Puritan Board Anglicans

[AV1611]

It is quite encouraging to see more Anglicans here on Puritan Board. Do you (we) believe that confessing episcopacy defies the Reformed faith? I for one do not

Have you read Ussher's The Reduction of Episcopacy unto the Form of Synodical Government Received in the Ancient Church?

[Semper Fidelis]

Richard,

It is important to keep in mind that Anglicans are welcome here by exception as the 39 Articles, in itself, is not a sufficient Confession to warrant membership here. We allow Anglicans on an exception basis per the rules.

I know some will find this uncharitable no matter what I say but I'm simply pointing out the guidelines.

The Anglicans that are allowed membership here either already fully confess one of the required confessions or are deemed to be on a trajectory to that end. I personally find Anglicans to be interesting. Theologically, Presbyterians are closer to Anglicans than Lutherans and I've been very blessed by the theological knowledge of the Anglicans we have here.

[AV1611]

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Richard,

It is important to keep in mind that Anglicans are welcome here by exception as the 39 Articles, in itself, is not a sufficient Confession to warrant membership here. We allow Anglicans on an exception basis per the rules.

I know some will find this uncharitable no matter what I say but I'm simply pointing out the guidelines.

I fully accept that.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

The Anglicans that are allowed membership here either already fully confess one of the required confessions or are deemed to be on a trajectory to that end.

I would be suprised if you could find any substantive issue with our Articles of Religion the Lambeth Articles and the Canons of Dordt (English bishops were present at this synod). These are a clear statement of my faith.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Theologically, Presbyterians are closer to Anglicans than Lutherans and I've been very blessed by the theological knowledge of the Anglicans we have here.

Glad to hear it! I am always blessed by the theological knowledge of the Presbyterian, Reformed and Baptist brethren here on PB.

[etexas]

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Richard,

It is important to keep in mind that Anglicans are welcome here by exception as the 39 Articles, in itself, is not a sufficient Confession to warrant membership here. We allow Anglicans on an exception basis per the rules.

I know some will find this uncharitable no matter what I say but I'm simply pointing out the guidelines.

The Anglicans that are allowed membership here either already fully confess one of the required confessions or are deemed to be on a trajectory to that end. I personally find Anglicans to be interesting. Theologically, Presbyterians are closer to Anglicans than Lutherans and I've been very blessed by the theological knowledge of the Anglicans we have here.

Good point and yes..........Anglicans ARE closer to Presbyterians than Lutherans and indeed some groups of Baptist. As to Rich the 2nd(chuckle) question, yes, I do think an Episcopal structure is quite Biblical. Not an issue so much as defying the Reformed view, I am more afraid of defying what is based in Scripture.

[AV1611]

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

yes, I do think an Episcopal structure is quite Biblical.

How do you defend it?

[etexas]

Originally Posted by AV1611

How do you defend it?

Firstly you must understand I accept the AV Bible to be the preservation of God's word in English, from there I point to Passages such as:Phil.1.1,,1Pe.2.25 and 1Tim.3.1 AC.1.20. I feel that quite early the Church to one degree or another was developing into an Episcopal goverment. Having stated such, I would like to intercept at least one argument, I feel it is a great system of Church Goverment (at least when it works, it works well ) Now, I do not feel the issue is one of salvation. I am not saved because I have Bishops, one is not lost without them, again it is just my take on the Holy Writ, and Tradition. Grace and Peace.

[Exagorazo]

*Anglican on the road to Presbyterianism for ecclesiological reasons*

I love being an Anglican in Sydney, but as soon as I'm out of here, its either non-Denom or Presbyterian for me...

[etexas]

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

*Anglican on the road to Presbyterianism for ecclesiological reasons*

I love being an Anglican in Sydney, but as soon as I'm out of here, its either non-Denom or Presbyterian for me...

What is the State of the Anglican Church in Australia? Liberal, Conservative or divided as it is here in the US.

[Exagorazo]

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

What is the State of the Anglican Church in Australia? Liberal, Conservative or divided as it is here in the US.

The Sydney diocese is quite conservative and fairly Reformed, as are several other diocese in Australia. These are pretty outnumbered by quite a large amount of liberal diocese (dioceses?) around the country.

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

The Sydney diocese is quite conservative and fairly Reformed, as are several other diocese in Australia. These are pretty outnumbered by quite a large amount of liberal diocese (dioceses?) around the country.

Hi Vaughan, I was baptised by a Sydney Anglican and enjoyed occasional studies with them. In earlier days they tended to have a low view of church and sacraments; do you think that has changed or is changing?

[Exagorazo]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Hi Vaughan, I was baptised by a Sydney Anglican and enjoyed occasional studies with them. In earlier days they tended to have a low view of church and sacraments; do you think that has changed or is changing?

I think that among Sydney Anglican circles the general attitude towards the sacraments and church is quite low. However, I do think that this might be changing. There is definitely a feeling of anti-supernaturalness when it comes to communion, with it becoming more of a sign than an effectual partaking of Christ's spiritual body. I do try to rattle cages at my church

[etexas]

Do you feel if you found an Anglican Church that was "low-church" and more or less reformed in perspective you would stay?

[AV1611]

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

*Anglican on the road to Presbyterianism for ecclesiological reasons*

Why is that?

[JohnOwen007]

Dear AV1611,

Thanks for starting this thread.

Originally Posted by AV1611

How do you defend it?

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that the NT actually gives a set blueprint for ecclesiastical polity. Here are some thoughts why:

[1] There is so much disagreement between Reformed believers who have so much in common that it seems to me the issue is not black and white, and hence there is freedom to disagree over this issue. If it were crystal clear there'd be a knock down set of NT texts and much more of a consensus amongst Reformed believers.

