Anglican & Protestant

[ChasingADream]

Can anyone tell me the link (if there is one between Anglican and Protestant)

Thanks

[gitlance]

We are only "protestant" in the sense that we do not accept the infallible universality of the Patriarchate of Rome.

The most acccurate description of the Anglican Church would be that it is a reformed Catholic Church.

[PaladinValer]

We only protested the abuses of the Vatican Church.

We are wholly Catholic, just English Catholic.

[Fish and Bread]

Anglicans are Protestant in that we've accepted some of the reforms of the Reformation and protested those theological ideas which we view(ed) as being errors developed by the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages. Some of our historical documents, practices, and ideology owe a lot to the theological ideas expressed by people like Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Anglicans are Catholic in that we've maintained the historic order of bishops, priests, and deacons, our bishops are part of a line of bishops going back to the apostles (i.e. apostolic succession), we've retained the seven sacraments, and we've retained the historic liturgy and liturgical calendar.

John

[romaneagle13]

Anglicans are Protestant in that we've accepted some of the reforms of the Reformation and protested those theological ideas which we view(ed) as being errors developed by the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages. Some of our historical documents, practices, and ideology owe a lot to the theological ideas expressed by people like Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Anglicans are Catholic in that we've maintained the historic order of bishops, priests, and deacons, our bishops are part of a line of bishops going back to the apostles (i.e. apostolic succession), we've retained the seven sacraments, and we've retained the historic liturgy and liturgical calendar.

John

I (having been a Roman Catholic) definitely consider myself Protestant. But what if we only believe in two Sacraments instead of seven? Does that make one a Lutheran?

:scratch:

[gitlance]

I (having been a Roman Catholic) definitely consider myself Protestant. But what if we only believe in two Sacraments instead of seven? Does that make one a Lutheran?

:scratch:

We believe in seven sacraments.

[pmcleanj]

I (having been a Roman Catholic) definitely consider myself Protestant. But what if we only believe in two Sacraments instead of seven? Does that make one a Lutheran?

:scratch:
The notion that "Protestant" and "Catholic" are opposites is a misapprehension fostered, primarily, on the one side by those Roman Catholics who believe that dissenting or protesting against the errors of the hierarchy puts one outside of the Catholic Church, and on the other side by those who feel that the errors of pre-reformation Rome are so tainting they require rejecting all association with the ancient Church. Neither assertion is true.

The true distinguishing character of Catholicism is the belief that the Church, the mystical body of Christ, manifests as the whole company of all Faithful Christians in all times and places. This is such an obvious notion to those of us who are immersed in that doctrine, that we respond to it along the lines of "well duh :doh: everybody knows that".

But, in fact, Congregationalists believe just as firmly that "the Church, the mystical body of Christ, manifests within the local congregation of Christians without reference to other Christians in other times and places." They're wrong, of course. They're still members of the Catholic church, because there is only one church, the church that Christ founded, which is the whole company of ALL Christian people. They just don't understand fully what that means. It's okay, though: none of us are justified by understanding.

I usually phrase this to baptized people thinking of 'converting' as "you're already an Anglican; you just didn't know it before". ;)

Being an Anglican is just a totality of a set of traditions, customs, forms, styles, preferences, language, culture, history: once you find that a substantive portion of these fit for you, you start understanding yourself to be Anglican, and identifying yourself as Anglican. But it's a broad tent: there are Anglican traits that one person embraces wholly that may be completely eschewed by someone else who also embraces a different, but still Anglican, set of traits.

Including the notion of two sacraments versus seven sacraments. The former doesn't make you a Lutheran any more than the latter necessarily makes you an Old Catholic. The traditional core Anglican understanding would be that two sacraments are "generally necessary to salvation" -- that is, mandated for all Christians -- and that five "commonly called Sacraments" share the character of having 'an outward and visible sign and an inward and spiritual grace' but lack the mandate of the two 'Great Sacraments'.

