Is your denomination based on Calvinism? Do you Care?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Is your denomination based on Calvinism?

Most Protestant denominations are based on Calvinism. Yours is probably amongst them, though it is surprising how few congregation members know what he taught or indeed how it affects them.

Main line Churches such as Anglican/ Episcopalian, congregational Methodist Presbyterian In deed most Protestant faiths have adsorbed his teachings into their confessions of faith.

However there are a few LiberalChurches, and indeed Liberal members and groups of liberals with in the Calvinistic denominations, who deny part or all of his teachings. However even such churches as liberal as the Unitarians are not totally untouched by some of his ideas.

Read through “what is Calvinism” “TULIP” and then discuss or debate what you think is true, reasonable, or false in regard to your own personal faith.

You can find more pro’s and con’s on this site.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/calvinism.htm


What is Calvinism: (I have removed the Biblical references, But they can be found in the version on the above site)

It is a series of theological beliefs first promoted by John Calvin (1509-1564), one of the leaders of the Protestant reformation. They were affirmed by the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619 CE) as being the doctrine of salvation which is contained in the Bible. It laid the foundation for Reformed Theology.
Calvinism is often summarized by The Five Points of Calvinism, which are easy to recall by using the acrostic "TULIP:"

T: This usually stands for "Total depravity:" This is often mistaken to mean that humans are all hopelessly, intensely sinful. Actually, it means something quite different: as a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God -- the Fall of Man -- sin has extended to all parts of every person's being: "his thinking, his emotions and his will." 1

Sometimes, this has been called "Total inability." This is the concept that it is impossible for the ordinary "natural" human to understand the Gospel's message. They are spiritually helpless. First, God must first decide to intervene in the form of the third personality within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the person is lost forever.


U: This stands for "Unconditional Election." This is the concept of predestination: that God has divided humanity into two groups. One group is "the elected." It includes all those whom God has chosen to make knowledgeable about himself. The rest will remain ignorant of God, and the Gospel. They are damned and will spend eternity in Hell without any hope of mercy or cessation of the extreme tortures. God made this selection before the universe was created, and thus before any humans existed. The ground or grounds that God uses to select the lucky few is unknown. What is known is that it is not through any good works on the part of the individual. It is not that he extends knowledge to some in order to find out who will accept salvation and who will not.

There is a degree of tension within the Bible concerning precise division of responsibility between God and humans on this matter. The Bible does not resolve this issue.

Hyper-Calvinists believe that a person has zero responsibility for their own salvation; it is all up to God.

Arminians teach that humans have free will and thus can accept or resist the call of God.

L: This stands for "Limited atonement" or "Particular Redemption." This is the belief that Jesus did not die to save all humans. He only died for the sake of specific sins of those sinners who are saved.

I: This stands for "Irresistible Grace:" This is the belief that every human whom God has elected will inevitably come to a knowledge of God. The elect cannot resist the call.

P: This stands for "Perseverance of the saints:" This is the "Once saved, always saved" belief -- that everyone who has been saved will remain in that state. God will begin and continue a process of sanctification which will continue until they reach heaven. None are lost; it is impossible for them to lose their salvation.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe that the bible has many passages that point to the concept of free will, and to the concept also that God gave His Son for ALL mankind - not just the chosen few. So when we read the passages that Calvin used to quantify his concept of predestination, we have to balance that concept with the OTHER passages.

Do these passages contradict each other - or do they complement each other? One of the reasons why there are so many different denominations of Christianity is because people tend to cherry pick their favorite passages and sort of ignore the others that don't quite fit their own personal agenda.

I don't believe that God contradicts Himself. But I DO believe that God is so complex and that He is so perfectly holy and just - that we as humans can't quite grasp the fullness of that holy justice. We continually try to apply our very limited perspective and understanding of what we think is smart, right, and good to God's perfection - and then we shake our fist in God's face when we don't get what we want or when we don't understand His will for our life, and for the world.

I said all that to say that I believe that predestination and free will, AS GOD STRUCTURES THOSE ELEMENTS, can work together in God's plan for salvation - for each of us individually, and for the world as a whole. Just because we don't "get it" doesn't mean that it's not an actuality. God clearly gives us passages that explore and explain both concepts - so they both must be elements of salvation - and who are we to ignore portions of God's Word? He gave ALL of the Bible to us to further our understanding of His will for our lives.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I believe that the bible has many passages that point to the concept of free will, and to the concept also that God gave His Son for ALL mankind - not just the chosen few. So when we read the passages that Calvin used to quantify his concept of predestination, we have to balance that concept with the OTHER passages.

