Evangelical Anglicanism

Oh, you are quoting the 39 articles. Nice! I am exiting this conversation.

 

Maybe this is because we don't use pots over fires nowadays. Is the three legged stool, a modern version of the three legged Moabite cooking pot that Martin Luther use to go on about?

I would still like to read the bit about prayers for the dead in it. Can you reproduce it here please?

 

The Celebrant then says

The Lord be with you
People And also with you.
Celebrant Let us pray.
Silence may be kept; after which the Celebrant says one of the following
Collects

At the Burial of an Adult

O God, who by the glorious resurrection of your Son Jesus
Christ destroyed death, and brought life and immortality to
light: Grant that your servant N., being raised with him, may
know the strength of his presence, and rejoice in his eternal
glory; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one
God, for ever and ever. Amen.

or this

O God, whose mercies cannot be numbered: Accept our
prayers on behalf of your servant N., and grant him an
entrance into the land of light and joy, in the fellowship of
your saints; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and
reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for
ever. Amen.

or this

O God of grace and glory, we remember before you this day
our brother (sister) N. We thank you for giving him to us, his
family and friends, to know and to love as a companion on
our earthly pilgrimage. In your boundless compassion,
console us who mourn. Give us faith to see in death the gate
of eternal life, so that in quiet confidence we may continue
our course on earth, until, by your call, we are reunited with
those who have gone before; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

1979 BCP p. 493

From the 1928 BCP:
Burial

• "O GOD, whose mercies cannot be numbered; Accept our prayers on behalf of the soul of thy servant departed, and grant him an entrance into the land of light and joy, in the fellowship of thy saints; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen"

 

Thank you, but this sort of does prove my point. For most of Anglican history, prayerbooks in the Anglican tradition contained no prayers for the dead (and certainly not any Roman ones) until the 20th century. The Anglican who does not engage in this is well within the mainstream of the historic Anglican consensus on this issue.

Jim may I ask why just the mention of quoting of the Articles is so odious?

 

Go to Page 598, that I listed in the Book of Common Prayer. The prayer is printed there.

 

Perhaps the final paragraph of the Prayer "For the whole state of Christ's Church" is what some are trying to reference. This is what I was trained was the primary prayer for the dead in the 1928 BCP:

And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants de-
parted this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to
grant them continual growth in thy love and service, and
to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with
them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom. Grant
this, O Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, our only Mediator and
Advocate. Amen. (pp. 74-75)​

 

In fairness, Mark Earngey is from a particular school within Anglicanism, and whilst that may be good for some, it is not good for all. There are other views expressed, and I was going to use Bishop Stephen Pickard's Essay on the Church as the household of disagreement, and he is deeply read and very much into the Thought of Richard Hooker, however, he is hard reading and long.

This article on the web I think puts the case in a more balanced way. Hooker did not refer to a three-legged stool, however, the approach can be reasonably adduced from Hooker's writing and methodology. The mistake some make is to somehow deduce that they are equally important, and that is not true. They are all important, however Scripture without doubt apriori is the most important. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the concept, or simply to mislead.

 

Due to each Anglican church producing many since the 17th century, do you mind saying which one? The page number only helps if you mention which one.

The fact Mr Earngey is open about his stances doesn't quite diminish his history of this concept. Even if one were to deduce it from Hooker's writings, the stool formula (not a very good stool I imagine where one leg is dramatically larger and taller than the others) isn't the standard for Anglican belief and never really has been until the 20th century. The standard was quite simply the Anglican formularies.

Look if Anglicans dislike them or what to believe or practice things outside the consensus of the Anglican tradition go for it. Anglicanism has been rent by these issues for nearly 100 years and due to the lack of internal cohesiveness, has no real ability to police doctrinal or liturgical boundaries. But expressing shock at an Anglican clergyman saying pretty normal Anglican things (sola scriptura, not praying on behalf of the dead), or even being so against the mention of the Articles that the very concept sends them packing from a normal conversation about evangelical Anglicanism, seems strange in the extreme.

 

It is important to define what we mean by certain terms. Sola scriptura is a word with a lot of baggage for me. If you say that between church councils and other sources of Sacred Tradition, the Scriptures have the final say. Then I'd agree with you. However, there are many churches who claim "Bible only," but that is not possible since passages like John 6 will be viewed differently among different churches. That is because there is a theological framework or lens through which the reader is viewing it. How do Anglicans view the scriptures? Not the same as the Baptists or the non-denoms for sure. So, perhaps my understanding of Sola Scriptura was flawed and I was interpreting it as "Bible only." Do the ELCA Lutherans have the same understanding of Sola Scriptura?

