Why are so many Anglicans Calvinists?

[RadixLecti]

I've been wondering lately why so many Anglicans consider themselves to be "Calvinists."

It seems strange when considering that many of the same people would also affirm the classic Anglican formularies (1662 BCP, 39 Articles with the Book of Homilies incorporated therein, and the Ordinal) as authoritative standards of Anglican doctrine.

Specifically: The 1662 BCP affirms Baptismal Regeneration (even of infants)

AND One of the Homilies "On the Declining from God" teaches that those who had once been believers can lose salvation.

I know that other Protestant reformers held to these beliefs (such as the Lutherans), but aren't these beliefs contrary to the basic foundation of Calvinism, or am I misunderstanding what Calvinists actually believe?

 

[Albion]

I've been wondering lately why so many Anglicans consider themselves to be "Calvinists."

Two reasons IMO.

First, the church was overwhelmingly Predestinarian during the first century after Henry VIII and continued to be decidedly Protestant until fairly recently. It is only natural, therefore, that some Anglicans would remain with the original perspectives.

Second, and specifically with regard to the wording you used --consider themselves to be "Calvinists"-- this probably owes to the frequency with which other parties or factions in the church call these Anglicans by that term. As a matter of fact, very few Anglicans actually are Calvinists if that means like Calvin in all respects. You really are asking, I think, about Calvin's five points, not about doing away with the liturgy, reducing ceremony to a bare minimum, embracing Calvin's ideas on social behavior or the multiplicity of ministerial offices etc. But it's just too much trouble to explain all that whenever someone calls you a "Calvinist" so you just let it pass uncorrected.

 

[MKJ]

Second, and specifically with regard to the wording you used --consider themselves to be "Calvinists"-- this probably owes to the frequency with which other parties or factions in the church call these Anglicans by that term. As a matter of fact, very few Anglicans actually are Calvinists if that means like Calvin in all respects. You really are asking, I think, about Calvin's five points, not about doing away with the liturgy, reducing ceremony to a bare minimum, embracing Calvin's ideas on social behavior or the multiplicity of ministerial offices etc. But it's just too much trouble to explain all that whenever someone calls you a "Calvinist" so you just let it pass uncorrected.

I don't think that in general "Calvinist" means believeing everything Calvin did. I've not normally heard it used that way even among those who explicitly are from Calvinist groups. Any more than Lutherans feel that Lutheranism is identical with every little thing Luther believed.

 

[mark46]

deleted dup

 

[mark46]

We discuss this from time to time. In the end, folks conclude that Cranmer and the writers of the Articles were Calvinists, so it is a reasonable position to take. Some look at writers like Packer and find that Calvinism makes sense. I suspect that few are Calvinists as defined by the confessions of the Reformed churches. I think the Reformed/Presbyterian sub-board statement of faith is quite clear.

When I suggest that double predestination and OSAS make little sense to me, I am told that these beliefs aren't necessarily held by Calvinists. My guess is that the issue is definition and that most Anglicans are much closer to Luther (and Wesley) than Calvin.

I agree that some think that there are many, many Calvinists within our midst. Perhaps there are, perhaps not.

 

[RadixLecti]

Two reasons IMO.

First, the church was overwhelmingly Predestinarian during the first century after Henry VIII and continued to be decidedly Protestant until fairly recently.

I'm not trying to suggest that historic Anglican theology doesn't hold to the basics of the Reformation, so maybe I'm not being clear with my question.

It is only natural, therefore, that some Anglicans would remain with the original perspectives.

I guess this is really kind of my point. Isn't the original perspective the one that is expressed in the BCP, the 39 Articles and the Homilies? The original Anglican perspective from the Reformation denies OSAS and affirms Baptismal Regeneration.

I was thinking that Calvinism believed in OSAS and denied Baptismal Regeneration, whereas the Anglican formularies have the opposite view.

By Calvinism, I'm thinking of the doctrine explained in the Westminster Confession, Heidelberg Catechism etc.

 

[Albion]

I don't think that in general "Calvinist" means believeing everything Calvin did. I've not normally heard it used that way even among those who explicitly are from Calvinist groups. Any more than Lutherans feel that Lutheranism is identical with every little thing Luther believed.

FWIW, I don't think those two are comparable. The majority of beliefs and practices that are characteristic of Lutheranism are also held by the rest of us, but "Calvinism" does connote a certain set of beliefs and practices that are, even yet, associated with Geneva. We Anglicans never have gone for most of them.

 

[Albion]

I'm not trying to suggest that historic Anglican theology doesn't hold to the basics of the Reformation, so maybe I'm not being clear with my question.

