Are Reformed Anglicans Truly “Reformed”?

Status
Not open for further replies.
One way to look at this would be to say Reformed should include a Reformed view of sacramentology, ecclesiology, and soteriology. Reformed Anglicans are on the mark for 2 of these, probably not the third. But of course if you go down this path you would exclude Congregationalists and Baptists as well.

R.C. Sproul in "What is Reformed Theology?" says Reformed is equal to soteriology, covenant theology, and a Reformed confession. I would say 39 Articles is not quite there, but there may be some Reformed Anglicans who do hold to a more robust confession. Irish Articles of Religion perhaps, or in theory they could hold to the Westminster Confession, as Anglicans were involved in writing it.

Whichever way you fall, I think one would be remiss to discount the likes of J.I. Packer and J.C. Ryle. However one frames the tent of Reformed theology, I think it would be a mistake to not include them.
 
The 39 Articles are a Reformed confession. It's not as refined or explicit on some points as the WCF but it's also not milquetoast on some key doctrines.

The issue isn't whether the confession itself was Reformed, but how Anglicans practice their faith. Some areas of the world are quite conservative.

Of course, if you walked into certain Churches with the label "Presbyterian" or "Baptist" on them then you would rightly ask if they are Reformed.
 
Assuming you are talking about the denomination created in 2009, I would say yes. They subscribe to the 39 Articles and implement the 1552 BCP. They also make use of the Heidelberg Catechism. They make clear that their "priests" are effectively the same as presbyters in other Reformed churches. They are certainly on the high-liturgical end of the spectrum, but I don't see that as a disqualifying factor.
 
I dated a few Anglicans. While we did not disagree on any specific doctrine beyond prelacy, I always had a sense of vagueness. This may have come from less of an emphasis upon scriptural knowledge. Obviously this is a tiny sample size.
 
Polanus1561 said:
As much as Reformed Baptists?
Click to expand...

That's another similar debate. I'll be honest, the older I get in the faith the less I care about such labels and whether or not one "qualifies" enough to be entitled to this or that name or "standing." I understand that in certain contexts there is some utility in using colloquial terminology in order to broadly define important beliefs (such as we're doing in this thread...), but there are so many nuanced reference points within the spectrum of each "system" that things often get blurred anyway. I've also seen denominational identification become a matter of pride, even an idol, and raise unnecessaries barriers to fellowship and co-laboring for the Kingdom.
 
Last edited:
If you've never read the Articles, they are more "in your face" than the Westminster Standards are (this is true of the Augsburg as well):

11. Of the Justification of Man.​

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

12. Of Good Works.​

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

13. Of Works before Justification.​

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School–authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

14. Of Works of Supererogation.​

Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God’s Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

17. Of Predestination and Election.​

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.

Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only–begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, 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.

Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

22. Of Purgatory.​

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

25. Of the Sacraments.​

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

28. Of the Lord’s Supper.​

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
 
BaileyKeys said:
I hear a lot of debate on this topic, interested to hear more thoughts on this.
Click to expand...
Hello Bailey,
Most Anglican churches you'll find nowadays, even the conservative "Reformed Anglican" ones, will often have practices that are anything but Reformed such as prayers to Saints, images of Christ, and praying to the Eucharist. The members in these churches will often also not have as much of a comprehensive knowledge of Reformed theology, though of course this varies. As far as the 39 Articles go, I agree with what the others have said on this thread; it is vaguely Reformed, though not as comprehensive as something like the Westminster or Heidelberg.
 
Reformed Catholic said:
Hello Bailey,
Most Anglican churches you'll find nowadays, even the conservative "Reformed Anglican" ones, will often have practices that are anything but Reformed such as prayers to Saints, images of Christ, and praying to the Eucharist. The members in these churches will often also not have as much of a comprehensive knowledge of Reformed theology, though of course this varies. As far as the 39 Articles go, I agree with what the others have said on this thread; it is vaguely Reformed, though not as comprehensive as something like the Westminster or Heidelberg.
Click to expand...
In my experience of conservative Church of England churches in the UK, you won't find anything whatsoever of prayers to saints and praying to the Eucharist.

You certainly will find images of Christ. It's the greatest issue I have with the denomination I find myself in, alongside the general views of worship where I believe there is a lack of adherence to the regulative principle.

