Forums Reformation Discussion

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by seagull, Dec 8, 2014.

  1. MWDavis

    MWDavis New Member

    Posts:
    19
    Likes Received:
    7
    Religion:
    High Church
    Why isn't dissent being allowed? That seems a bit silly. The majority of contributors here are what we'd call "orthodox Anglicans", and I've never noticed any liberal Anglicans becoming vitriolic.

    Let's be frank: this is an online forum. If it's closed off to the liberal establishment, the liberal establishment can easily ignore it. We, on the other hand, can't ignore the liberal establishment. The only hope this forum has to serve traditional Christian teaching is to engage with the wider Church.

    And why not? Again, the liberals here are no threat whatsoever, and the best discussion I've seen on this site have been those debates of orthodox vs. heterodox teaching—always polite, always learned, always extremely interesting.

    This forum runs the risk of not only being exclusive to the point of impotence, but becoming a bore for those select few who are allowed to remain. From one resolutely orthodox Anglican to another, please reconsider.
     
  2. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    76
    Likes Received:
    88
    As was said in the past, no discussion has been prohibited. Only promoting is prohibited, creating a sense that multiple views are compatible with the Anglican tradition and identity, when they are not.

    Please consider the fact that you have only recently joined. These forums in the past have been the ground zero for vitriolic, scorched-earth, mutually-destructive encounters. In this they reflect the larger Anglican Communion, which has been torn apart over the past 40 years by milquetoast identity and this complacency for heresy.


    The history of the 20th century and the destruction of the Anglican orthodoxy speak otherwise. Heresy is always mortally dangerous, and we have paid the ultimate price, for not thinking so.
     
  3. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    you make a salient counter point mwd. debate and discussion can be an ecellent tool for catechesis. Just as iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens man. On the other hand, i imagine the forums leadership recognizes a need to clearly define itself as a proponent of Anglican orthodoxy rather than a soapbox for anyone, even the heterodox, to ahead their ideas. may i suggest creating a forum category specifically for debate where orthodox Anglican stances can be respectfully questioned, with looser content rules, but also with the understanding that the ideas expressed there are not necessarily those of the forum.
     
    highchurchman likes this.
  4. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    76
    Likes Received:
    88
    A version of this is feasible depending on how Step 4, Forum Categories Reorganization, will pan out.
     
  5. MWDavis

    MWDavis New Member

    Posts:
    19
    Likes Received:
    7
    Religion:
    High Church
    @Phoenix, @Lowly Layman: I consider myself a grateful guest here, and whatever the administrators decide, what can I do but comply? But I hope I can be forgiven for voicing concerns that exclusion of dissent will make this forum less informative, less engaging, less interesting, and more impotent in the goings-on of the "real world". As Phoenix pointed out, I'm a new member; you would know better than I. So I'll defer to your better judgement.
     
  6. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    126
    Likes Received:
    45
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    If this is so, can I ask why womens ordination is pessumably against scripture. I ask because as 1 Peter 3:15 says " Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you"
     
  7. Anne

    Anne Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    183
    Likes Received:
    200
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglo-Catholic
    This is probably a good time for me to say that it's because of this forum's stand against liberal theology that I was convinced to join -- in a world where everything is tolerated, everything is a free for all, I am glad to have found this little place. There are countless other internet communities -- just look at the sheer number of Anglican groups on Facebook -- that do not practice this "exclusivity" (I call it discernment) so folks who want that are certainly not deprived...
     
    Andy, alphaomega, Paddry and 3 others like this.
  8. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    402
    Likes Received:
    186
    Anne likes this.
  9. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    411
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    I have a question: By these words, "consent to all, and every thing contained, and prescribed in", is it meant that we must agree with every word or phrase, and every Article in the Articles of Religion? For instance, I have a problem with the Calvinism in Article XVII.
     