 

I think a lot of the dislike of Protestantism and our solae comes from a reductionist (usually Baptist) understanding of them. Historically understood by Protestants - Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists alike - sola Scriptura means (I get that the mention of our authoritative Articles causes a bit of reaction but Article VI is a great summary of the following) that Scripture is clear, Scripture is sufficient and Scripture is the only infallible authority, not that tradition cannot be a guide to exegeting Scripture. But as Anglican martyr Lady (Queen) Jane Grey noted, "The Church must be tested by God's Word and not God's Word by the Church."

The "nothing but Scripture" is later, extreme extrapolation of the Reformed understanding of the regulative principle of Scripture and is ahistorical to the Reformation.

Dr Keith Mathison (PCA) has a great book looking at the patristic tradition of understanding the authority and role of the Scriptures vis a vis "tradition" compared to the later "nothing but Scripture" stance of some Baptists and evangelicals.


https://store.ligonier.org/shape-of-sola-scriptura-paperback

 

From what I can tell, Anglicanism has left praying for the dead open. Especially since some BCPs have them and some don’t.

As for Evangelical Anglicanism, credobaptism isn’t Anglican. Full stop. The Articles and our Divines affirm baptismal regeneration. To those trying to bring credobaptism and other Baptist nonsense into Anglicanism, the SBC church is down the street.

 

Every street corner where I live.

 

I don't see how you can say 'credo-baptism' isn't Anglican. The Anglican faith most certainly requires any adult initiate or baptismal candidate to make a confession of faith, and declare their allegiance to Christ and their renunciation of all that is evil. If these vows are taken on by God Parents at an infant's baptism, the child is assumed to be going to take such obligations upon themself at Confirmation of their baptism. An unconfirmed 'paedo-baptism' is speculative until confirmed, by the church and by the Holy Spirit. In order to be saved by 'faith' in God's grace, it is necessary for most individuals to confess with the lips and believe in the heart. Otherwise one's allegiance to Christ, one's life in the Holy Spirit and one's place and position in the church of Jesus Christ is merely presumptuous.
.

 

There are Anglicans who pray for the dead but the expression of incredulity or shock when people express the historic Anglican view that was the standard Anglican view until the 20th century seems very odd to me.

As far as credobaptism, I'm not sure there are really many trying to do so, certainly no one here. That's not really what evangelical Anglicanism is.

 

I wrote two responses ago that I was using page 598 from the Book of Common Prayer of 1928, published for us by the Anglican Parishes Association, Athens GA.

 

Except Anglicanism doesn’t teach that baptism is simply “speculative.” Article 27 from the 39 Articles:

Baptism washes away original sin as it’s a sacrament that’s a work of God.

EDIT: From the 1662 BCP baptism rubric:

The salvation of an infant after baptism is unquestionable.

 

Anglicanism doesn't TEACH anything about infant baptism, actually, in this article, and only even mentions infant baptism as an afterthought, without any theological reasoning explaining the grounds upon which it may be administered.
"Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New–Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God."

The above statement is, in my opinion, (and plainly to be understood by almost any other reader), speaking only of ADULT credo-baptism, in which an ADULT professes FAITH, which is then confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God, (which tiny infants are incapable of). Although 'Christian MEN' can be extrapolated to obviously include Christian WOMEN, since I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to suggest the text actually excludes women also, scripture making it clear as it does that women may also be baptised, it can't be stretched to include Christian babies when considering the context and content of the rest of the paragraph.

The paragraph however, by virtue of offering no theological justification whatever explaining the biblical grounds upon which infants may BE baptised, cannot apply to infant baptism, since FAITH cannot be confirmed or even ascertained in infants who have no means as yet of declaring their FAITH or confessing it to anyone but their maker, and we cannot even be certain that that has taken place. Infants are not baptised on the grounds of their own faith, but on the grounds of the faith in God's promises to the infant's parent(s) as regenerate believers in God's Grace and as Redeemed servants of Christ, concerning THEIR offspring.

"But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach); because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” Rom 10:8-13.

There must be plenty of 'baptised' infants, who throughout the rest of their lives have never once "called upon the name of the Lord" or understood what faith or salvation ARE or their need for either.

It is no wonder that our Baptist brothers and sisters in the faith fail to comprehend the Anglican, (and other denomination's) practice of baptising our infants, and leaving their confession of faith until confirmation, while in the meanwhile considering them full members of The Church of Jesus Christ. Which, of course, we believe them, as the offspring of believers, to be.
Held to be Holy, by God, as stated by Apostolic authority in Holy Scripture. 1 Cor.7:14.