[Aymn27]

I (having been a Roman Catholic) definitely consider myself Protestant. But what if we only believe in two Sacraments instead of seven? Does that make one a Lutheran?

:scratch:
Protestant? or rather Reformed Catholic :)?

[AngCath]

Remember, when England first seperated from Rome, it became the Reformed Catholic Church of England. We are protestant in that we PROTEST some of the developments of Rome, but fully Catholic- Sacramental and Apostolic

[romaneagle13]

Being an Anglican is just a totality of a set of traditions, customs, forms, styles, preferences, language, culture, history: once you find that a substantive portion of these fit for you, you start understanding yourself to be Anglican, and identifying yourself as Anglican. But it's a broad tent: there are Anglican traits that one person embraces wholly that may be completely eschewed by someone else who also embraces a different, but still Anglican, set of traits.

Including the notion of two sacraments versus seven sacraments. The former doesn't make you a Lutheran any more than the latter necessarily makes you an Old Catholic. The traditional core Anglican understanding would be that two sacraments are "generally necessary to salvation" -- that is, mandated for all Christians -- and that five "commonly called Sacraments" share the character of having 'an outward and visible sign and an inward and spiritual grace' but lack the mandate of the two 'Great Sacraments'.




Ok, so in other words, I can be as Protestant and Lutheran-leaning as I want to be and still be as Anglican as anyone else here?

[pmcleanj]

Ok, so in other words, I can be as Protestant and Lutheran-leaning as I want to be and still be as Anglican as anyone else here?
Yup.

:D Oh, lean far enough toward Augsburg, and we'll all wink knowingly at each other behind your back. We'd do the same if you leant too far toward Rome, too. But we won't let that prevent you from joining us in a little English plainchant or helping press the altar-frontals or argue the relative merits of whole-wheat hosts, or other Anglican traditions.

You can even try leaning toward Geneva if you like. When you keep your weight centred in the via media, you can lean in nearly any direction and still be stable.

[Lel]

Can I lean in the conservative evangelical Southern Baptist-esque direction? :P

[PaladinValer]

Is Outrage! :P

[SirTimothy]

Can I lean in the conservative evangelical Southern Baptist-esque direction?

Of course. I'm from a church that was for many years run by SBC and CBF folks, so I lean that way a touch myself...

Timothy

[AngCath]

Can I lean in the conservative evangelical Southern Baptist-esque direction? :P

When you keep your weight centred in the via media, you can lean in nearly any direction and still be stable.

yes you can lean that direction! I lean much more towards the Catholic side. The via media is our foundation that allows our individual leanings and ever more importantly allows us to remain at the Table together despite our differances.

[Naomi4Christ]

I never considered Anglicanism to be anything other that Protestant until I experienced Ecusa.

Sure, the Catholics use an adaptation of the BCP, but that doesn't make us RCC wannabees.

[gitlance]

I never considered Anglicanism to be anything other that Protestant until I experienced Ecusa.

Sure, the Catholics use an adaptation of the BCP, but that doesn't make us RCC wannabees.

We are not "Roman Catholic wannabees."

We are FULLY Catholic, FULLY Orthodox, FULLY continuous with the ancient Church which Christ established. The only way you can call us protestant is in the fact that we do not accept the universal authority and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome (His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI). But if that's your definition of protestant, then you should also call the Eastern Church protestant (and I would NOT recommend that, for they most certainly are not!).

[Naomi4Christ]

Those arguments are soooooo irrelevent. How could we possibly be Eastern Church?

We are Anglicans and you can set your definition by us - not the other way around!!!!

[gtsecc]

Those arguments are soooooo irrelevent. How could we possibly be Eastern Church?

We are Anglicans and you can set your definition by us - not the other way around!!!!

That is not what he said.
He said rejecting the Pope is not sufficiant to being Protestant, otherwise Eastern Orthodox would be protestant.