Maybe I just got too wordy there. I don't think we are in disagreement, so let's pass over that part.

I guess this is really kind of my point. Isn't the original perspective the one that is expressed in the BCP, the 39 Articles and the Homilies?

OK

The original Anglican perspective from the Reformation denies OSAS . hand affirms Baptismal Regeneration.

Does it? You'll have to show me, R.

And along the way, I'd ask you to consider the Lambeth Articles of 1595 also.

1. The eternal election of some to life, and the reprobation of others to death.
2. The moving cause of predestination to life is not the foreknowledge of faith and good works, but only the good pleasure of God.
3. The number of the elect is unalterably fixed.
4. Those who are not predestinated to life shall necessarily be damned for their sins.
5. The true faith of the elect never fails finally nor totally.
6. A true believer, or one furnished with justifying faith, has a full assurance and certainty of remission and everlasting salvation in Christ.
7. Saving grace is not communicated to all men.
8. No man can come to the Son unless the Father shall draw him, but all men are not drawn by the Father.
9. It is not in every one’s will and power to be saved.

 

[RadixLecti]

And along the way, I'd ask you to consider the Lambeth Articles of 1595 also.

I think the Lambeth Articles brings up a good point, however it works both ways. On one hand they show that there were some Anglicans who truly held to Calvinism, but on the other hand the Lambeth Articles were ultimately rejected (and suppressed) because they were too Calvinist - presumably meaning that they were considered to be outside of the intended Anglican mainstream at the time.

 

[RadixLecti]

Does it? You'll have to show me, R.

Here's a section of one of the Homilies called "On the Declining from God" which is referenced by the 39 Articles:

"For whereas GOD hath shewed to all them that truely beleeue his Gospel, his face of mercie in Iesus Christ, which doeth so lighten their hearts, that they (if they behold it as they ought to doe) be transformed to his Image, be made partakers of the heauenly light, and of his holy Spirit, and bee fashioned to him in all goodnesse requisite to the children of GOD: so, if they after doe neglect the same, if they bee vnthankefull vnto him, if they order not their liues according to his example and doctrine, and to the setting forth of his glory, he will take away from them his Kingdome, his holy word, whereby hee should reigne in them, because they bring not foorth the fruit thereof that he looketh for. Neuerthelesse, his is so mercifull, and of so long sufferance, that he doeth not shew vpon vs that great wrath suddenly. But when we begin to shrinke from his word, not beleeuing it, or not expressing it in our liuings: first hee doeth send his messengers, the true preachers of his word, to admonish and warne vs of our duetie: that as hee for his part, for the great loue hee bare vnto vs, deliuered his owne Sonne to suffer death, that wee by his death might be deliuered from death, and be restored to the life euerlasting, euermore to dwell with him, and to bee partakers and inheritours with him, of his euerlasting glory and kingdome of heauen: so againe, that we for our parts should walke in a godly life, as becommeth his children to doe. And if this will not serue, but still we remaine disobedient to his word and wil, not knowing him, nor louing him, not fearing him, not putting our whole trust and confidence in him: and on the other side, to our neighbours behauing our selues vncharitably, by disdaine, enuie, malice, or by committing murder, robbery, adultery, gluttony, deceit, lying, swearing, or other like detestable workes, and vngodly behauiour, then he threatneth vs by terrible comminations, swearing in great anger, that whosoeuer doth these workes, shall neuer enter into his rest, which is the kingdome of heauen. (Hebrews 3.11, Psalms 15, 1 Corinthians 6).

Here's a link to the full text:

Anglican Library - Homilies, Book1, Homily 8

 

[Albion]

I think the Lambeth Articles brings up a good point, however it works both ways. On one hand they show that there were some Anglicans who truly held to Calvinism, but on the other hand the Lambeth Articles were ultimately rejected (and suppressed) because they were too Calvinist - presumably meaning that they were considered to be outside of the intended Anglican mainstream at the time.

Well, they weren't, but I don't want to argue with you over this. One answer to your question seems to be that there is nothing spectacular about some, not all, Anglicans holding to the perspective that once was the norm in the church. To be sure, there always have been different parties or factions in the church, so no one is saying that X or Y was the only one.

I might add that your OP wrapped all of this up together under the single word "Calvinists," which poses some problems. For instance, I know Anglicans who believe in 3 or 4 of the 5 points. These are certainly not Anglo-Catholic Anglicans. Are they to be considered "Calvinistic" Anglicans, then?

 

[RadixLecti]

Well, they weren't, but I don't want to argue with you over this.

