This post requires more writing and thought, but perhaps this can be a good springboard into further discussion: As an Anglican student at a Presbyterian seminary I received a fair amount of questioning from fellow students (and good-natured ribbing) that concerned my reason to attend my institution. One of the more fun discussions centered around the differences between the 39 Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). Generally, we contrasted the pastoral nature of the 39 Articles and the scholastic nature of the WCF, but specifically I found the differences at the beginning to be the most intriguing and the heart of the divide between Anglicans and the Reformed. 39 Articles Of Faith in the Holy Trinity There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. WCF - (From www.opc.org) Of the Holy Scripture 1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. The 39 Articles begins with the ontological foundation for the Faith (the Holy Trinity) and the WCF begins with the epistemological foundation (the Holy Scriptures). This difference highlights the pastoral/scholastic emphases mentioned above, but further demonstrates how binding divine authority is understood concerning matters like church polity. Both traditions agree that God the Father gives God the Son authority (by virtue of Christ's death and resurrection), who then gives it to the Apostles, who write Holy Scripture and teach the doctrines of Christ to the men who would eventually succeed them, and thus God propagates His Church through this process. To the Protestant, the Reformation was simply correcting the hierarchy of authority corrupted by Rome. The authority of Scripture must come first, but that does not preclude other medial authorities that define theological boundaries (Nicaea, Chalcedon, etc.), interpret Scripture, and feed the flock of Christ. (See Article XX) So far, I think that most of the Reformed would agree with me. Where Anglicans part ways with the Reformed is over binding authority. Anglicans receive the whole of the apostolic tradition that was passed down: Scriptures, Doctrines, and Structures (Scripture's authority being the highest- of course). God created the Church before the words of the Bible were enscripturated by the Apostles. People heard St. Peter preach and believed. To the Anglican, Scripture and Tradition flow from the same source- the Word made flesh. Thus, Anglicans are bound to the entirety of what was ordained by Christ, loosed by the Apostles, and embraced by the Church. Does this mean the Church cannot err? By no means! Holy Scripture is still the highest authority, and the Church is still made up of fallen men. What this does mean, is Christians should not shrink away from embracing what the Church universally embraced as a part of the apostolic tradition. The Reformed receive the Holy Scriptures as exclusively binding. The WCF is built from an exposition of Holy Scripture alone, hence the first chapter of the Confession. There is no mention of the historic creeds or councils, and we find that this entire system is expresses itself as true and binding because of its claims to be Scriptural. Thus we find the difference between the beginning of both documents. Anglican's say if x was given by God then it is binding, and the Reformed say that only the Scriptures are authoritatively known to be given by God by virtue of being His very words... More treatment of the Reformed view of tradition and authority forthcoming...
I have made no secret on the forum that I am opposed to Calvinism, however I accept that it played an important role in the creation of the 39 Articles and was the dominant theology of the Elizabethan Church. My sympathies however, lie more with the Caroline divines who attempted to return the Church of England to a more Catholic understanding of the faith, and we can see that understanding as well in the Henrician Church, which attempted to reform the English Church without adopting the new theologies germinating on the continent. I agree with the gist of your posting C.C.; Anglicanism is not based solely on sola scriptura, and it does look to the early councils, the Fathers, and Tradition for sources of its beliefs. The reason why the WCF and other such confessions ignore or neglect the councils of the early Church and the writings of the Fathers is because those sources provide little to no support for their theology.
Wonderful thoughts CC. An interesting, and dare I say, revealing difference in the ordering of articles between the AR and the WCF is that the former is firstly concerned with the ends while the latter is concerned with the means of divine knowledge. I prefer a number of things in the AR to the WCF, but the fact that the AR keeps the primary truth of the church primary makes the document logically and apologetically superior to the WCF.
The correspondence above is quite heartening, ,'but,' both the Articles and the W.C. F., should really be read in context of their times . The Anglican Articles are the product of two traditional Catholic Provinces of under siege from Calvinism and the New Rome of Trent. Both of which were a threat to the ancient Church in England The response of the Church was to draw a line in the sand beyond which the wild men on both sides, Roman & Calvinist, right & Left should not pass. The articles were not meant as a basis for a Church or new religion, while the Confession was an attempt to find away around the teachings of some 16oo years. It was a challenge that was put together by about Scots & English Presbyterians after the most base political campaign that turned into a war of extermination of the Anglican Church.
Hi Peteprint, A few items: 1.) I'm new here, so forgive my ignorance. When you say "opposed to Calvinism" do you mean Calvin's Genevan church, The Institutes (as a whole or in part), TULIP, etc? Definitions at this juncture will go far in helping us frame further discussion down the road. 2.) Concerning sola Scriptura - I think we agree here. What I mean is that the Scriptures must be viewed as the highest authority. All other authority - including the Church - must be submissive to the Word of God. What I think you're talking about here is solo Scriptura which plagues evangelicals today. I mean the crowd that claims scripture as the only authority (and thereby make themselves the masters of interpretation). 3.) Calvin quotes St. Augustine, and other Fathers almost ad nauseum. The Reformers understood themselves not as innovators, but as reclaimers of true catholic doctrine, as such, I do not think that the framers of the WCF didn't include Councils and Fathers because there was no support to be found in them, but rather they excluded them due to their intense dedication to build a systematic confession from Scripture alone (solo Scriptura). Cheers friend,
You said it better than I could (though it was past my bedtime when I posted ). The best parallel situation I can come up with to illustrate what I think to be happening between the AR and the WCF is the development of Christian canon, in that canonical books were received based upon orthodoxy and apostolicity.