[PaladinValer]

Dogsbody, perhaps you didn't realize or know it, but our Church has some Eastern flavorings through contact with the East throughout history.

Fascinating subject.

[SirTimothy]

Indeed. Guys. Calm down. We've got some CofE people coming in, and the modern Church of England is quite a ways away from where the ECUSA is today. There ARE high-church Anglo-catholics who do things by the prayer-book rubrics, but CW is an extremely flexible book, which allows us to pray... roughly similar things to each other, but with the flexiblity to do things at the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Timothy

[Lel]

ECUSA isn't all that high church all the time either. I believe (a sentiment not widely echoed) that there should be flexibility in the BCP, and room to do things which are more Protestant than Catholic. Having read STR a bit, I was convinced that my church was quite on the Low Church side. It turns out that the rector finds it rather High Church.

[Naomi4Christ]

ECUSA isn't all that high church all the time either. I believe (a sentiment not widely echoed) that there should be flexibility in the BCP, and room to do things which are more Protestant than Catholic. Having read STR a bit, I was convinced that my church was quite on the Low Church side. It turns out that the rector finds it rather High Church.

There is a lot of flexibility in the Ecusa BCP - you can leave lots of parts of the service out, for a start. You don't have to have communion - you can have morning or evening prayer instead. But I don't think this happens a lot in practice.

[Lel]

There is a lot of flexibility in the Ecusa BCP - you can leave lots of parts of the service out, for a start. You don't have to have communion - you can have morning or evening prayer instead. But I don't think this happens a lot in practice.

Sure, as long as it's not the primary service of the week, have a ball with the BCP, toss it in the dustbin (please don't do this literally, some of us like the BCP), whatever will be will be. And in those services there is a more Protestant view taken towards worship. (There's a few churches in my area which are doing modern services, it's not in every church but there are some.)

I like my church that pretty much sticks to the BCP (with a few secondary services that are somewhat abbreviated) and has stuff like candles, icons, etc., but that's not all that ECUSA is about.

[Naomi4Christ]

What makes for a more protestant view?

[Lel]

I was just thinking of services which were less structured....for some reason I've always associated less-structured services with Protestantism.

[Naomi4Christ]

I think protestant services are structured! It may not be as obvious without the spoken prayers and responses, but the structure is there nevertheless.

[Lel]

Well, that is very true. Protestant services are liturgical, just not in an Anglican fashion. I just tend to think of them as less structured, although there's a liturgy there, it's just unwritten.

[SirTimothy]

Yeah. That's one of the reasons I love the liturgy... beautiful prayers, rather than nearly identical, yet 'off-the-cuff' prayers which are sometimes hard to follow, and generally without the beauty and the majesty of the liturgy.

Timothy

[Lel]

Yeah. That's one of the reasons I love the liturgy... beautiful prayers, rather than nearly identical, yet 'off-the-cuff' prayers which are sometimes hard to follow, and generally without the beauty and the majesty of the liturgy.

Timothy

You have a point...although there is a time for off-the-cuff and a time for the beauty and majesty of the liturgy. A place for both groups -- I'm really starting to love Anglicanism!

[FivePointCalvinist]

I would posit, as a Reformed Anglican who embraces both the Westminster Confession of Faith (as it was an Anglican document, drafted by Anglican clergymen) and wholeheartedly affirms the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, that Anglicanism has the best of both worlds - a strong Reformed component in our liturgy and doctrine (at least, that's the way I see it, but many Anglicans don't even affirm the 39 AoR, much less actually claim the WCF as part of our heritage, as not only I, but the Rev. Dr. J.I. Packer does as well), but a sense of the sacredness of the ancient Liturgy as well.

