[MarkWaters]

Do the Episcipalians believe in the reformed doctrine/five points of Calvanism?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by MarkWaters

Do the Episcipalians believe in the reformed doctrine/five points of Calvanism?

Most aren't, with the exception of aspirants (like myself) who are trying to convince their Commissions on Ministry that they're called to the priesthood. The Articles of Religion are beautifully ambigious on the subject, the liturgies don't make any mention of it at all, and while the earliest Anglicans were moderate Calvinists, the majority of Anglicans, historically, have not been confessionally "Reformed."

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by MarkWaters

Do the Episcipalians believe in the reformed doctrine/five points of Calvanism?

Depends on who you ask, though generally, they are not; that isn't to say that a Calvinist would be uncomfortable in the Anglican church, but then, neither would a backslidden Roman Catholic. Ah, the via media.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by MarkWaters

Do the Episcipalians believe in the reformed doctrine/five points of Calvanism?

Mark, just for the record, we're called Anglicans in Canada, and our Articles of Religion constitute an expressly Calvinist document. I am a five-point Calvinist, and an Anglican.

[Athanasius]

The Articles of Religion are Reformed (as opposed to Roman or Lutheran), and I do believe give enough wiggle room for both sides of the "Reformed camp" of the time - both the Arminians and Calvinists...although it was certainly drafted by Calvinists.

What the Articles of Religion *do* stand against is both Roman Catholic soteriology and sacramentology. And it is those two points which were the most "important" in the reformation of the Prayer Book and Articles.

However, as Ridley will point out - the Articles are no longer "confessional" in the Episcopal Church USA...although they are, to some extent, in the Church of England. So in the States, one cannot point to the articles and say "Hey! Quit that Popery!"... Not that you could really do so in England either, as the majority of clergy wouldn't even assent to a plain-understanding of the Nicene Creed. So they've got power in numbers. So be it.

Unfortunately, finding a classical Anglican (one who is Reformed, catholic, liturgical, missional and has a high view of the sacraments) is about as difficult as finding a needle in a haystack.

[Ridley's Own]

The fact that Abp. Laud could be, you know, Archbishop, would certainly mean that the "wiggle room" for Arminians is wide and vast.

Originally Posted by Athanasius

So in the States, one cannot point to the articles and say "Hey! Quit that Popery!"...

Which I'm not sure is exactly the problem. I don't know of a single ECUSA priest who would say, "Work your way into heaven by eating this." I guess what I'm saying is that the Articles aren't useful since no one is arguing about what they're expressing.

[Athanasius]

Archbishop Laud is one of the scariest creatures from English church history. And not because of his soteriology. More for his bad habit of imprisoning, branding the faces, slitting the noses and cutting off the ears of Puritans. Oh well...I'm actually suprised that you would be so enamoured with a guy that was so extreme and "fundamentalist" in his drive for conformity that he makes Pat Robertson look like a relativist and peacenik.

It is fairly clear to me that it was him and Charles working synergetically as extremists that enabled a wacko like Cromwell to take power in England.

And I also realized that I have stepped right into a debate.

Anyway, I was actually at a Church of England in a London suburb for Christmas Day service and on their front door there was a notice on the door requesting that we make ourselves reverent because Jesus was physically present in the reserved elements which were in the tabernacle. That is definately repugnant to the 39 Articles.

Furthermore, as the majority of the Articles (outside sacraments and soteriology) are a restatement of catholic orthodoxy, they do address arguments which possibly the majority of Western Anglicanism's Priests would have a problem with.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Athanasius

Archbishop Laud is one of the scariest creatures from English church history. And not because of his soteriology. More for his bad habit of imprisoning, branding the faces, slitting the noses and cutting off the ears of Puritans. Oh well...I'm actually suprised that you would be so enamoured with a guy that was so extreme and "fundamentalist" in his drive for conformity that he makes Pat Robertson look like a relativist and peacenik.

It is fairly clear to me that it was him and Charles working synergetically as extremists that enabled a wacko like Cromwell to take power in England.

Oh, I certainly agree with you that Laud had his faults, and, my "enamoured"-ness with him has less to do with his "fundamentalism" and more to do with him being put in an odd place of "maintaining" the elizabethan compromise by force. Very interesting to me, from a purely arm-chair historian perspective. On a personal level, though, I can see a lot of my own intolerance when I read about Laud, and it helps me balance back out and say, "Easy, hoss."

I'm less convinced that Laud or Charles I were as "extremist" for their times than any other religious/political figure in the immediate aftermath of the Reformation and the midst of the Thirty Years war. Espescially when challenging the Church was also considered challenging the State.

Anyway, I was actually at a Church of England in a London suburb for Christmas Day service and on their front door there was a notice on the door requesting that we make ourselves reverent because Jesus was physically present in the reserved elements which were in the tabernacle. That is definately repugnant to the 39 Articles.