In other aspects, I also have found a certain level of vagueness among the majority of the laity with regards to reformed doctrine. Most are largely ignorant of the 39 Articles let alone other reformed confessions, and there is generally a certain lack of doctrinal precision from the pulpit. Most seriously conservative reformed CofE churches are however strong in the sovereignty of God in salvation by grace alone in Christ, and strong in sacramentology.

It's worth mentioning that strictly speaking Anglican ≠ Church of England.
 
I have a friend who recently joined the ACNA from the PCA. He's a conservative, monergistic, 39 Articles, Reformed Episcopal type. He doesn't like the title "Reformed" because he left the Reformed tradition (for ecclesiology, the sacraments). He calls himself an Augustinian Catholic. I call him a Popish Calvinist. All in fun, of course.
 
It depends on the two churches being compared. In terms of Confession, Beth Moore is more Reformed than John Macarthur, even though neither of them are Reformed at all.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
The 39 Articles are a Reformed confession. It's not as refined or explicit on some points as the WCF but it's also not milquetoast on some key doctrines.

The issue isn't whether the confession itself was Reformed, but how Anglicans practice their faith. Some areas of the world are quite conservative.

Of course, if you walked into certain Churches with the label "Presbyterian" or "Baptist" on them then you would rightly ask if they are Reformed.
Click to expand...
It is beyond dispute that the 39 Articles confess what can be called a "reformed soteriology" - but if I am to grant that it is a "Reformed confession" then I am granting that one can be bonafide "Reformed" (capital R) and repudiate any notion of the regulative principle and instead go beyond affirming a normative principle to emphatically (in at least 2 of the articles) affirming the legitimacy and rightness of devising rites and ceremonies and traditions.
 
HauerVos said:
I have a friend who recently joined the ACNA from the PCA. He's a conservative, monergistic, 39 Articles, Reformed Episcopal type. He doesn't like the title "Reformed" because he left the Reformed tradition (for ecclesiology, the sacraments). He calls himself an Augustinian Catholic. I call him a Popish Calvinist. All in fun, of course.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I didn't know there was really a difference between the 39 Articles and the WCF on the sacraments, except that the former is less detailed on them. I haven't studied the 39 Articles very much though.
 
Most of my friends are Anglicans. And I'm telling you with certainty that we approach the 39 Articles like Reformed people and not like Anglicans - that it's a confession to be subscribed to and that it serves as the doctrinal standard of the church. Within the Anglican world sure there are some (a few!) for whom the 39 Articles are a matter of subscription, used as a confession of faith, but that is NOT the attitude of the tradition itself nor is it the expectation within the denomination. Instead the Book of Common Prayer is functionally, in virtually every case, of much greater consequence than are the 39 Articles.

It's just humorous to me that as Reformed people we employ our way of thinking on their tradition, and we're totally missing the mark of understanding them. :hunter:
 
Jake said:
I'll be honest, I didn't know there was really a difference between the 39 Articles and the WCF on the sacraments, except that the former is less detailed on them. I haven't studied the 39 Articles very much though.
Click to expand...
Unless I am ignorant of something, the 39 Articles and WCF are theologically aligned on the sacraments.
 
SolaScriptura said:
Most of my friends are Anglicans. And I'm telling you with certainty that we approach the 39 Articles like Reformed people and not like Anglicans - that it's a confession to be subscribed to and that it serves as the doctrinal standard of the church. Within the Anglican world sure there are some (a few!) for whom the 39 Articles are a matter of subscription, used as a confession of faith, but that is NOT the attitude of the tradition itself nor is it the expectation within the denomination. Instead the Book of Common Prayer is functionally, in virtually every case, of much greater consequence than are the 39 Articles.

It's just humorous to me that as Reformed people we employ our way of thinking on their tradition, and we're totally missing the mark of understanding them. :hunter:
Click to expand...
Yes, I learned this a while back when I was considering Anglicanism.... it's why I'm not an Anglican. LOL
 
Anglicanism is seriously out of alignment with the rest of the Reformed tradition on matters like worship and ecclesiology.
Anglicans like to claim men like Peter Martyr and John Calvin for their tradition, but both applied the regulative principle far more strictly (both opposed instruments in worship, for example), and Calvin teaches presbyterian church government in the Institutes, so I'm at a loss as to how Anglicans think he supports their distinctives.
There's no question to me that many historic clergy of the Church of England were very Reformed in doctrine (William Perkins is a great example), but in general, men of that quality were forced out by the time of the Restoration (1689), so it's very difficult for me to see why the Anglican tradition, after its schism with the Presbyterians in Scotland, England, and Ireland, should be considered Reformed, any more than Lutheranism should after Marburg.
It's the same sort of thing. We parted ways when we realized that our two systems of doctrine and practice were not compatible.
I regularly see Anglicans on facebook, twitter, etc who juxtapose themselves, not just to the Reformed, but also to Protestants.
 