Do these passages contradict each other - or do they complement each other? One of the reasons why there are so many different denominations of Christianity is because people tend to cherry pick their favorite passages and sort of ignore the others that don't quite fit their own personal agenda.

I don't believe that God contradicts Himself. But I DO believe that God is so complex and that He is so perfectly holy and just - that we as humans can't quite grasp the fullness of that holy justice. We continually try to apply our very limited perspective and understanding of what we think is smart, right, and good to God's perfection - and then we shake our fist in God's face when we don't get what we want or when we don't understand His will for our life, and for the world.

I said all that to say that I believe that predestination and free will, AS GOD STRUCTURES THOSE ELEMENTS, can work together in God's plan for salvation - for each of us individually, and for the world as a whole. Just because we don't "get it" doesn't mean that it's not an actuality. God clearly gives us passages that explore and explain both concepts - so they both must be elements of salvation - and who are we to ignore portions of God's Word? He gave ALL of the Bible to us to further our understanding of His will for our lives.

First off Kathryn, I am not sure what a liturgical Christian is, as most denominations follow a liturgical worship pattern. If you mean Your faith is based on worship, I go along with that.

As to Calvanism...
My first impression is that it has done great damage to the protestant cause.
I say this because although it is now thoroughly infused into protestant thought. It is sufficiently irrational to put off many thinking Christians. It has caused a massive number of breaks from, and subsets of most protestant denominations. It has caused many thinkers to leave Christianity all together.

Calvinism is based on arguments derived from a small number of texts and Ideas, taken to their ultimate conclusions. It never looks to justify itself by common reason.

Jesus was a "simple" teacher, he made his thoughts very clear so that the simplest listener could understand, for explanation, he used parables.
It does not take deep understanding of the scriptures or Theological argument to understand what he wanted of us.

If he had believed only a set number of us could find God he would have said so.
If he had believed that only those few prechosen by God could be saved he would have said so.

Calvin used his own construction of theological Argument to support his views about predestination, and our lack of ability to influence the outcomes.

It is accepted by many churches that God exists out side of time and is not restricted by it. I would agree with that.

God would see us not as a point in time, but a journey that branches and twists and is constantly changed by every other changing pathway. He could see many endings that are all equally true. It is known that time is not fixed and is influenced by both motion and Gravity, and probably many other forces, neither is time unidirectional. We can have no Idea how God visualizes this.
What is clear, is that it makes a nonsense of the concept of Predestination.

 

[Dunemeister]

As to Calvanism...
My first impression is that it has done great damage to the protestant cause.

Maybe, but what if protestantism was a lost cause from the beginning?

I say this because although it is now thoroughly infused into protestant thought. It is sufficiently irrational to put off many thinking Christians. It has caused a massive number of breaks from, and subsets of most protestant denominations. It has caused many thinkers to leave Christianity all together.

This isn't a problem with Calvinism. It's a problem with Protestantism.

Calvinism is based on arguments derived from a small number of texts and Ideas, taken to their ultimate conclusions. It never looks to justify itself by common reason.

Not so. Most Calvinist theologians attempt to do systematic theology where they demonstrate what they say is the plain meaning of scripture taken as a whole. Even Calvin himself did this through The Institutes of the Christian Religion. We might well question whether they are successful, but it is simply not the case that they are guilty of mere proof-texting a pre-existing philosophy. Besides, they also do attempt to show how their views comport with reason. Jonathan Edwards in The Religious Affections goes to some length to show how free will is incoherent toward arguing philosophically for a version of the I in TULIP.

Jesus was a "simple" teacher, he made his thoughts very clear so that the simplest listener could understand, for explanation, he used parables.
It does not take deep understanding of the scriptures or Theological argument to understand what he wanted of us.

<sarcasm>Right. That's why there's no controversy over what Jesus taught.</sarcasm>

If he had believed only a set number of us could find God he would have said so.
If he had believed that only those few prechosen by God could be saved he would have said so.

According to Calvinists, he did say so, if only indirectly. Most of what Jesus taught was indirect. Heck, even his messianic status, the very core of his teaching, was cryptically taught. Jesus was not some third-grade Sunday school teacher.

