I know that it pains some to learn that the Formularies of the Elizabethan Settlement are fundamentally inimical to Calvinism, but the truth must be told. This is especially so in light of the Calvinist revisionism encouraged by the Latitudinarians, perpetrated by the old Evangelicals, and accepted as gospel by the Anglo-Catholics. Should mere Anglicanism ever be renewed, it must be based on an accurate and authentic historical understanding. So in furtherance of this aim, I offer the following essay:
Since the rise of the latitudinarian movement, which sought to comprehend both Churchman, or Anglicans, and the Calvinist Puritans within the Church of England, it has become common place, even among scholars who ought to know better, to assert that the Elizabethan Settlement was, if not an outright triumph of, nevertheless a success for, Calvinism in England in that the Church of England, through its Articles of Religion is supposed to have adopted Calvinist theology or, at least, allowed it. But, however many otherwise creditable scholars have been duped by this partisan, old Evangelical, revisionist history of the Elizabethan Settlement, the truth remains that Calvinism is not incorporated in the 39 Articles of Religion and that it is inconsistent with the Articles on every major point of confessional, Calvinist doctrine. Moreover, that this truth is so an easily demonstrated for those who are willing to simply compare the Articles of Religion with any of the Calvinist Confessions explains why, prior to the English Civil War, Puritans so virulently opposed the Articles–consistently and repeatedly sought their repeal, amendment, or supplementation–rather than celebrated them as victory for their theological position.
Looking first to the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, we see that the Articles deny it. Indeed, Article IX says, due to original sin, we are “very far gone from original righteousness and inclined to evil,” whereas the Westminster Confession says, “we are utterly indisposed and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to evil.” Thus, while Calvinism and Anglicanism agree that man has fallen from the likeness of God and that, due to this corruption of nature, he is in need of salvation, Anglicanism still sees the image of God, if not the likeness, present even within fallen man. Hence, the Articles refuse to go so far as to say that fallen man is devoid of all potential for goodness of any degree. Indeed, Article XIII holds that, while good “[w]orks done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God,” it does not go so far as to utterly deny to possibility of such works or to categorically brand such works as sins.
Next, the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Election, by its express terms goes so far as to make God the author of damnation. Indeed, taking its cue from Calvin’s Institutes, the Westminster Confession states that, “[b]y the decree of God … some men and angels are preordained unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death.” And, moreover, the puritanical Lambeth Articles clarify that, “the moving or efficient cause of predestination to life is not prevision of faith, or perseverance, or of good works, or anything which may be in the person predestined, but only the will and the good pleasure of God.” In sharp contradistinction, while Article XVII affirms that “[p]redestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God,” it conspicuously omits any mention of the peculiarly Calvinist teaching concerning divine predestination to reprobation. Moreover, Article XVII also conspicuously omits the word “unconditional” before the word “predestination,” which would be very odd indeed were the Article adopting confessional Calvinism, as we can see by reference to the above-quoted Calvinist professions. And, we also can be certain that the Articles of Religion reject the notion that man’s efforts have no part in the working out of his salvation because Article X plainly decrees, “[w]herefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us … and working with us ….” Indeed, in Anglican theology, though fallen man is in dire need of grace for salvation, the outcomes of salvation or damnation is not predetermined by God, but is instead contingent upon how man employs the divine gift of free-will in cooperation with God’s free gift grace given to all men. Thus, whether any man be eternally saved or damned is conditioned upon his own exercises his free-will to “work[] with” God’s “preventing” grace.
Another major point of confessional Calvinism is the peculiar teaching of Limited Atonement, in which “[n]either are any redeemed by Christ … but the elect only — the rest of mankind God was pleased to pass by and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath,” as the Westminster Confession puts it. In sharp contrast, Article II states that “Christ, very God, and very Man; [] truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for ALL actual sins of men.” Hence, in Anglican theology, Christ died for all men, not for some predetermined, pre-enumerated, arbitrarily chosen few. Indeed, it should be no surprise that the Book of Common Prayer states in the Collect for Good Friday, “O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor desirest the death of a sinner; but rather that he should be converted to life,” which is a prayer entirely at odds with confession Calvinism.
Finally, the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace is rejected in Artilce XVI, which says that, “After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And, therefore they are to be condemned, which say, thay can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.” Indeed, were the Articles actually Calvinist, they would say “must rise again,” not “may rise again.” For example, the Westminster Confession states, “They whom God hath accepted neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end and be eternally saved.”