What I mean is that they weren't incorporated with any of the authoritative formularies of the Church of England. I don't think they have ever been something that the clergy were required to affirm. (maybe in the Church of Ireland? but I'm not quite sure)

If they were incorporated with the required forumlaries, I'd like to know.

One answer to your question seems to be that there is nothing spectacular about some, not all, Anglicans holding to the perspective that once was the norm in the church. To be sure, there always have been different parties or factions in the church, so no one is saying that X or Y was the only one.

Ok, this is making more sense, but I'm still confused about OSAS and Anglicanism. It would seem that part of the foundation of Calvinism is OSAS. Is there maybe some kind of middle view held by some Calvinists? How do Calvinists interpret the passages of Scripture that talk about falling away from God such as Hebrews 6?

I might add that your OP wrapped all of this up together under the single word "Calvinists," which poses some problems. For instance, I know Anglicans who believe in 3 or 4 of the 5 points. These are certainly not Anglo-Catholic Anglicans. Are they to be considered "Calvinistic" Anglicans, then?

Yeah, I see how the vague title of the thread made this a little confusing. I just didn't think about that.

But isn't saying that Anglicans are either Calvinists or Anglo-Catholic kind of presenting a false dichotomy? I.e. can't you be a Protestant and not be a Calvinist? I don't think that we would call Lutherans, Moravians and Methodists, "Calvinist" but I think that everyone would say that they are Protestants.

Another thing I wonder is if it is really possible to be a partial Calvinist. I know that people say that you can, but just rationally speaking it seems like if someone is a Calvinist they believe in all of Calvinism. If you subtract one or two of the basic doctrines of the Reformed confessions how can someone really say that they believe in those confessions. Furthermore, where does someone draw the line? At what point does someone believe in too little of the Calvinist doctrines to be considered a Calvinist? For example, even Roman Catholics believe in Total Depravity, and within Catholicism the Thomists/Dominicans also believe in Unconditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints. However, I don't think that anyone would call Catholics "Calvinists." (actually some of the Roman Catholic critics of the Dominicans have, but it's really more of a derogatory epithet in that case.)



Just as an aside, It's refreshing to engage in a theological discussion in STR that presupposes the possibility of an authoritative source of Anglican doctrine.

 

[Albion]

What I mean is that they weren't incorporated with any of the authoritative formularies of the Church of England. I don't think they have ever been something that the clergy were required to affirm.

That's right, although all the formularies tend to support that general end of the Anglican spectrum.

Ok, this is making more sense, but I'm still confused about OSAS and Anglicanism. It would seem that part of the foundation of Calvinism is OSAS.

Yes.

Is there maybe some kind of middle view held by some Calvinists? How do Calvinists interpret the passages of Scripture that talk about falling away from God such as Hebrews 6?

I';m sorry but now we're getting away from "Why are there Anglicans who are Calvinists?" and entering "What is Calvinism?"

I'd recommend a visit to the Reformed forum for the best and quickest answer.

But isn't saying that Anglicans are either Calvinists or Anglo-Catholic kind of presenting a false dichotomy?

Probably. I never speak of the two parties in that way. I usually say Anglo-Catholic vs. Evangelical (or Protestant). Even the Anglicans I know personally who are of the sort you're inquiring about seldom refer to themselves as Calvinists. Occasionally, yes, but normally, no.

I.e. can't you be a Protestant and not be a Calvinist? I don't think that we would call Lutherans, Moravians and Methodists, "Calvinist" but I think that everyone would say that they are Protestants.

Among those Anglicans who do consider themselves to be Protestants--and many Anglicans vehemently disavow that word--there isn't much reason to refer to Lutherans, Moravians, etc. Those are faiths that tend to be "one of us or not." It's hard to be sorta like a Lutheran, for example. Calvinism, OTOH, influenced a number of other churches, including the RCC.

Another thing I wonder is if it is really possible to be a partial Calvinist.

There is a certain logic about the 5 points that suggests that one leads to the acceptance of all the others, yet I know (and it's not uncommon) people who agree to most of them but demur when it comes to one or two of them, for instance limited atonement. And then, as I said before, Calvinism is also famous for its polity and social perspective which hardly any Anglicans have any interest in.

If you subtract one or two of the basic doctrines of the Reformed confessions how can someone really say that they believe in those confessions.

They usually don't make any profession of agreement with the Reformed confessions. They usually just accept the theology inherent in the five points.

Furthermore, where does someone draw the line? At what point does someone believe in too little of the Calvinist doctrines to be considered a Calvinist?

There isn't any rule on this; the term is thrown around so loosely that it's almost like "liberal" or "fundamentalist" -- imprecise. But the Reformed and Presbyterian churches themselves would most likely say that to be a genuine Calvinist you have to subscribe to their three main creeds.

