Is it more accurate to refer to Anglican doctrine as Reformed, or as Patristic?

Thank you for the article. It gives an interesting historical perspective. I find interesting his view that the Anglicanism is the middle road between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Obviously many historians disagree (but this is of little importance to non-historians). Also, I find his defensiveness disingenuous at best. He worries so much about Calvinist evangelicals being kicked out. I guess this perspective comes from becoming a schism of a schism.

Surely, Calvinists (defined in the loose sense, rather than by Dordt) are not in any danger of being kicked out of TEC, ACNA or the Communion. Even 5 point Calvinists are a very large group within the Communion, and within TEC and ACNA. Perhaps the Archbishop is speaking about his own faith community (UECNA) or Continuing Anglicans in general.
==========================================================================

SOME THOUGHTS

The Anglican Communion has at least four major threads. None are leaving anytime soon. The Anglican Tradition is of course even more broad. No amount of studies of history (except perhaps those of biblical times) are going to convince one of the groups that they are not Anglicans. The Communion may be irreparably split, but not along the lines of Calvinist vs. Anglo-Catholic. And do I need to state the obvious, that evangelical Anglicans are not all 5 point Calvinists, or Calvinists at all. Whitefield did not have the field to himself. Wesley and the those who accepted his revised Arminianism were not a tiny minority, nor are they today, at least IMHO.

And, yes, there are many, many 21st Anglicans whose views are more Old Catholic, Lutheran or Methodist than 5-point Calvinist.

 

I agree. The liturgy and theology I have encountered in Anglican congregations is quite different from the liturgy and theology I have encountered in Reformed congregations. When we ask the "accurate" question of this thread--I think we should consider the present reality, more than historic roots.

...Scottish Monk

 

I can't imagine a significant number of Anglicans, today, espousing a "monergistic double pre-destinarian" theological argument. What portion of the AC would you say holds this view?

 

Scottish Monk,
You have a very valid and important point. There are many discussions and arguments over the different faces of Anglicanism throughout our history, and which movement represents "true" Anglicanism. Certainly, we are a Reformed Catholic Church in that we do not accept Papal authority; and we have been freed from some of the extreme doctrines of Rome.

In reality, our daily life is influenced most by that which is taught in our local Parishes. In my Parish, there is certainly more emphasis on the Patristics than the Reformed.

Anna

 

I think there are a total of 20 churches in the UECNA.

...Scottish Monk

 

There is a tendency in the people of God to focus on superficiality. The moment Moses left the crowd at Sinai, they turned to other gods! When the kingdom was at its height in Hosea's day, people focused externals such as temple devotions and making endless sacrifices, yet the prophet rebuked them for having nothing good in their hearts.

Christianity is really the only religion of the heart on Earth, I find. Islam says we can make ourselves acceptable in God's sight by the Hajj pilgrimage, by virtue, and by our own work, but not by internal regeneration first. Jewish sacrifice is well known on this subject. Christianity alone says that only God can truly make us acceptable in His own sight, by the holy highway of life that is His Son, through a great interior faith and a heart-felt love that is so great it acts out for all men.

The need to cling to labels is inherent in all of us. It is a fallen-humanity issue, not particularly an Anglican one. If we lose "Reformed", most evangelical Christians are sure a papist tyranny is about to begin. If we lose "Catholic", most Anglo-Catholics are convinced a Puritan anarchy is on the rise. There is no winning when it comes to such deep-rooted psychological effects - it's like the use of serifs in word-fonts: for most people, serifs bring a sense of dignity and authority, but they don't really know why.. Simple things affect so much...

I think it makes the most sense to call us Apostolic Christians. The Fathers affirmed the essential nature of the Apostolic tradition via the Scriptures, called themselves Christians, and to my eyes they look "reformed" - it's just that they did not have anything to reform because there were no tyrannies or anarchies within the Church at the time. Anglicanism must be positive in the end: Catholic, Patristic, Apostolic, Evangelical - not negative: reformed, protestant, dissenting, etc. Though the Fathers did teach what we can call Reformation doctrines, they were just "truths", to me. To identify our church by negative labels is to invite decline. Human beings need positive affirmation - we are not uplifted by a Baroque cathedral that isn't there, but by one that is.

 

Wandering in almost two years after the previous post ...

Reading through all the above reminds me of similar discussions I sometimes have read among Anabaptistic or Presbyterian Protestants when they're trying to decide if they are "evangelicals" or not. Like the discussion above, this other debate delves into the history of the word evangelical, especially in the American context. For what it's worth, I report to you that in mid-year of 2014 most of these serious, mere-Christians among the American Anabaptist or Presbyterian camp are increasingly reluctant to take the label "evangelical" to themselves, not because that word did not at some point in the past say something true about them, but because its meaning today has become so diffuse, so that the term gets applied to groups and theological agendas which are mutually exclusive and contradictory.

I hail from the "old" American evangelicals, and I deplore how that word is used today. Forty years ago, most of those who get away with using that term for themselves today would have been churched as heretics by those claiming the term for themselves back when I embraced the Christian faith in a serious way.

I count many friends, colleagues, and co-belligerents (many family members as well) among these non-Anglican American Christians in just about every discernible theological/ecclesiastical camp. And, again, for what it's worth, I report that the word "Reformed" (especially if that word is capitalized!) has become the term of art for a particular strand of American Presbyterianism that is also more or less synonymous with the current meaning of the word "Calvinist" when discussing systems of doctrine, particularly soteriological doctrine. Yes, there are those who style themselves Reformed Baptists, but that term is the exception that proves the rule that Reformed (especially when capitalized) names a specific strand of American Presbyterianism. Otherwise, the referent for that word will depend on the time in history under consideration, as the discussion above amply demonstrates.

The original poster asked if Anglicans are reformed. I certainly thought so from the very first time that I ever heard the Prayer of Consecration, and that in the 1979 American Prayer Book, Rite I: "[Jesus Christ] ...who made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world..." In the middle of the Reformational controversy whether about the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice, these words come down decisively on one and only one side of that controversy as it was engaged in that era. With a master of theology from a school judged by most to be a fountainhead of the most conservative of American evangelical camp, those words leapt from the page to convince me immediately that Anglicanism -- whatever else it was -- was reformed!

But, of course, I was hearing those words from the Prayer Book filtered through my seminary education.

 

Oooh I like that. Patristic.

 

Discussion in 'Philosophy and

To my mind there can be little doubt in the answer to the above question! The answer given to the question of Anglican Authority was that we , that is the Church, not the individual was based on Revelation, scripture and the teaching of the Greek Fathers of the patristic era and the Bishops in Council, i.e. The Ecumenical Councils. This idea, summed up in the Lerins quote, referred to by Archbishop Robinson, has been a unifying element, or thread through out our history!