In sum, the distinctive doctrines of confessional Calvinism are inconsistent with the Articles of Religion, which is why the early English Calvinists felt so strongly obliged to further “purify” the Church of England after the Elizabethan Settlement rather than simply conform to Anglican faith and practice without reservation or dodge. Indeed, the theory that Elizabethan Settlement comprehended Calvinism as normative was not worked out by the old Evangelical Party until after the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution indicated that the Church of England, and its Formularies, were here to stay. No longer able to work against them or change them, they attempted to co-opt them with a revisionist gloss. However, for the mere Anglican Churchman, who desire to stand by the Formularies without either Evangelical gloss, all that is necessary to put the lie to this project is the simple comparison of the Articles with the Calvinist Confessions.
River Thames Beach Party 
He (The true Churchman) asserts, in common with his Protestant Brethren, the corruption of human nature, and man’s ability, “by his natural strength, without faith and calling on God” to perform works acceptable to God. And herein he opposes the Romanist. …..but he rejects as unfounded in Scripture, and utterly repugnant to reason and conscience, the tenets of mans responsibility for the sin of another; of his coming to the world doomed to everlasting death for Adam’s sin; and of that utter depravity of man which would make him a fiend……………….Yet while he rejects these revolting views of human guilt and depravity, he cherishes a lively and deep sense of the propensity towards evil which affects his nature, through the dominion which his appetites exercise over his reason, his will, and his affections: of his utter inability to except through faith and grace to do works which however good in themselves will be acceptable to God.
-Bishop John Henry Hobart
http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/jhhobart/churchman1819.html
Thanks for the constructive comment, Richard. I think Hobart is getting right to the nub of the matter.
Also, while I do not expect everyone to agree with me, I am reserving the right to delete all rude or snide comments.
Another grand slam, Death. But those who truly believe that the Elizabethan Church was Calvinist will never accept the truth of the matter. The refuse to see and will continue to do so that the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. So we must continue to present that evidence and hope eventually they will come to accept it.
I am in the process of reading the Reverend John Walker’s The Sufferings of the Clergy of The Church of England During the Great Rebellion and being reminded that at the end of the Cromwellian Interregnum, the Church made sure that financial provision was made for those who had been intruded into Anglican parishes during Cromwell’s reign before they were put out. Maybe that was done in the spirit of not making martyrs of them, but considering what was done to those who supported the Church of England and the loyal use of the Book of Common Prayer, a real distinction is made between those who claim to be Christian and those who really are and have been.
Loyalty to real Anglicanism, the Anglicanism of faithfulness to the full and obedient use of the prayer book, is a line which must be drawn in the sand and not retreated from. But those whose Anglicanism is a sham and a fiction will never understand this. But this is precisely what the Comfortable Words make some so uncomfortable.
Death,
I’ll write lengthy response(s), but right now the timing is kind of bad. However, I think it worth a discussion, especially since like-mindedness works together with fellowship, and I personally feel we need to reach a common understanding.
As I said earlier, I don’t see the 39 Articles making an explicit argument either way for a full-Arminian or Calvinist system. Notice I’ve said “calvinistic” namely because Reformed protestants received calvin’s writings in different ways. At Anglican Rose I hoped the post on Davenant would be constructive, pointing not only to a vulnerable weakness in the calvinistic system but degrees of opinion between protestants over more controversial articles like predestination, limited atonement, and perseverance. I am sorry you missed this. I am also hesitant to declare a consensus on these same specific points when the West has historically refrained from such agreement.
Anglicanism’s greatest challenge w/ respect its survivability is abstaining from the affirmation it might otherwise seek from other, self-professed branches of the catholic church. At best such dialogues are premature. At worst, ecumenicalism promises a sure recipe for self-negation, irrelevancy, and dissolution. While we may appeal to many degrees of authority in the Anglican tradition, I dare say Andrewes’ formula can bring us into muddy the water. While normally useful, catholic tradition can be a kind of pandora’s box, especially when we massage it to include later councils and centuries. It also becomes problematic while the East and Rome intend to gobble us up.
Our better guide through the undivided church is our own 16th-century standards. Death, we probably agree on this, yet I contend our standards are not so specific to permit only an “Arminian” view. To say a moderate, if not low, calvinistic opinion is “heretical” goes too far, and such would make the free-willer as fanatical as the 5pt, frothing predestinarian.