God would see us not as a point in time, but a journey that branches and twists and is constantly changed by every other changing pathway. He could see many endings that are all equally true. It is known that time is not fixed and is influenced by both motion and Gravity, and probably many other forces, neither is time unidirectional. We can have no Idea how God visualizes this.
What is clear, is that it makes a nonsense of the concept of Predestination.

Well, it's not clear to me. Nor is it clear to me that predestination means what the Calvinist says it means. Importantly, Christians MUST believe in predestination. The question is what the term actually means. And it's not clear to me that your metaphysical musings on time causes any discomfort for either a Calvinistic or Arminian understanding of predestination. If it does, it will require more argument than you have provided thus far.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Maybe, but what if protestantism was a lost cause from the beginning?
This isn't a problem with Calvinism. It's a problem with Protestantism.
Not so. Most Calvinist theologians attempt to do systematic theology where they demonstrate what they say is the plain meaning of scripture taken as a whole. Even Calvin himself did this through The Institutes of the Christian Religion. We might well question whether they are successful, but it is simply not the case that they are guilty of mere proof-texting a pre-existing philosophy. Besides, they also do attempt to show how their views comport with reason. Jonathan Edwards in The Religious Affections goes to some length to show how free will is incoherent toward arguing philosophically for a version of the I in TULIP.
<sarcasm>Right. That's why there's no controversy over what Jesus taught.</sarcasm>

According to Calvinists, he did say so, if only indirectly. Most of what Jesus taught was indirect. Heck, even his messianic status, the very core of his teaching, was cryptically taught. Jesus was not some third-grade Sunday school teacher.

Well, it's not clear to me. Nor is it clear to me that predestination means what the Calvinist says it means. Importantly, Christians MUST believe in predestination. The question is what the term actually means. And it's not clear to me that your metaphysical musings on time causes any discomfort for either a Calvinistic or Arminian understanding of predestination. If it does, it will require more argument than you have provided thus far.

Thanks for your reply
However you are clearly a student of calvin.
As you can see, it is a belief I find not only untrue but loathsome.
So there is little point in debating this with you, as our view points are too far apart for such a discussion to be fruitful.

I never thought that Calvin was mere proofreading, he was very learned and persuasive, and constructed a complex and logical but ultimately erroneous Model.
What he did was akin to what biblical students do when they predict the date for the end of times, or the creation of the world.

Any person in the Crowd listening to Jesus, would have had no difficulty understanding what he taught.... It only becomes difficult or contraversial when you try to fit it into a preconcieved theological model.

I find these two statements compelling

the teaching of Christ must take precedence over the doctrines of a later time, and
Christian unity is to be sought, not in the uniformity of creed but in a common standard of duty and adherence to the commandments set out in the Holy Bible.

 

[Dunemeister]

Thanks for your reply
However you are clearly a student of calvin.

You are clearly presumptuous.

As you can see, it is a belief I find not only untrue but loathsome.
So there is little point in debating this with you, as our view points are too far apart for such a discussion to be fruitful.

That's because of your presumptuousness, not because of any philosophical position I hold.

I never thought that Calvin was mere proofreading, he was very learned and persuasive, and constructed a complex and logical but ultimately erroneous Model.
What he did was akin to what biblical students do when they predict the date for the end of times, or the creation of the world.

You'll have to argue for this, not merely affirm it.

Any person in the Crowd listening to Jesus, would have had no difficulty understanding what he taught.... It only becomes difficult or contraversial when you try to fit it into a preconcieved theological model.

Well, that's plainly false. People of Jesus' day found Jesus' teaching confusing and controversial. Hence the controversies we see in the gospels themselves. And if it was so for them, why should it be any different at 2000 years and 5000 miles remove?

I find these two statements compelling

the teaching of Christ must take precedence over the doctrines of a later time, and
Christian unity is to be sought, not in the uniformity of creed but in a common standard of duty and adherence to the commandments set out in the Holy Bible.

Incoherent. In the first place, tradition is crucial to understanding what Christ taught (what Christ taught is in fact only part of the church's tradition). In the second place, if you seek "a common standard of duty" you must have at least some form of common ideology. Ideology and ethics cannot be so neatly parsed.

(I thought I was on hiatus....)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You are clearly presumptuous(

as you were supporting your view with argument, I presumed you had studied the subject... tell me I am wrong, so that I might take your words less seriously.

That's because of your presumptuousness, not because of any philosophical position I hold.

True ,I know nothing of your philosophical position.

