Anglicanism and Calvinism

[Cullen1552]

I am wanting to see what the views of the folks on this board are on Reformed Theology i.e. Calvinism. When thinking about this topic would you please also comment on how you see the 39 Articles in light of the Reformation and how they line up with the Irish Articles (written by AB James Usher) and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Also where do you see Cramner, Hooker and other early Anglicans line up with the Continental Reformers i.e. Luther, Bruccer, Zwinglie, Calvin, ect.

[pmcleanj]

I am wanting to see what the views of the folks on this board are on Reformed Theology i.e. Calvinism. When thinking about this topic would you please also comment on how you see the 39 Articles in light of the Reformation and how they line up with the Irish Articles (written by AB James Usher) and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Also where do you see Cramner, Hooker and other early Anglicans line up with the Continental Reformers i.e. Luther, Bruccer, Zwinglie, Calvin, ect.
Is this for credit? How much does it count toward our final grade? ;)

[pmcleanj]

And, :) bythe way, welcome to Christian Forums, and to the Anglican/Old Catholic forum in particular. Make yourself at home. There's a fellowship thread at the top of this page that you might want to drop by to chat and have a virtual beer.

[Cullen1552]

And, :) bythe way, welcome to Christian Forums, and to the Anglican/Old Catholic forum in particular. Make yourself at home. There's a fellowship thread at the top of this page that you might want to drop by to chat and have a virtual beer.
Do you have a good porter.? No this is not for a class but just a question I have floating around my head.

[pmcleanj]

Do you have a good porter.? No this is not for a class but just a question I have floating around my head.
There are actually a number of threads dealing with Calvinism and the Articles further back in the forum, if you have time to spend leafing through back-pages. But you'll probably get some good answers in this thread, too, though actually meeting the specifications you gave would require quite an effort, certainly worthy of a term paper or two!

Of course we have a good porter!

(quick aside: Lel! Do we have a good porter? Quick, find Andy and see if he can tell you what counts as a good porter, versus a bad one! If necessary, we can probably make do with a decent stout, I suppose.

[gitlance]

Some of us will respond with this statement: "Eck, Calvin! :doh:"

Hehehe.

Welcome to the board!

Lance

[gtsecc]

Calvinism doesn't have the backign of the folis who brought us the bible.
I really love my parish and being Anglican, but Calvinism makes me want to join the other 2 valid churches.

[PaladinValer]

You mean other 4 valid churches.

You missed out on two important ones...

...one being the Oriental Orthodox...

...and one that Father Rick might burn you on the stake for forgetting :P

[Cullen1552]

Would you please give the why for your feelings. That would be quite helpful to me. Thanks and Blessing. Cullen<+><

[SirTimothy]

Calvin was what I chose to describe as a reactive theologican, rather than what I grandly call a pro-active theologian. Reactive theology is where you're disenfranchised with a certain church, so you go overboard trying to do everything the opposite, whether pro-active theology is where you take that theology on board, and pray, and rather than throw everything out, see where the Holy Spirit is leading you to be.
As such, I would say that reactionary theology is very dangerous. Because it has a nasty tendency to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'. We need to be pro-active. Take the view-point of the whole church throughout history, then pray, compare it to the Bible, and let the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth.

As an individual theologian, I would say that Calvin was... heterodox at best. Double Predestination, Depravity, and other such doctrines, I do not agree with as such, because I believe they are not only contradicted by Scripture as a whole, but that they are also contrary to the nature of God.

Timothy

[PaladinValer]

Double predestination is based in Gnosticism.

According to the Gnostics, only special people would be selected beforehand to receive the Gnosis essential for their salvation. Those who didn't were doomed.

That is why I reject double predestination.

[Cullen1552]

Timothy,



What I was wanting to know where Reformed Theology is seen in light of the classical Anglican Theology. I appreciate the fact that you started to interact with the topic. A few questions:



1. So you think that Calvin was a “reactionary”. Does this then mean that you think Rome was correct?



2. If Calvin was a reactionary then what do you the English Reformer Archbishop Cramner?



3. Have you read the Institutes of the Christian Religion or the writings of Archbishop Usher?



You picked out two doctrines taught by Calvin (they were/are taught by other Christians). With Double Predestination in mind how do you understand Romans 9:19-24



19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?



And



Total Depravity/Original Sin what is your thoughts Psalm 51:5



5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

[PaladinValer]

Double Predestination was originally taught, it is true, but by Gnostics, as I've given above.

Passage One: Foreknowledge doesn't mean direct action.
Passage Two: Having Original Sin doesn't mean being guilty of it.

[SirTimothy]

1. So you think that Calvin was a “reactionary”. Does this then mean that you think Rome was correct?

In some matters, yes I do!


2. If Calvin was a reactionary then what do you the English Reformer Archbishop Cramner?

Cranmer was a compromiser. He took both arguments on board, and tried to make sure that both sides were equally happy. He succeeded in pulling together a very disparate church of High Catholics and Protestants into a church that could agree on something.

3. Have you read the Institutes of the Christian Religion or the writings of Archbishop Usher?

I've read parts of the institutes. Not very much, admittedly, but I've read some. I'm trying to get a copy in book form (very hard out here) as I don't really like reading heavy literature online.

You picked out two doctrines taught by Calvin (they were/are taught by other Christians). With Double Predestination in mind how do you understand Romans 9:19-24

Taken as a set of verses (which I prefer not to do) or in light of the whole of scripture? Whatever, I agree with PV.

Total Depravity/Original Sin what is your thoughts Psalm 51:5

Total Depravity, as I understand it (taken both from my understanding and a linguistical analysis of the words used) means that there is no good within us, which since we are created in the very image of God is a foreign idea. Original sin is a very different matter to being Totally Depraved.

Timothy

[ChessCastle]

You mean other 4 valid churches.

You missed out on two important ones...

...one being the Oriental Orthodox...

...and one that Father Rick might burn you on the stake for forgetting :P

What are the 5 valid churches?

[gtsecc]

What are the 5 valid churches?
Any Church with Bishops in Apostolic Succesion can claim validity.

Generally, according to the Eastern Orthodox, they are it and they say they don't knwo about other folks.

Accordign to Roman Catholics, Roman Catholics and the EO are it.

Generally, according to Anglicans, the visible church consists of EO, RCC, Anglican, and then probably some Lutherans with apostolic succession, Old Catholics, Coptics (Oriental Orthodox).