So, in the course of time, I hope I can mend whatever difference we might have over these points. And, first, I hope to show the difficulty in lumping calvinistic protestants into a single soteriological camp. When such is done, the truth is harmed. Second, I think a better comparison would be made between the 39 and continental (Reformed) confessions more ‘period’ than the 17th century WCF. Third,
the problem of classical anglicans, like Hooker, who indeed held more calvinistic understandings of standards (what to do with greatest divines of the 16-th century are not Arminnian?). And, fourth, how our articles have no necessary Arminian interpretation from plain reading– no more than the calvinist.
Again, we do not want to repeat the uncharitable spirit as 5pt-ers. We also don’t want to loose the intent of the articles which is pastoral rather than speculative. The Arminian and Calvinistic views both push the envelope, missing the center of our confession (which is squarely in the Western vein). Fortunately, they have never been the cause for excommunication but caution. Fifth, while we may even ask occasional silence with certain calvinistic opinion, “calvinistic” predestination is not the problem with historic evangelicalism or the neo-Anglican church. In some ways, the former has no relation to the latter. Rather, the problem stems from certain truck with anabaptism, mostly through second commandment prohibitions. Recall the theological impetus behind the great war was explicitly between kinds of worship, not rival soteriologies (e.g., SLC). It might be more constructive to blame revivalism for present troubles with neo-evangelicals rather than 17th century calvinism (aka. “old side”) which genuinely opposed the break up parishes and establishment. If glossed over, we miss important overlaps and points of commonality that might better realign factions within our own communion.
So, expect a few short comments on these tangential and diverse subjects in this same thread. I will gradually follow up despite time divided between an upcoming wedding and a recent family health emergency. But for now let’s agree that neither of us are adherents of full-blown calvinism?
“If you immediately condemn anyone who doesn’t quite believe the same as you do as forsaken by Christ’s Spirit, and consider anyone to be the enemy of truth who holds something false to be true, who, pray tell, can you still consider a brother? I for one have never met two people who believed exactly the same thing. This holds true in theology as well”– Martin Bucer
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I will read it more closely soon and may make a reply soon.
Charles,
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. Indeed, I believe that the letter and spirit of the Elizabethan Settlement looks to antiquity are her guide. Thus, despite the fact the Papal Bull of 1571, the English Church largely staid its hand against Recusants, and until Laud, was very lax with those favoring Continental Protestantism, the formal — as in formularies — principle of Anglican Churchmanship were decidedly patristic, not Romish or Reformed.
In sum, broad churchmanship is NOT built into the Act of Uniformity, Articles of Religion, the Ordinal, or the Book of Common Prayer, nor are these formularies of peace or some sort of pastoral inclusiveness. Indeed, they did NOT quell controversy in the English Church but rather caused it. This is not to deny that prior to Laud, and after the Glorious Revolution, that the exercise of disciplinary discretion by Royal, Parliamentary, and Primatial prerogative did not allow for a limited form or Protestant comprehension. But rather, it acknowledges that comprehension in the English Church comes for the exercise of hierarchical discretion not from the constitutive formularies of the Settlement itself.
Indeed, however prudent, the disciplinary policies of Charles I and Laud mark the only ones that have expressive of Anglican principle rather than prejudicial to it. This is what I mean when I talk about Anglicanism proper–I am referring to the letter of, and spirit of, the Anglican formularies, which have rarely ever been widely enforced in the history of the English Speaking Peoples. What is not “mere Anglicanism” is any sort of Anglicized Romanism (Anglo-Papalist), Anglicized Old Catholicism (Anglo-Catholicism), Anglicized Calvinism or Methodism (Evangelical Anglicanism), Anglicized Unitarianism or Deism (Liberal Anglicanism) or any combination thereof. Rather, authentic Anglicanism is that which was lived out by the Elizabethan Apologists and the Caroline Divines, and all those that have been faithful both to the principles of the constitutional formularies of English Reformation.