[2] There seems to me to be development and change in the NT period concerning how church leadership is structured. Hence, that's why there's no consensus, different positions appeal to different verses, which indicate different snapshots in the process of the development.

[3] We must be careful to note whether NT passages are descriptive or prescriptive. For example, just because a church had elders and deacons, does that mean it always has to be done that way? (BTW what exactly is a deacon? 1 Tim. 3 doesn't explicitly tell us? It's a rather long jump to think that the 7 chosen in Acts 6 are deacons as spoken of in 1 Tim 3).

Hence, I don't think episcopacy is explicitly taught in the NT, but I don't think it's unbiblical.

Every blessing,

Marty.

[Exagorazo]

Originally Posted by AV1611

Why is that?

I've been reading Bahnsen's articles on polity at reformed.org and they are really striking me. Also, I'm yet to hear a defense of Episcopal polity that doesn't appeal to pragmatic grounds above all else.

[JohnOwen007]

Hey Vaughan,

You're at Naremburn Anglican? Could you please pass on my regards to Rick Smith, Nigel Fortescue, and Louisa Jonker (I don't know her new married surname). They're all old buddies of mine.

Cheers,

Marty.

[AV1611]

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

I've been reading Bahnsen's articles on polity at reformed.org and they are really striking me.

What is it that you find convincing.

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

Also, I'm yet to hear a defense of Episcopal polity that doesn't appeal to pragmatic grounds above all else.

What are the type of arguments that you have come across thus far?

[yeutter]

The original puritans were Anglicans.
Anglicans can consistantly subscribe to the Canons of Dordt and the Heidelberg and still subscribe to the 39 Articles.

The 39 Articles rely heavily on the the Augsburg Confession. The Irish Articles of Religion rely heavily on the 39 Articles. The Westminster relies heavily on the Irish Articles of Religion. Thus the Westminster is a grandson of the 39 Articles and a greatgranson of the Augsburg.

I will leave it to our Presbyterian friends to decide if their view of church polity is closer to the congregational position of our Baptist friends or the episcopaleanism of Anglicans.

[JM]

How do Reformed Anglicans stay in communion with, say, the Anglo-Catholics or with a diocese that allows gays to marry or become ministers? What is the Biblical ground for doing so?

Honest question...I'm not trolling.

[AV1611]

Originally Posted by JM

How do Reformed Anglicans stay in communion with, say, the Anglo-Catholics or with a diocese that allows gays to marry or become ministers? What is the Biblical ground for doing so?

Honest question...I'm not trolling.

I can only speak for myself...the Church of England is Protestant and Reformed and we should deal with Anglo-Catholics and Liberals by excommunication. Easier said than done. Then again it depends what their AC is in that whilst a minister may believe in Transubstantiation when he uses the liturgy he contradicts himself anyway

[JM]

I don't know if this link is worth anything or not, Lectures on the Anglican 39 Articles.

In the 1630's, the zeal with which Anglican Archbishop (1630 to 1643) William Laud sanctified and enforced conformity to these practices which were anathema to the Puritans strengthened their will to oppose them. Laud looked upon Puritan practices as blasphemous, and strove to restore candles and crosses to the altar as well as kneeling, chanting, and other forms of worship that had been brushed aside by the Puritans. At the same time, Charles I was seen as "crypto-papist" like his father because he also married a Catholic Queen and was very lenient towards recusatrants. (see definition)

Religious tensions in England and Scotland came to a head on Sunday, 23 July 1637, when the new Anglicized prayer book *"Laud's Prayer Book"* was introduced to the congregation of St. Giles Cathedral in Edinburg, Scotland. A riot broke out in the church (see illustration above) and the ministers, bishop and archbishop of St. Andrews fled for their lives. With characteristic disregard and underestimation of the depth of religious fervor of his subjects, Charles I had attempted to standardize religious worship to conform to his passion for uniformity and the Arminian precepts of Archbishop William Laud, his factorum-factotum of all things religious in his realm. Two years earlier, Charles had re-released the Book of Sports (1633) and decreed that every English clergyman should read it to his congregation. Many refused, including Reverend Henry of Whitfield, who was pastor to Henry Doude and the 25 families who were to follow him to the New World.

"That fatal book," as the new prayer book was to be called many years later by Charles' widow, Henrietta Maria, set the course toward war with Scotland, civil war, and regicide that was to sweep England until 1642.

link

This topic is very, very interesting. When I was studying to be a layreader it was from a High Anglican/Anglo-catholic point of view and was taught the 39 "were important at that time" but not now. It also reads that way on anglicansonline.org

I'm learning as I read, thanks.

j

[yeutter]

Originally Posted by JM

How do Reformed Anglicans stay in communion with, say, the Anglo-Catholics or with a diocese that allows gays to marry or become ministers? What is the Biblical ground for doing so?

Honest question...I'm not trolling.

Some of the Anglicans on the board are the Diocese of Sidney, and under the oversight of Archbishop Jensen. They can just ignore the broader Anglican Community.

In the U.S. and Canada the luxury of ignoring the evils of the broader Anglican/Episcopal community does not exist. I am a member of a parish here in Michigan that seperated from the Episcopal when she started ordaining women.

Associating with high Churchmen do not bother me any more then associating with conservative Lutherans. Most of the High Churchmen I associate with have a high view of scripture, abhor womens ordaination, are Augustinian, are Thomist, and hate decisional regenerationism. The ones that bother me are the Tractarian AngloCatholics who are really AngloRomish. I almost wish some of them would hurry up and complete their journey to Rome and quit troubling the rest of us.

[JM]

You mean like this?

[yeutter]

Originally Posted by JM

You mean like this?

Exactly