You'll have to argue for this, not merely affirm it

Affirmation is a normal standard for stating a belief, I would be happy for you to demonstrate your alternative view.

Well, that's plainly false. People of Jesus' day found Jesus' teaching confusing and controversial. Hence the controversies we see in the gospels themselves. And if it was so for them, why should it be any different at 2000 years and 5000 miles remove?

We disagree about that, it was certainly controversial. It led to his crucification.

The Gospels are rarely speaking about first hand experience. Fortunately the meaning of parables does not change either with retelling nor with translation. though sometimes context is important. As Jesus was speaking directly to the people the question of context did not arise for them. Unlike us they were used to being taught in the form of parables It was the normal tradition of that time.

If you are maintaining every thing in the Bible is the true word of God, our ways part.

Incoherent. In the first place, tradition is crucial to understanding what Christ taught (what Christ taught is in fact only part of the church's tradition). In the second place, if you seek "a common standard of duty" you must have at least some form of common ideology. Ideology and ethics cannot be so neatly parsed.

That is not the view of the denomination that makes that statement of faith.

Unlike other churches, they are quite happy to invite preachers with other points of view to their pulpits.

 

[Kathryn]

When I say that I am a "liturgical Christian" I mean that I observe the Liturgical Year. As a Christian who has been very much exposed and active in many, many Christian sects, I have to disagree with the assertion that most active Christians are liturgical.

Let me explain that further, and give you an idea of my perspective. Throughout my entire childhood, my father worked for The Navigators, which is a non denominational Christian ministry that focuses on military personnel, rather like Campus Crusade. His position was a regional director, which meant that he was responsible for training community and team leaders. So at any given time, we had 3 to 6 young men and women living in our home for the express purpose of learning disciplined study (and how to teach from that study) of the bible and history. Since they were active duty military, they were of definitely a mixed bag of races, backgrounds, and Christian sects.

Consequently, our family ended up visiting and interacting with a wide variety of Christian churches and denominations, though our "home church" was Presbyterian.

As you know, most Presbyterian churches are very liturgical in practice.

However, my experience is that a huge chunk of American Protestantism (and independent sects who would not label themselves even as Protestant) do NOT observe the liturgical year - other than, of course, Christmas and Easter. There are hundreds of thousands of church-going Christians who have literally never heard of Advent or the Stations of the Cross or Maundy Thursday, and who would have no idea what different colors of vestments or Ordinary Time symbolize. A huge chunk of them would absolutely refuse to recite the Apostle's Creed because they consider it "the tradition of men," and think that it's a vow to be faithful to the Roman Catholic Church!

I know I'm straying off the topic of Calvin - but not really. I'm just walking around it in a circle! Please bear with me!

As an adult, as I explored my own personal faith and developed my own set of beliefs, I slowly began to nearly LOATHE Calvin and Luther. I had cut my teeth on TULIP and always had felt that something was missing from that equation. I love the disciplined approach to Christianity that Calvin espoused, but I think his overall approach and his teachings were a kneejerk reaction to the corruption of the RCC at the time, and general sociological and even political shifts during that time of upheaval.

The Reformation was needed - but the splintering of the Church into over 30,000 factions is to me one of the saddest tragedies of our history.

As an adult studying the bible and history, I began pulling away from what I would term "hardline Protestantism," and I began to develop a lot of respect for the early Church fathers. Eventually I converted to Catholicism, even though at the time, I realized that this move might not be permanent. I had a feeling that as I delved deeply into RCC teachings I might eventually come across something I couldn't get my head around, and yes, that was the case - after about five years. So though I am no longer a practicing Roman Catholic, I still think they're one of the best gigs in town. I now attend a very traditional Methodist church.

Actually, the RCC teachings on predestination and free will were one of the main attractions to Catholicism for me. I still believe that what they teach is a much more balanced approach to the topic than Calvinism's approach.

The logical conclusion of Calvinism is pretty scary. Basically, if you run that line all the way out - why would a Christian even have to ever ask God for forgiveness again, past that one point of conversion (which they didn't control anyway)? What does it matter? You're either saved or you're doomed to hell. It doesn't really matter WHAT you do.

See, I don't believe at all in that "once saved, always saved" approach. I think that whole line of reasoning has wreaked havoc in contemporary Christianity.

I know I am simplifying things, and we can get into the finer points as the conversation develops, but I also think that hardline Calvinism puts too much emphasis on Paul and his western approach to things, and too little emphasis on Jesus, and His more eastern approach. I swear, a person walking into the typical Presbyterian church would believe that the congregation worshipped Paul and that Jesus was one of his disciples!