The 'Afterthought' added to the preceding paragraph of Article 27. ie:
"The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. Baptism washes away original sin as it’s a sacrament that’s a work of God."

This 'afterthought' concerning the special case of the baptising of infants merely states that if a child should die before making a personal confession of faith at their confirmation, there need be no doubt that that child could be prevented by any original sin, from receiving all the benefits normally conferred by baptism upon their immortal soul.

What it does NOT say is that the infant/s are in no further need of understanding of and confession of FAITH in the Grace of God and the Atonement of Christ and that their salvation is therefore from then on absolutely assured.

In fact, what the Anglican service of baptism in the BCP states is THIS:

¶ Then shall the Priest say,

WE yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own Child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy Church. And humbly we beseech thee to grant, that he, being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness, and being buried with Christ in his death, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin; and that, as he is made partaker of the death of thy Son, he may also be partaker of his resurrection; so that finally, with the residue of thy holy Church, he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

¶ Then, all standing up, the Priest shall say to the Godfathers and Godmothers this Exhortation following.

FORASMUCH as this Child hath promised by you his sureties to renounce the devil and all his works, to believe in God, and to serve him; ye must remember, that it is your parts and duties to see that this Infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise, and profession, he hath here made by you. And that he may know these things the better, ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons; and chiefly ye shall provide, that he may learn the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's health; and that this Child may be virtuously brought up to lead a godly and a christian life; remembering always, that Baptism doth represent unto us our profession; which is, to follow the example of our Saviour Christ, and to be made like unto him; that, as he died, and rose again for us, so should we, who are baptized, die from sin, and rise again unto righteousness; continually mortifying all our evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in all virtue and godliness of living.

¶ Then shall he add and say,

YE are to take care that this Child be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and be further instructed in the Church-Catechism set forth for that purpose.

I would say that if this exhortation is so ignored that the child therefore receives NO instruction in righteousness and the Grace of God, nor is brought before a bishop for confirmation, then that child's salvation could most definitely be brought into question, as a covenant breaking renegade and an unworthy servant of Christ, neglecting their great salvation, to their own detriment.

 

Not sure how one can say Anglicanism doesn't teach anything on a practice that has been retained by the Church of England since the English Reformation. The articles call it "most agreeable to the institutions of Christ." In fact Tiffy's post goes on to quote many parts of our formularies that do in fact teach specific things about infant baptism. Not sure why we would run away from this, evangelical Anglicans do not.

 

I wrote: ‘Anglicanism doesn't TEACH anything about infant baptism, actually, in this article’, i.e. Article 27. And I went on to say, ‘it only even mentions infant baptism as an afterthought, without any theological reasoning explaining the reasonable grounds upon which infant baptism is administered.'

The Church in England has always accepted the infants of believers as being qualified for receiving baptism as a profession of Christian faith, just as it always did before it became the Church OF England. This article 27 however does not in any way say WHY it does so, and therefore cannot be quoted legitimately as any form of justification for the reasons the church continues the practice. Article 27 only actually describes the reasons the Church of England recognises credo baptism as the defining factor of our Christian profession. It adds as an adjunct, that the Church of England also recognises that infant baptism is "most agreeable to the institutions of Christ.", but doesn't say WHY.

As I am most definitely in favour of the C of E's continuation of this practice, (with some 'reformed' reservations), I look forward with anticipation to learning of the relevant Anglican apologies that you may know of, defending this practice and outlining the sound theological and biblical grounds for its continued use in the church. Perhaps our Baptist brothers and sisters could learn something from them too. I'm sure it will be edifying for us all to revise the reasons we believing Anglicans believe the Almighty actually requires us to baptise our infants, and bring them up in the fear and nurture of The Lord.
.

 

Pardon my misunderstanding then.

I'm not entirely certain it is an afterthought in the Articles. The only reason we could have to think this is that it simply is at the end of the article. It teaches that infant baptism is valid, to be practiced and thus we can conclude the truths about baptism in the rest of the article would apply to the baptism of infants.

Additionally the 1662 rite seems to say quite a lot about what happens when an infant is baptized so it would be quite strange to have a whole rite without any meaning imparted to it.

I think the best resources (in my opinion given this is a thread on evangelical Anglicanism) would be:

The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Baptism by Dr John Stott. Not very long, and very cheap online.

Also Lee Gatiss' essay (he edited the above book with Dr Stott), I think is quite helpful in elucidating classical Anglican theology on this question.