican Identity” than ecumenism.  Unfortunately, I still see very little wiggle room for Anglicans who must of necessity discard either those foundational documents or its obsession with ecumenical non-partisanship.  I believe Martin Lloyd-Jones held much the same view as mine.

I would like at this point to re-endorse Hapax’s post at #54 above, as to the views of many Anglicans who call themselves “calvinist”: “TULIP” is simply not important to us, even though we would probably agree with it if asked.

I am really not interested in whether the Nicene Creed reflects TULIP. However, I concur with the opinion of +++Matthew Parker and the other authors of the 39 Articles, that the Nicene Creed accords with Scripture.

I am a reformed Protestant.

No really.  I’m a reformed Protestant in the same way you can have a reformed criminal – in other words a Catholic.

Runs away very fast indeed!!!

The Protestants did, and the Reformation didn’t.
. I am a Protestant.
That’s why I am an Anglican.

RE: “Sarah, I can see that you’re angry about my assertion that Anglicanism is in a state of anarchy because its foundational documents are held to be of less importance for “Anglican Identity” than ecumenism.”

Eh?

I hadn’t read that comment—haven’t read all the comments.  Merely responding to your other assertions about Calvinism.

RE: “I believe Martin Lloyd-Jones held much the same view as mine.”

Probably so.  That would explain, then.