 

[rojse]

I always thought when I saw Calvinism in the "Religion" tag, it referred to the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip.

 

[Dunemeister]

as you were supporting your view with argument, I presumed you had studied the subject... tell me I am wrong, so that I might take your words less seriously.

I have, but I'm not a "student" of Calvin if by "student" you mean "devotee."

We disagree about that, it was certainly controversial. It led to his crucification.

And there were also debates about what he taught, even among his first followers. The early church had to work through in painstaking detail what he meant by what he said. Hence the debates about doceticism, gnosticism, patropassionism and all the rest. All these and more represented, at least in part, the need to carefully study what Jesus said to discern its meaning. If it were as obvious as you say it was, there shouldn't have been any debate. Or at least, the debates would be about points of detail, not fundamentals, but as we see from history, there was a lot of debate even about the fundamentals. They had to be worked out.

The Gospels are rarely speaking about first hand experience. Fortunately the meaning of parables does not change either with retelling nor with translation. though sometimes context is important. As Jesus was speaking directly to the people the question of context did not arise for them. Unlike us they were used to being taught in the form of parables It was the normal tradition of that time.

The question of meaning within that context was still relevant. And the gospels themselves state that he spoke in parables in order to CLOAK his teaching, not CLARIFY it. The whole point of using parables is to obscure what you're trying to say. The reason to do this was in part to avoid people drawing the messianic conclusion too early.

If you are maintaining every thing in the Bible is the true word of God, our ways part.

I never said this. Why do you even bring this up?

That is not the view of the denomination that makes that statement of faith.

Okay.

 

[Mr Cheese]

First off Kathryn, I am not sure what a liturgical Christian is, as most denominations follow a liturgical worship pattern. If you mean Your faith is based on worship, I go along with that.

As to Calvanism...
My first impression is that it has done great damage to the protestant cause.

Anglicans arent arguably Protestants....
they are catholic lite....

Calvinism is a wonderous exscuse and source of bigotry imo

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

When I say that I am a "liturgical Christian" I mean that I observe the Liturgical Year. As a Christian who has been very much exposed and active in many, many Christian sects, I have to disagree with the assertion that most active Christians are liturgical.

Let me explain that further, and give you an idea of my perspective. Throughout my entire childhood, my father worked for The Navigators, which is a non denominational Christian ministry that focuses on military personnel, rather like Campus Crusade. His position was a regional director, which meant that he was responsible for training community and team leaders. So at any given time, we had 3 to 6 young men and women living in our home for the express purpose of learning disciplined study (and how to teach from that study) of the bible and history. Since they were active duty military, they were of definitely a mixed bag of races, backgrounds, and Christian sects.

Consequently, our family ended up visiting and interacting with a wide variety of Christian churches and denominations, though our "home church" was Presbyterian.

As you know, most Presbyterian churches are very liturgical in practice.

However, my experience is that a huge chunk of American Protestantism (and independent sects who would not label themselves even as Protestant) do NOT observe the liturgical year - other than, of course, Christmas and Easter. There are hundreds of thousands of church-going Christians who have literally never heard of Advent or the Stations of the Cross or Maundy Thursday, and who would have no idea what different colors of vestments or Ordinary Time symbolize. A huge chunk of them would absolutely refuse to recite the Apostle's Creed because they consider it "the tradition of men," and think that it's a vow to be faithful to the Roman Catholic Church!

I know I'm straying off the topic of Calvin - but not really. I'm just walking around it in a circle! Please bear with me!

As an adult, as I explored my own personal faith and developed my own set of beliefs, I slowly began to nearly LOATHE Calvin and Luther. I had cut my teeth on TULIP and always had felt that something was missing from that equation. I love the disciplined approach to Christianity that Calvin espoused, but I think his overall approach and his teachings were a kneejerk reaction to the corruption of the RCC at the time, and general sociological and even political shifts during that time of upheaval.

The Reformation was needed - but the splintering of the Church into over 30,000 factions is to me one of the saddest tragedies of our history.

As an adult studying the bible and history, I began pulling away from what I would term "hardline Protestantism," and I began to develop a lot of respect for the early Church fathers. Eventually I converted to Catholicism, even though at the time, I realized that this move might not be permanent. I had a feeling that as I delved deeply into RCC teachings I might eventually come across something I couldn't get my head around, and yes, that was the case - after about five years. So though I am no longer a practicing Roman Catholic, I still think they're one of the best gigs in town. I now attend a very traditional Methodist church.

