The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum What makes the Anglicans different

from the Reformed? I mean those anglicans who are bible believing conservatives. What precisely is there doctrinal distinctives?

Which Anglicans? You have Episcopalians, Ugandan A's, Church of England, there are about about 9 types of Anglican churches in USA.....etc. In general: The Anglicans.

Thanks, Joe

I'm thinking of those in conservative Episcopal churches in the USA who say they are more in agreement with the broader Anglican community, not the ECUSA - though the church they attend belongs to the ECUSA.

In addition, they appear to be mostly Reformed, but there must be some doctrinal differences.

Those non-Reformed types typically wear pink shoes!

Do you mean doctrinal differences between themselves, i.e. conservative Anglicans v. the wild-&-wacky ECUSA crowd? Or between them and the more run-of-the-mill Presby/Reformed Baptist believer?

Actually, Anglicanism runs the gamut, from Ultra High Church that can out-Catholic the Catholics, complete with 'mass', transubstantiation, prayers to the dead, strong element of Marian devotion, etc. all the way to very low church.

My sister joined St. Andrews' Episcopal last spring but still hasn't had her girls, 2 and 4, baptized. She's really not comfortable with paedobaptism, even after spending a couple of years attending a PCA church in Denver.

So you can imagine how unenthusiastic she is about baptismal regeneration! Yet most Episcopalians/Anglicans do believe in BR. It's rare to have a true "Calvinist" in the Episcopal church, never mind the 39 Articles. They're all about receiving grace via the sacraments (of which there are seven, just like the RCC).

Just sort of hard to generalize about them, they're so spread out over the theological landscape.

Anne,

I mean the latter. Those [email]wild-@-wacky[/email] ECUSA crowd doesn't have any doctrines. What they think today may be progressively different tomorrow.

Are the WCF, the Baptist London Confession, and the 39 articles so close on doctrine that 3-4 centuries ago they would barely be distinguishable? Or what distinguished them is what we see practice today in the three confessions?

Now back to the original question. What the difference between the conservative, bible-believing Episcopalian anglicans from the Reformed or the wider bible-believing evangelical community? I have never ran into any Gospel-minded Episcopolians I guess. They just do not travel in the same circles, except for the few odd ones on Christian forums.

Unless you have a different copy of the 39, this is not true at all.

XXV. 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.

Mention there ar 2.

XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

I agree this teaches BR. Sounds more like PR also.


XXVIII. 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.


The anglican church is more calvinistic than espicopalians
XVII. 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.

We're talking about two different things, though. You're addressing what's in the back of the BOCP (at least it was when I was growing up Episcopalian), while I'm addressing what Episcopalians actually believe.

Someone truly believing in the doctrines of sovereign grace is highly unusual. Not saying unknown! But definitely unusual.

Anne,

You definitely bring up a good point! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> In nearly every denomination there is a real disparity between what the "official" doctrinal statements state and what the average member believes. Just one of many examples is the RCA, which Joek can personally relate to. The official statements of faith are the "Three Forms of Unity"; the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dordt. One would be hard pressed to find many, clergy or laity that actually believes and practices what those documents teach.

Also, the matter which Joek brought up, i.e., Baptismal Regeneration, this is shared by the Continental Reformed as well as quite a number of Presbyterians today, although it is taught using various terminology, some of which on the surface attempts to deny what is actually believed. I would reference the "Form for the Baptism of Infants" (see attachment), which is the official form used by the Continental Reformed Churches.

Lastly, there are the Reformed Episcopalians, e.g., J.I. Packer. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Hi John,

There are such things are Reformed Episcopalians (e.g., J.I. Packer, as Pilgrim noted). In doctrinal matters, they would not be so far afield from other Reformed believers, except in church polity and (typically) more "high church" worship (vestments, processions, altar), with a special emphasis on weekly communion.

In fact, what Anglicans tend to hold in common (from conservative to liberal) is episcopal polity and a more "high church" form of worship.

Aside from Reformed Episcopalians, "evangelical" Anglicans are doctrinally much the same as most evangelicals.

You are spot on with this Pilgrim. I thank the Lord for giving us a pastor who is preaching biblical reformed theology and mentions the confessions. I would guarantee that 50-75% if not more have no clue who Calvin was. The RCA is becoming more about praxis than Grace. IF you ever have the time to read the RCA Church Harald, it is on line. You will see exactly what i mean. I feel like MAry at the TOmb when she exclaimed "They have taken my Lord and I know not where they put Him.:

Didnt mean to hijack here, just confirming what pilgrim and Anne stated

Speaking of which the newly elected Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has decided to drag the Episcopalians even further into that stygian darkness known as liberal theology with her homily on June 21. Here's a little excerpt:
emphasis mine.

Oh look is that a handbasket? Well they must be going to <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad3.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" /> Responding with fear, are we? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Fear?!?!?! Well Kyle I fear for those souls that will come under that heretic's teaching, and I fear for the wrath that the heretic's accumulating, and I fear "Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell". But I fear that perhaps we've gone aside of what this topic is about.