But not repugnant to the BCP, which I would argue is the ultimate standard for Anglican orthodoxy and practice.

Furthermore, as the majority of the Articles (outside sacraments and soteriology) are a restatement of catholic orthodoxy, they do address arguments which possibly the majority of Western Anglicanism's Priests would have a problem with.

You know, having known and served along side liberal priests, priests who have blessed gay unions, who have dressed as clowns at the Eucharist, etc., and I have yet to meet one that didn't affirm the Trinity or Jesus' divinty or other basic orthodoxies affirmed in the Articles or a plain reading of the creeds. Are there some "effete, high church, Unitarians" wearing collars? Certainly. But to label "the majority of Western Anglicanism's Priests" as some kind of Spong-ian mob is an exercise in extreme... Something. I'm not sure what kind of exercise it is, other than I know that not once, not once in my 5 or six years of being an Episcopalian, have I ever heard a priest or bishop deny the ressurection, the divinity of Christ, or the Trinitarian God. I guess I'm just not sure who you're talking about.

[Athanasius]

I think the majority of Episcopal (in AK and Scotland) priests that I have personally known are unorthodox in very simple and blatant ways...almost all I know would be covered by one of the following. We've moved in different circles, to be sure, and you have the greater wealth of knowing Episcopal Priests...and if what you say is true, I am very pleased about your situation. However, I still maintain that at least a simple majority of Western Anglicanism's clergy are heterodox according to the 39 Articles on basic issues.

A couple Newsbits:

A new survey reveals that a third of clergy in the Church of England express doubts about the Resurrection and only about half believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus. The poll of 2,000 of the church's 10,000 clergy also found that about half believe that faith in Christ is the only route to salvation. (ENS, August 9, 2002)

Jeffrey Hadden 1998 poll:
A survey of mostly mainline Protestant clergy by a prominent American sociologist showed that many doubt Jesus' physical resurrection. Percentage of doubters were found to be:
American Lutherans: 13%
Presbyterians: 30%
American Baptist: 33%
Episcopalians: 35%
Methodists: 51%
(religioustolerance.org)

When you add to that those who would hold and teach a dodgy Christology (which is easy to do), those Priests that would deny inherited Sin, the sufficiency and canonicity of all 66 Books, those who would teach that the Moral Commandments of the Law are not continually binding on man, those who would deny Justification by Faith, those *many* who are Barthian and state that Jesus took a "sinful human nature" (obtained from Edward Irving and violating both a proper Chalcedon Christology and Article XV) -- I am *certain* that you would come up with well over 50% of Episcopal Clergy being right outside the bounds.

[Athanasius]

As for Laud, it helps to look at him the way you do. Good thoughts...although I still think he was a bit too wack for me.

And for BCP v 39 Articles, well we naturally see things differently - and since there is actually no real standard other than the whims of committees, I'm not going to even debate that point. I would love to see the 39 Articles again be the standard in ECUSA, but before that -- I'd love to get to where you are suggesting first, the BCP and the Creeds contained therein.

[+Donny]

Does it count if one really wants to be episcopal, and also happens to be reformed?

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by Athanasius

As for Laud, it helps to look at him the way you do. Good thoughts...although I still think he was a bit too wack for me.

And for BCP v 39 Articles, well we naturally see things differently - and since there is actually no real standard other than the whims of committees, I'm not going to even debate that point. I would love to see the 39 Articles again be the standard in ECUSA, but before that -- I'd love to get to where you are suggesting first, the BCP and the Creeds contained therein.

I'm not going to quit until the Westminster Confession is required to be affirmed for ordination.

I guess I really am an Anglican with Presbyterian sympathies.

[Ted Logan]

An interesting note for the original poster is that Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and the English Baptists all have their roots in the English Reformation, but they became "Separatists" in the late 16th century because they believed that the Anglican Church had not really "reformed" yet, or, at least, had not reformed enough. Some of the Separatists hooked arms with the Presbyterianism of Scotland, some formed the Congregational churches in England and America, and some went to Believer's Baptism and (later) immersion. There were apparently two geneses of English Baptists, the earlier of which was Arminian and influenced greatly by the Mennonites, and the later, Particular Baptists, who were more Puritan than Anabaptist and Calvinistic in persuasion. So, the testimony of the three great "Reformed" Churches (the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Calvinistic Baptists) was that the Church of England has never really been reformed. I think the Elizabethan Compromise was probably one of the great oddities of Anglican history, in that it simultaneously guaranteed ecumenism between some elements of Protestantism and some of Catholicism, and that it ensured we would never really be Catholics or Protestants as a Communion, at least not without leaving behind what most would probably consider an Anglican distinctive.