Charles Johnson said:
Anglicanism is seriously out of alignment with the rest of the Reformed tradition on matters like worship and ecclesiology.
Anglicans like to claim men like Peter Martyr and John Calvin for their tradition, but both applied the regulative principle far more strictly (both opposed instruments in worship, for example), and Calvin teaches presbyterian church government in the Institutes, so I'm at a loss as to how Anglicans think he supports their distinctives.
There's no question to me that many historic clergy of the Church of England were very Reformed in doctrine (William Perkins is a great example), but in general, men of that quality were forced out by the time of the Restoration (1689), so it's very difficult for me to see why the Anglican tradition, after its schism with the Presbyterians in Scotland, England, and Ireland, should be considered Reformed, any more than Lutheranism should after Marburg.
It's the same sort of thing. We parted ways when we realized that our two systems of doctrine and practice were not compatible.
I regularly see Anglicans on facebook, twitter, etc who juxtapose themselves, not just to the Reformed, but also to Protestants.
Click to expand...
Indeed! The Oxford Movement really did a lot of historical revisionism and Anglicans of that stripe - almost all “high church” - often speak derisively of all Protestants.

The Anglican communions are not defined by doctrinal confession but rather liturgical conformity. And I think that putting the liturgical cart before the doctrinal horse is the very picture of vain and superstitious religion.

I have a longtime acquaintance who is a priest in the ACNA, he’s of the high-church “anti-Protestant” stripe, and though I can’t abide him to be more than an acquaintance, his wife and mine are very good friends, so we’ve remained in contact…. anyway, as he has been for as long as I’ve known him, he is an out-in-the-open Open Theist… and he is being considered for elevation to bishop.

On the other end of the spectrum I have a friend who is an ACNA priest who is definitely in the JI Packer low church/evangelical vein.

But even he doesn’t really see the problem with the other guy being in his communion.

Shocking and scandalous in my book.
 
I think when I "saw" this thread I misread it as whether or not Anglicans could be considered Reformed in any sense. I tend to scan things with my poor vision.

I agree with the idea that you don't normally associate Anglicanism with being Reformed. I was merely dealing with its genesis and its Articles are in the Venn diagram of what we would consider Reformed in one sense even while their Ecclesiology and worship practices needed further Reformation.

I think it takes a peculiar kind of thinking to be a faithful low Church Anglican. I don't have the stomach for it. When you read R.C. Sprroul's biography, one is left very disappointed with J.I. Packer and his willingness to partner with Evangelicals and Catholics Together and equivocate on justification. It's not that I don't think many Reformed could have a healthier sense of the catholicity of the Christian faith. It's simply that it's better when we draw lines of separation and call out error even while acknowledging the existence of errant Churches as fundamentally Christian of Evangelical with all their warts.

At the end of the day, if you say the word Anglican, the first-word association is certainly not '"Reformed". I'm happy (as I noted) that the 39 Articles have some very strong assertions of the Solas and good Sacramentology, but there's a lot of other baggage and the reality is that most Anglicans are not reflexively "39 Articles" people. I think many are quite embarrassed by the Articles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

crhoades
  • Locked
TR - "Truly Reformed/Totally Reformed" - definition and analysis
Replies
13
Views
9K
BrianBowman
B
A
  • Locked
"Are Baptists Reformed" by Kenneth Good?
2
Replies
58
Views
13K
alb1
A
scottmaciver
  • Locked
Quiz - What sort of reformed are you?
2
Replies
38
Views
9K
covenantergirl23
covenantergirl23
Scott1
  • Locked
Are teens ready for deeper Reformed truths?
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
rmdmphilosopher
rmdmphilosopher
DeoOpt
  • Locked
are there any good reformed churches neer Disnyland?
Replies
6
Views
2K
DeoOpt
DeoOpt
Back
Top