For example, even Roman Catholics believe in Total Depravity

I don't think that that's so. Total Depravity doesn't just mean Original Sin.

and within Catholicism the Thomists/Dominicans also believe in Unconditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints.

Really?

Just as an aside, It's refreshing to engage in a theological discussion in STR that presupposes the possibility of an authoritative source of Anglican doctrine.

LOL Well, you came about as close as possible in the OP. All that was missing was, perhaps, the Quadrilateral.

 

[RadixLecti]

That's right, although all the formularies tend to support that general end of the Anglican spectrum.

It really depends on how broadly you define that general end of the Anglican spectrum. If you mean monergistic salvation, then I think anyone familiar with the forumlaries would agree.

However, it sounds like there is a potential for faulty reasoning here. If we say that the Lambeth Articles reflect authoritative Anglican doctrine because they are an expression of the doctrine within the historic formularies, we are just assuming that they do in fact reflect the doctrine of the historic forumalries. However that is really what my OP was about: It appears that there is a discontinuity in the doctrine of OSAS (which is expressed in the Lambeth Articles) and the Homily on Declining from God.

How would you reconcile OSAS with that particular homily?

 

[Albion]

It really depends on how broadly you define that general end of the Anglican spectrum. If you mean monergistic salvation, then I think anyone familiar with the forumlaries would agree.

However, it sounds like there is a potential for faulty reasoning here. If we say that the Lambeth Articles reflect authoritative Anglican doctrine

I thought we'd gotten past that misconception. It's not that there is something that is clearly "authoritative," but that Low Church, Protestant Anglicanism once was "normative" or "typical." Anglicanism being what it is, of course you can find apparent contradictions and disconnects in our history, just as you can find the various parties or factions waxing and waning at different times in the history of the church.

 

[RadixLecti]

I thought we'd gotten past that misconception. It's not that there is something that is clearly "authoritative," but that Low Church, Protestant Anglicanism once was "normative" or "typical." Anglicanism being what it is, of course you can find apparent contradictions and disconnects in our history, just as you can find the various parties or factions waxing and waning at different times in the history of the church.

If you haven't read the homily from the 39 Articles that I posted, then you're probably missing my point.

 

[Albion]

If you haven't read the homily from the 39 Articles that I posted, then you're probably missing my point.

What IS the point--that no Anglican should believe any of Calvin's five points because there's a homily that seems to say that salvation can be lost?

 

[RadixLecti]

What IS the point--that no Anglican should believe any of Calvin's five points because there's a homily that seems to say that salvation can be lost?

The homilies are incorporated into the 39 Articles and express the historic authoritative doctrine of Anglicanism. I'm suggesting that Anglicans should not believe in OSAS because the historic Anglican formularies reject it. Since OSAS is such a significant part of the theological structure of Calvinism, Anglicans cannot truly be Calvinists in the pure sense of the word. That does not mean that they do not hold many things in common. It just means that the theology of Anglicanism and that of the Reformed confessions is not exactly the same.

Furthermore, when Anglicans say that they are "Prayer Book Anglicans" or that they hold to the historic Anglican formularies, but then refer to themselves as "Calvinist" (as opposed to Protestant or even Reformed) it is very confusing as to what they mean. Since a few of the basic doctrines are in contradiction, which ones do they reject? The Anglican ones, or the Calvinist ones?

 

[Albion]

The homilies are incorporated into the 39 Articles and express the historic authoritative doctrine of Anglicanism. I'm suggesting that Anglicans should not believe in OSAS because the historic Anglican formularies reject it. Since OSAS is such a significant part of the theological structure of Calvinism, Anglicans cannot truly be Calvinists in the pure sense of the word.

That's probably true, but we already covered that. Try and find an Anglican who believes in Calvin's views on church polity, for instance, which is almost as famous and distinctive as his views on salvation. If there were such an Anglican, we'd probably say that he isn't really an Anglican, so important is the episcopate to all Anglican churches.

So, in answer to your question, we could just note this fact and say that no Anglicans are Calvinists anyway. The problem is, of course, that the word Calvinist is commonly used in a very loose sense, so this wouldn't be the end of it.

That does not mean that they do not hold many things in common. It just means that the theology of Anglicanism and that of the Reformed confessions is not exactly the same.

Didn't we know that from the start?

 

[RadixLecti]

Didn't we know that from the start?

You asked:

What IS the point--that no Anglican should believe any of Calvin's five points because there's a homily that seems to say that salvation can be lost?

So I got the sense that you didn't.