Actually, the RCC teachings on predestination and free will were one of the main attractions to Catholicism for me. I still believe that what they teach is a much more balanced approach to the topic than Calvinism's approach.

The logical conclusion of Calvinism is pretty scary. Basically, if you run that line all the way out - why would a Christian even have to ever ask God for forgiveness again, past that one point of conversion (which they didn't control anyway)? What does it matter? You're either saved or you're doomed to hell. It doesn't really matter WHAT you do.

See, I don't believe at all in that "once saved, always saved" approach. I think that whole line of reasoning has wreaked havoc in contemporary Christianity.

I know I am simplifying things, and we can get into the finer points as the conversation develops, but I also think that hardline Calvinism puts too much emphasis on Paul and his western approach to things, and too little emphasis on Jesus, and His more eastern approach. I swear, a person walking into the typical Presbyterian church would believe that the congregation worshipped Paul and that Jesus was one of his disciples!

I could give you a Hug..
I had not realised that churches had moved so far from observing the Church year.

There is almost nothing you have said that I disagree with.
I do have trouble even with the Catholic version of Predestination. Though it is more pragmatic.

However there are things you don't talk about that we well might differ on.
The main one being the importance of understanding/believing the nature of the Trinity. I am increasing coming to agree with the thoughts of Servetus, though I would be happy to leave it as a mystery with out explanation.

I love the Yearly cycle of worship in the Anglican Church it gives both structure and comfort. The services and customs are not unlike the Catholic ones. (in some parts Identical)

I am putting up a "new thread" soon on Heretics, which covers in some way your point about the myriad growth of protestant churches.

If the minimal theology of the Non Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland could be combined with the Anglican Church I would be happy as a sand boy.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Anglicans arent arguably Protestants....
they are catholic lite....

Calvinism is a wonderous exscuse and source of bigotry imo

The Anglican confession of faith is based entirely on calvanism.
Its form of service is indeed very Catholic like.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I always thought when I saw Calvinism in the "Religion" tag, it referred to the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip.

I would expect nothing else from you

 

[Dunemeister]

The Anglican confession of faith is based entirely on calvanism.
Its form of service is indeed very Catholic like.

Anglicans don't have a "confession of faith" (apart from the ecumenical creeds that it shares in common with all traditional churches) and the Anglican church is not confessional. They have the 39 articles, but traditionally, the Anglican church has stood very loosely with those. Following the articles is not a test for orthodoxy within Anglicanism. If it were, the debates currently raging within the church wouldn't have been possible.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Anglicans don't have a "confession of faith" (apart from the ecumenical creeds that it shares in common with all traditional churches) and the Anglican church is not confessional. They have the 39 articles, but traditionally, the Anglican church has stood very loosely with those. Following the articles is not a test for orthodoxy within Anglicanism. If it were, the debates currently raging within the church wouldn't have been possible.

This is a link to the Westminster confession of faith The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
This takes you to the official Anglican 39 Articles
Anglican Communion Information Service - The Thirty Nine Articles

They are both are very similar and loosely called confessions of faith. They are still taught leading up to confirmation.

The Church of England is a state religion and subject to the queen and parliament.

Bishops are still appointed by the prime minister.

Priests are still obliged to submit to the confession.
However according to our local priest this is not always insisted on in practice.

Again, in practice, the combined houses of the Synod make its own rules. though some have to be ratified by parliament.

It was only in the 1800's that we were no longer subject to imprisonment for being a Unitarian. That applied to all protestant faiths in the UK, not just Anglicans.

The Church of England does not recognize Unitarians to be Christian at all, even more so since the association with the UU's

However the Non subscribing Presbyterians are some what different, and not officially or necessarily unitarian as they have no Dogmas. (though many members would subscribe to the Unitarian belief emanating from Servetus.)

It is true the Anglican faith is a very broad one and these days, does not ask many questions of its members... this is how I can remain a member whilst holding quite Heretical views (fortunately for me Heretics are no longer executed).

The African Anglicans are indeed pressing the case for greater orthodoxy, and as they outnumber the other Anglican churches, there are problems ahead.

Personally I would be very happy for the liberal wing to win out (or continue in its own sweet way), provided we keeep the traditional Liturgy.