[SirTimothy]

I would posit, as a Reformed Anglican who embraces both the Westminster Confession of Faith (as it was an Anglican document, drafted by Anglican clergymen) and wholeheartedly affirms the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, that Anglicanism has the best of both worlds - a strong Reformed component in our liturgy and doctrine (at least, that's the way I see it, but many Anglicans don't even affirm the 39 AoR, much less actually claim the WCF as part of our heritage, as not only I, but the Rev. Dr. J.I. Packer does as well), but a sense of the sacredness of the ancient Liturgy as well.

These kinds of posts make me feel all warm and fuzzy. The Anglican church is big enough to accept members like you, and members like gtsecc and gitlance, who are very anglo-Catholic. We're prepared to accept each other, write official documents so that they're both theologically sound, and yet not either one way or the other we can agree, and join together to celebrate the sacraments... even though we may not agree on what they mean. :)

Timothy (Not a Calvinist, but not anglo-catholic either)

[Fish and Bread]

I would posit, as a Reformed Anglican who embraces both the Westminster Confession of Faith (as it was an Anglican document, drafted by Anglican clergymen) and wholeheartedly affirms the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, that Anglicanism has the best of both worlds - a strong Reformed component in our liturgy and doctrine (at least, that's the way I see it, but many Anglicans don't even affirm the 39 AoR, much less actually claim the WCF as part of our heritage, as not only I, but the Rev. Dr. J.I. Packer does as well), but a sense of the sacredness of the ancient Liturgy as well.

Lel and I were talking last night about how great it the theological diversity of Anglicanism is and how we like the way it's recently come to be more reflected on this board than it was previously. One thing we were missing was a Calvinist, so I was really pleased to see your post. Please make yourself at home. Welcome! :)

I'm not a Calvinist myself, but I can certainly see how John Calvin came to the conclusion he on double predestination. A good biblical case can be made for it. On the other hand, I think that fairness would almost demand that God offer us some measure of free will, too, and not create people on purpose in order to damn them. I suspect that the reality of the situation is probably somewhere in between 5-point Calvinism and a theology of total and complete opposite. I tend to think that God has a plan and foreordains certain things, but that he also respects our free will.

One of the interesting things about the idea of double predestination is that, if God predestines all of us to be either saved or damned, and "desires the salvation of all" (per the scriptures), then it would follow logically that we'd all eventually be saved. I think that if I were a Calvinist, I'd also have to be a universalist. I've considered it at times. It is very nice in some respects to think about everyone ultimately being foreordained to be saved. But, ultimately, I'm just not there yet. I do feel we have some degree of free will and could reject a trip to heaven if we wanted to. I figure God isn't the type to force heaven on anyone, but I do think the vast majority will choose heaven and that God will probably bend some rules to find a way to get them there if they truly desire it of their own free will. :)

John

[FivePointCalvinist]

Lel and I were talking last night about how great it the theological diversity of Anglicanism is and how we like the way it's recently come to be more reflected on this board than it was previously. One thing we were missing was a Calvinist, so I was really pleased to see your post. Please make yourself at home. Welcome! :) Thank you!

I'm not a Calvinist myself, but I can certainly see how John Calvin came to the conclusion he on double predestination. A good biblical case can be made for it. On the other hand, I think that fairness would almost demand that God offer us some measure of free will, too, and not create people on purpose in order to damn them. I suspect that the reality of the situation is probably somewhere in between 5-point Calvinism and a theology of total and complete opposite. I tend to think that God has a plan and foreordains certain things, but that he also respects our free will. One thing to mention here. We are responsible moral creatures, and our actions are predestined. They are at an antinomy, and Calvinists call this 'compatibilism'. J.I. Packer says more on this in "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" I highly suggest you pick this book up. (J.I. Packer attends my church (St. John's (Shaughnessy) Anglican Church), so I love to promote his works)

One of the interesting things about the idea of double predestination is that, if God predestines all of us to be either saved or damned, and "desires the salvation of all" (per the scriptures), then it would follow logically that we'd all eventually be saved. I think that if I were a Calvinist, I'd also have to be a universalist. I've considered it at times. It is very nice in some respects to think about everyone ultimately being foreordained to be saved. But, ultimately, I'm just not there yet. I do feel we have some degree of free will and could reject a trip to heaven if we wanted to. I figure God isn't the type to force heaven on anyone, but I do think the vast majority will choose heaven and that God will probably bend some rules to find a way to get them there if they truly desire it of their own free will. :)

John I highly suggest you check out Packer's book.

