Hackney, you might want to look up what "explicitly" means. No where in either article is Lutheranism condemned. At most, the articles appear to differ, though in the case of Article 28, I would argue that the difference seen says more about the person interpreting than it does the actual text. But I think the rub is this, the prayerbook feels much more Lutheran while the Articles seem moderately Calvinist imho.
LL what about the articles seems calvinist? Most commentators who have looked at Protestant confessions have noticed our stark similarities with the Lutherans, especially the Predestination article. The Augsburg confession (and Thomas Aquinas, and many other Christians) have described it in almost the same terms, whereas it resembles none of the calvinist documents.
Dear Stalwart, Historically, there have always been both Lutheran (synergist) and Calvinist (monergist) influences in the Reformed Church of England. Even to this day. As for which of them is the correct position, scripturally speaking, I guess we'll both agree to disagree. My original point in this thread was just to highlight the Protestant nature of the English church.
Specifically Articles 28 and 29, which happen to be the 2 main articles I have trouble affirming. Hackney Hub's opinion aside, while I don't see where Lutheranism is condemned in the Aritcles, the Book of Concord rejects the Cranmerian formula of the Real Presence (as described in the 39 Articles) in Article VII of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, which it describes as Subtle Sacramentarianism, and which it says is more injurious than Zwinglianism. In contrast, the Lutheran formula teaches: 1) "We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union" and 2) "We believe, teach, and confess that not only the true believers [in Christ] and the worthy, but also the unworthy and unbelievers, receive the true body and blood of Christ; however, not for life and consolation, but for judgment and condemnation, if they are not converted and do not repent". Both of the ideas are at odds the Articles 28 & 29 in the Articles of Religion of the C of E. The English Articles appear to follow Calvin's thinking on a "pnuematic presence" as discussed in Chapter 17 of his Institutes of the Christian Religion (specifically in paragraph 19).
Please excuse me for interrupting this private subject between Anglicans, but as a lover of a church which comes from a culture that is a long-time friend of the English, it seems right to speak here. The Dutch were allied with England many times, but most strongly in the MDCCC century. Hopefully our words can be "allied" now. Anglicanism looks like it "protested" a claim of the Pope: that a bishop who was not the immediate local prelate of Henry (would this be the Bishop of London? Canterbury?) could actually withhold the Sovereign's marriage annulment. Parliament was angry at this denial of your sense of liberty and independence, perhaps, and voted to withdraw. Your churches existed on their own until 1552, then back to Rome, then resumed the split in 1560. In this way, you "protest" Roman claims, like the Orthodox are "protest"ants. You must take your symbolical faith, with your history. You are "pro testare", as "protestant", yes? You are for the Testament? In this sense every Christian is a pro-testant, ironically! It seems Anglicans would have called themselves "Protestant" from 1560 time until maybe 1840? Some of your writers, like Ussher or Taylor or Heylyn, speak of being "Catholic", because you kept bishops and respected the ancient writers. The P-word was used often by your Divines to say "Continental Reformed Churches", it looks like! Huguenots, Geneva, de Hervormde Kerk, Prussia, Hesse, Sachsen... all these fall under this term. Richard Baxter, the ultimate presbyterian of England, was not fond of this word "Protestant", even while being a big "Puritan" (another word he hated)! He tried to be part of the episcopal structure after 1660 restoration, so he was not against "Anglicanism". He said he is a "Mere Christian", and even in his 1680 book about bishop history, he says he is a "Catholic Christian"! Confusing!
Sorry Cross and Crook, but the Roman Church left us, not the other way around. We are not Protestants in any sense of the word. The Pope's legate excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople because he wouldn't give into the Pope's unreasonable demands.
Oh, I am thoroughly familiar with the Articles. And yet Anglicanism allows and contains a Zwinglian-memorialist belief. Maybe you should read the links I referenced.
You will, has it has been pointed out earlier on this thread, have to define what ,"Protestant,' means! At the time of the Reformation, Protestants were Lutherans who followed Luther in his new religion! The term used for Calvinists was 'reformed,' or maybe sectaries, even independents. Later on in Elizabeth's reign Protestant was adopted to define our separation from the political claims of the papacy regarding the English Throne. Regarding the usage of the term Protestant in Parliament in the early 18th Century, this was a definition written to ensure the succession of a Lutheran monarch after the take over by a Calvinist one, Orange ,backed by an army of occupation, which led to an enormous reduction in church life. Further you have to remember when that usurper asked the Anglican Synod, or Convocation, to use the term Protestant as a sop to the Dutch Calvinists, the High Church Convocation refused in spite of Orange's army of German & Danish Soldiers.
Again we come to the question of "What is Anglicanism?" High Churchmen were Anglican Catholics who held to the Revelation of Christ once made to the Saints.Recorded in scripture and explained ,interpreted and completed by the Fathers of the first Thousand years through the Seven Councils. It was the High Churchmen who defined the Anglican Church after the Calvinist attempt to usurp it or convert it to what later was defined as Protestantism.
Correct. But oddly enough, in Ireland, the Church of Ireland, whose members are mostly of English descent (as opposed to the Presbyterians who have Scottish roots), refer to themselves as "Irish Protestants", not "Anglo-Irish". And in the song The Galway races, there is a reference to people being drawn from all sectors of society: "The Protestant, the Catholic, the Jew, the Presbyterian". In this context for Protestant read Anglican.
A protestant is one who testifies on behalf of (Latin protestari) the Gospel. So EOs, RCs, Anglicans and other Christians, when they are ate their best, are all protestants.
Sorry for.not reading the whole thread, so if someone alread said this then my apology. Instead of asking what it is... Perhaps we need to define what it should be? The Anglican Communion is fracturing and looks likely to get worse if COE continues in their apostasy.
Sorry for.not reading the whole thread, so if someone alread said this then my apology. Instead of asking what it is... Perhaps we need to define what it should be? The Anglican Communion is fracturing and looks likely to get worse if COE continues in their apostasy.
The Church in England has never been theologically , 'Protestant.' For two thousand years it has followed the ,'Divine Revelation,' as taught to the Saints! Protestantism is a mish-mash of ideas from a collection of non-catholic sects, chiefly from Northern Europe at the time of the Continental Reformation. Now as then they are teachers of error and I feel no pain or shame in referring to these people as heretics. There have been people within the Anglican Church who have accepted and indeed taught false doctrines, but this false teaching been rejected by the Church at large and by people individually! The term has been used to denote opposition to the Papal attempts to encroach on Anglican Theology as well as Anglican Civil Liberties under both Eliza and the early Stuarts , but never by the Church through its Synods.