 

[rojse]

I would expect nothing else from you

For once, I'm not joking. The first time I encountered that tag, it was accompanied by a Calvin avatar. What was I supposed to think, Terry? What was I supposed to think?

 

[Kathryn]

However there are things you don't talk about that we well might differ on.
The main one being the importance of understanding/believing the nature of the Trinity. I am increasing coming to agree with the thoughts of Servetus, though I would be happy to leave it as a mystery with out explanation.

Since the Trinity and the - dang it, I can't think of the word (starts with an I, I think and means Christ as God in the flesh), anyway (grrr) the divinity of Jesus Christ is such a great mystery, I am with you, to the extent of saying that it's such a mystery that our minds may not be able to fully grasp the concept and all of it's ramifications.

Wow, that was a terrible sentence. Sorry about that!

There are thing like the Trinity, the virgin birth, and WHY God required a sacrifice for our sins, that fall into that mystery category for me. The issues in that category are not tossed aside for me, but on these issues I pray for more understanding, and I am content to wait for God's timing on the answers.

After all, God is not a vending machine. He is the Creator of the universe, and just because I shake my fist in His face and demand answers doesn't mean that He is obliged to answer me right away.

However, I have found over my lifetime that when I sincerely seek wisdom, God in His perfect timing leads me to that wisdom. I believe that is a promise given us in His Word, and that He keeps His promises.

 

[Kathryn]

INCARNATE - as in the Incarnate Word!

And by the way, Terry, hugs to you too! "Fellow seeker..."

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Since the Trinity and the - dang it, I can't think of the word (starts with an I, I think and means Christ as God in the flesh), anyway (grrr) the divinity of Jesus Christ is such a great mystery, I am with you, to the extent of saying that it's such a mystery that our minds may not be able to fully grasp the concept and all of it's ramifications.

Wow, that was a terrible sentence. Sorry about that!

There are thing like the Trinity, the virgin birth, and WHY God required a sacrifice for our sins, that fall into that mystery category for me. The issues in that category are not tossed aside for me, but on these issues I pray for more understanding, and I am content to wait for God's timing on the answers.

After all, God is not a vending machine. He is the Creator of the universe, and just because I shake my fist in His face and demand answers doesn't mean that He is obliged to answer me right away.

However, I have found over my lifetime that when I sincerely seek wisdom, God in His perfect timing leads me to that wisdom. I believe that is a promise given us in His Word, and that He keeps His promises.

I think the word you were hunting is "Ingenerate"; In other words Jesus was there from the beginning and of the same essence as God. The whole argument started with and continues around this problem. I find it astonishing that the argument became so important and Has raged so long.

There is no doubt Jesus considered God, his father, was other than himself. That is good enough for me.
That leaves me with One GOD and His Son and the Holy ghost, who are in inextricably linked, but in a way I can not imagine.

The question of the Virgin birth is indeed a mystery but no greater one than God himself. (Scientifically that would seem to be impossible, but again, not more so than God Himself.) I do not think the virginity or otherwise of Mary, changes the nature or teachings of Jesus at all.

The Early church was faced with the fact that Jesus had been crucified.
The disciples were aware that he had predicted this, and that he would rise again. What they did not know was why this had had to happen.

When this actually happened they were somewhat taken aback and there was, at first, some doubts in their mind that he had indeed returned.

It was only then, that questions as to why this had happened, required answers.
The answer that they provided was that he had died as a sacrifice for their sins.
From then on, a whole complex theology was developed, that combined the Jewish story of Adam and Eve and the concept of original sin. (they thought they were to blame)

Personally I would rather it were left at the point where Jesus was resurrected and had once again taught them, before returning to God.

He had previously stated in his teachings how or when our sins would be forgiven. It needed no further complications.

His Crucifixion was certainly a sacrifice, its purpose was sufficiently mysterious for him to doubt its need himself. But he knew it was God's will. I have no need to pursue the matter further than he did.

However what the Crucifixion did achieve, indirectly, was a reinforcement that what he said and taught was true.

We now knew that Jesus had come from God ... that what he taught, was from God... and that he had returned to God.

He had given us faith and a path to follow.

As you say God keeps his promises...

Since those times all theology has done is to complicate matters and cause division.
I know it is nice to arrive at profound answers. But they are not necessary to faith.

However we already know all we need to know, to be Christians of Equal worth.

Sorry that was a bit heavy..... but what you can expect from a heretic.