  10. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Hi Rebel,

    I think you've raised a question that others are working through here on the forums. I myself do not feel I can assent unless and until I have sufficiently studied them to make an informed decision one way or the other. The problem I've run up against is that the versions of the formularies are foreign to the American manifestation of Anglicanism so I'm having to introduce myself to doctrines that heretofore were not at issue, including the black rubric and prayers to the monarchy in the 1662 BCP and certain articles at play in the 1571 AoR that we're stricken from the 1801 version.

    At any rate, I think this is an "all or nothing" proposition. It seems counterproductive to hand out pieces of the badge in proportion to the amount of doctrines you hold to.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2015
    Stalwart and Anne like this.
  11. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    411
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    Based on the issues I have, and on the issues you've stated, it looks like I might not be able to sign on to it.
     
  12. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Rebel, i would also point out that i don't see article XVII as being particularly Calvinist- at least, not as it is written. The predestination to life language is more closely identified with Luther than Calvin, who taught double predestination. The article appears to go only as far as the Holy Scriptures reveal but no further. It leaves open the question of predestination to hell and in fact appears to counsel against going down that road, stating: " for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation." As it stands I think the article, as written, is open enough to allow Calvinists, Lutherans, Arminians, and even Universalists to be able to sign on without giving up their scruples on the matter.
     
  13. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    So when you guys speak of totally subscribing to the 1662 BCP, do you mean the parts about the Monarch as well?
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  14. Anne

    Anne Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    183
    Likes Received:
    200
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglo-Catholic
    LL, I myself have flip flopped over the years -- originally I did not find them necessary but I am now convinced about the importance of 39. But I'm always studying (and remaining habits of Presbyterian thinking sometimes get in my way!). I can in good conscience sign my name to them. Here's to always learning!
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  15. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    76
    Likes Received:
    88
    Since we are a social and religious online community and not a State, we only aspire to attain to a unity of worship, not a unity of state and civil government. Consequently the Oath of Subscription by which we tie ourselves refers only to matters of religious and heavenly matter. Civil matters, constitutions and governments of State are left as Things Indifferent, res adiaphora.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  16. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    411
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    Thanks, LL!
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  17. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Thank Phoenix. As I read over the oath, it became clear that the assent was not to every jot and tittle of the formularies, but only " As it contains the holy formulas of our religion: The Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds; the Articles of Religion, sacred Anglican Rites and Rituals, the Church Catechism, and exhorts the Homilies". On those things , taken in their most catholic sense, I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why I signed on.
     
    Anne and Classical Anglican like this.
  18. highchurchman

    highchurchman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    706
    Likes Received:
    545
    Country:
    Britain
    Religion:
    Anglican/Catholic
    On the principle of dislike/ distrust, of the Articles? Friend, the articles are meant to be read and understood through the prism of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The same people who passed the Articles+ were, more or less, the same people who passed the affirming motions within the Convocation in 1572! ++The articles were an attempt to preserve the traditional Catholic Church in England and were intended to preserve a valid priest hood and to be seen as marks in the sand past which heresy wouldn't . or shouldn't go. These people, Anglicans' in a more violent position kept the faith and preserved the faith for us! We should beware not to look at the 16th, Cent and see it as the 21st! If you want an understanding of Anglicanism and the Articles , read CB,Moss, The Christian Faith.
    + It was their Grandchildren who opposed the Calvinist takeover of the Church 80 yrs later in the Religious wars in England, giving their lives for the Faith once Revealed. Remember Anglicanism is the Ancient faith! A Catholic Communion within the Body of Christ!
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2015
    Peteprint, Anne and Lowly Layman like this.
  19. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    411
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian

    LL, I have read a lot of your posts on here, and I find much common ground with you. Even when I disagree, I appreciate the manner in which you present yourself and your views. After reading your post above, seeing that your conscience will allow you to sign on, I will certainly reconsider doing that.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  20. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Thanks for your kind words Rebel!
     

Share This Page