I find that this issue is permeated by what seems to be the fundamental difference between the Anglican ethos and the Presbyterian ethos. The latter have a deep suspicion of man (particularly of men in the visible church!), while the former believe that there is great safety in the universality of the church's tradition, where universality exists. This difference seems to highlight a fundamental question: what is the ontological status of decisions made by the church? We Anglicans know the church can err, but we ascribe almost a sense of God-insipredness to decisions that find universal support in tradition. Presbyterians, I would imagine, cannot conceive of any ontological difference between what a particular Christian decides and what the church decides. While the former might be informed by greater wisdom, it does not enjoy any special ontological status. I don't mean to hijack your thread!, but what is the proper ontogical status of the decisions of the church?
Hi C.C. I will be very careful how I word this, since I don't want what I say to become divisive. Calvin quoted Augustine almost exclusively when it came to elaborating his theories, and even Luther has been quoted as saying that aside from Augustine the Fathers weren't worth much. I consider Calvinism to be false and I believe that it presents an unacceptable view of the Gospel and of the nature of God. All of the ancient Churches-Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East-were synergistic. Arminians, including those in Anglicanism, are synergists as well. The monergism of Calvin and Luther was an innovation and had never been the teaching of the universal, undivided Church, or of those Churches which came out of it. The reformers may not have seen themselves as innovators, but unfortunately, in many respects they were. Here are two articles that I feel shed some light on what I am trying to articulate: http://orthodoxbridge.com/calvin-dissing-the-fathers/ http://gnesiolutheran.com/table-talk-of-martin-luther-about-the-early-church-fathers/ I don't see where Calvin or Luther based their theories on the writings of the Fathers, and since Calvinism and Arminianism both exist in Anglicanism, it is almost unavoidable to debate them from time to time. However such debates usually lead no where and only encourage ill feeling, but this article does a good job of pointing out the dangers which I see in the Calvinist position: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/03/whats-wrong-with-calvinism/ Thank you for your gracious response to my earlier posting, and I trust you are enjoying this blessed season.
I agree with you PP, Calvin and Luther used the fathers when it suited their preconceived notions, but I can't say that either drank from the patristic well too deeply. Which is sad. Cranmer and Jewel are what Calvin and Luther could have been, had they been more serious in their appeal to the Fathers.
Thank you LL. What is really sad is that Luther felt he knew better than all the Fathers and the councils. I'll give Calvin his due; at least he employed St. Augustine well in support of his positions, but Luther seems to have essentially felt that all the Fathers were confused and he alone got it right. I disagree with Calvinism, but it is logically consistent. Lutheranism is riddled with contradictions.
In fairness we should note that Luther never aimed to sit and write down an entire and complete system of thought, unlike Calvin. He left it in the hands of high-level theologians like Philip Melanchthon and Martin Chemnitz who were greatly educated in the Fathers. I shouldn't forget to mention Illyrius Flaccius and his vast dozen-tomes history of the Catholic Church sourced by thousands of Patristic sources (The Magdeburg Centuries) striving to show the incursion of the Bishop of Rome into it. Men of this acumen formulated Lutheranism, not Luther. I believe he jokingly spoke about adding Melachthon's Loci Communes to the canon of Scripture, as only ye ol' Martin Luther could. Nothing he himself wrote, did he speak of in such esteem. But I believe we chaps are off-topic with all this in any case.
Agreed. This was meant to understand and discuss the difference between Reformed scholasticism and our thought as exemplified by the difference between the AR and the WCF. Thoughts?
Cranmer’s Crozier may also be amazed that Mormons believe that some chapters of the Westminster Confession seem to have been given to Alma the prophet in about 90 B.C. Compare the following. Both claim to give information concerning the state of man after death: "... the state of the soul between death and the resurrection..." (Book of Mormon, Alma 40:11) "... the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection..." (The Westminster Confession, chap. 32, as printed in The Confession of Faith: The Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Philadelphia, 1813) . Both state that the souls of men return to God after death: "... the spirits ... are taken home to that God who gave them life" (Alma 40:11) "... their souls ...return to God who gave them" (Westminster Confession 32:1) . Both claim that the righteous are received into a state of peace : "... the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness,..." (Alma 40:12) "... The souls of the righteous, ...are received into the highest heavens, ..." (Westminster Confession 32:1) . Both state that the wicked are cast out into darkness: "... the spirits of the wicked, ... shall be cast out into outer darkness;..." (Alma 40:13) "... the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, ...and utter darkness,..." (Westminster Confession 32:1) . Both state that the souls of the wicked remain in darkness until the judgment: "... the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, remain in this state, ...until the time of their resurrection" (Alma 40:14) "... the souls of the wicked.... remain in.... darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day" (Westminster Confession 32:2) . Both state that the soul will be united again with the body at the time of the resurrection: "... the souls and the bodies are re-united,..." (Alma 40:20) "... bodies ...shall be united again to their souls..." (Westminster Confessions 32:2) Of course there is the possibility of Joseph Smith plagiarising the Westminster Confession of 1729 when he wrote the (God given) Book of Mormon around 1830. It is known that his family had a copy.. You can try to point out these consecutive similarities to Mormons and ask why people in 1729 apparently came up with the same wording from 90BC. that wasn’t revealed until 1830 . I have tried to suggest to them that Smith was a fraud but their sites ban this sort of thing as they don’t want to encourage heretical ideas and modern errors, especially they do not want people to promote them. They also don’t want to foster activity that may lead to disunity within their religion. Or perhaps they just know their "correct" ideas won’t stand up to scrutiny. Ps. ignore the numbering system above, it seems to an artifact from my word for windows programme.