[gitlance]

A good historical case can also be made that double predestination is Gnosticism repackaged.

[FivePointCalvinist]

A good historical case can also be made that double predestination is Gnosticism repackaged. Care to explain?

[gitlance]

Care to explain?

As my laptop battery is screaming at me that it's going to die, I shall give you the one-sentence answer here, and then the historic position at a future date when I have power!

Double predestination, in many respects (according to a strict interpretation of Calvin), teaches that only the elect will receive salvation, correct? Nobody can actually know who is saved and who isn't. It is entirely up to God to decide. The problem with this is that it completely leaves out any chance of free will on the part of humanity. Humans cannot choose to know God; instead, God chooses to save those whom he wants to save, and man will never know until the end.

Several branches of Gnosticism taught that no man could acheive perfect union with the Divine of his own merit. The Divine had to select whomever it wished, deposit a gnosis or secret knowledge to the individual(s), and then lead the individual through magical incantation and religious rituals to an ultimate state of salvation. However, even then, there was no guarantee in that individual's mind that he was saved. It was purely up to the will of the Divine.

Now granted, many Calvinists today do not hold such a strict interpretation of Calvin. But it gives me pause when it can be so easily seen that this is in many respects what Calvin believed.

[PaladinValer]

Much of Calvin's theology, whether he realizes it or not, stems from Manicheanism, which made a "muggy" comback in St. Augustine of Hippo's life towards the end of his years. It was triggered by the end of the Western Empire.

[Fish and Bread]

J.I. Packer says more on this in "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" I highly suggest you pick this book up. (J.I. Packer attends my church (St. John's (Shaughnessy) Anglican Church), so I love to promote his works)

I highly suggest you check out Packer's book.

My financial situation is such that I'm not able to buy it right at the moment, but I'll keep the suggestion in mind for when I have a little bit of money to spare. Thank you for the recommendation. Is this something a library might have or a small press book with limited distribution?

John

[Tetzel]

I (having been a Roman Catholic) definitely consider myself Protestant. But what if we only believe in two Sacraments instead of seven? Does that make one a Lutheran?

:scratch:

Lutherans have 2 or 3 sacraments (baptism, communion, confession and absolution). The last one seems to be the one of questionable status.

[Tetzel]

We believe in seven sacraments.
all anglicans believe in 7 sacraments?

[Naomi4Christ]

all anglicans believe in 7 sacraments?

pas moi :cool:

[gitlance]

Every Anglican does, but they will sometimes phrase them differently. For example, high church Anglicans will usually call all seven of them "sacraments". Broad church Anglicans will refer the the two sacraments of the Gospel, and then five "sacramental rites". Low church Anglicans will refer to the two sacraments of the Gospel and then five "rites of the Church".

The 39 Articles allow for the possibility of the five others being sacraments, but acknowledge that they are not counted necessary to Salvation as Baptism and the Eucharist are, and also state that they are not to be found explicitly in Scripture (though it does not outright forbid their use; in fact, if it did, it would have put an end to matrimony, confirmation, ordination, and unction, but you still see those in the 1662 prayer book).

The official stance of The Episcopal Church is as follows, taken from the Catechism:


Q. What other sacramental rites evolved in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
A. Other sacramental rites which evolved in the Church include confirmation, ordination, holy matrimony, reconciliation of a penitent, and unction.
Q. How do they differ from the two sacraments of the Gospel?
A. Although they are means of grace, they are not necessary for all persons in the same way that Baptism and the Eucharist are.