Dear Brother Death,
We will likely have to disagree and on this point, and this is ok with me. I don’t have a problem with strong Arminian views. But I still doubt our Articles formally exclude certain “calvinistic” opinion. They, like other confessions of the period, were not that precise. Only by the end of the 16th and early to mid 17th was soteriology a divisive issue (prior to the rise of calvinism ‘justification’ was generally stated. While a dogmatic point of difference with Romans, it was not so amongst protestants until helvetic and gallic confessions). Until then controversies instead surrounded worship (starting with vestments) and sacrament (in England moving the tables while neglecting chancels).This was bad enough, and in some sense questions of worship rather than soteriology remained in the forefront, i.e., the text of Solemn League.
I think where we disagree is over the kind of resourcement the Elizabethan church undertook with respect to antiquity. I have two comments here:
1. When continental divines are read, be it Melanchthon, Luther, Bullinger, or even Calvin, they too look to antiquity as a guide, frequently quoting fathers and history. All round, the first generation of protestants were men born and reared catholic. It’s not quite right to say only the English resourced antiquity. That said, we might agree the English resourcement was more “conservative” or cautious. Between Insular and Continental there was a general agreement that late antiquity was not quite reliable, so the formulas are usually 3, 5, or at the most 6 centuries.
2. By ‘conservative’ what do we mean? For me, the English stand out not so much for their use of antiquity but continuations with the medieval. They borrowed more from the medieval scholastic and ceremony than their German and Swiss counterparts. This would include the Augustinians of the 11th and 13th centuries as well as our own Sarum use. Consequently, we see less rupture (less reaction) in England than in Europe.
To say our articles are silent on a particular point is not necessarily a ‘low church’ position. High churchmen notice similar areas of silence, e.g., in the manner of sacrament (I actually don’t quite agree on this one, but nonetheless high churchmen often claim a silence on the manner of realism) as well as apostolic succession. Our standards never ruled either out, but neither did d they require an assent to such. Just because our confession is silent or unprecise on certain points doesn’t mean they are ‘low church’ or ‘inclusive’ by any means.
You also bring up another question regarding the nature of canon law, that temporary laws can be introduced to bring about greater prayer book conformity. Regarding the deviations permitted by bishops and parliament/crown, even these had a lawfulness that should be recognized. The problem with evangelicals was they assumed deviations normal when they were only originally intended a more temporary nature. Yet at some point the “life” of the church must be accounted for, and when deviations are in long-use, common practice holds an ‘orthodoxy’ of its own, and, so over time, this created a lower form of ceremonial, backed by english law, that begs consideration. This is why we should be very careful about ‘local options’ since these can breed deviancy and eventually undermine common prayer.
Brother Death, and our other brethren,
There is the matter of the exact language of the Articles and the other Reformation era confessions and documents.
Here we need to turn to Ernest Tyrell Green, “The 39 Articles and the Age of the Reformation. Green deals with the language of these formularies. Since all the Reformation confessions and documents existed in an authoritative Latin form, Green discusses their iprecise intent by using the Latin because they all had the Latin in common. For those whose Latin is shaky, there are the translated passages in the back of the book,
Thrrashing through the Latin and comparing, we realise just what was said and meant by the framers of the document. This should help us grasp the differences involved. Some may be subtle, but they are there.
Thomas Rogers, in his much earlier treatment, deals with much of this, and more. Rogers also deals with Anabaptism and aspects of the ‘radical reformation’ in England. For the Puritans and the ‘radicals’ of the 17th century, we wisely turn to the many historical treatments by the late Christopher Hill.
It is quite clear that the old Puritans found much to dislike in the Articles; more so in the Prayer Book. They, and the later 19th century Evangelicals, also had problems here and there with the Homilies. We find that some of the passages most disliked were brought in under the aegis of Great Eliza herself. This dislike was partly due to the content involved, partly due to the fact of Gloriana herself. Puritans were very conflicted over the matters of headship and her being Supreme Governour. They thought her insertions unwarranted interference in things outside her lawful competence. The Settlement bears her name. We often forget her active participation in framing it.
In +,
Benton
Bicknell’s book is also based upon the Latin text of the Articles which he points out is the only authorized text in the English Church.
As for the Puritans and Blessed Elizabeth I, she kept her hands off the bishops and the Church unless they were really headed down the wrong path which was easy enough to do in her times. What must be realized is that she was much better read and trained in both Latin, Greek and Hebrew than most of them and a far better theologian. There was nothing which would please the Puritans except getting their own way which Elizabeth wisely saw that they did not have. They would have disliked Deborah as much as they did her. It must also be realized that much of the intellectual history of Puritan ideas and ideals has its origin in Islamic models rather than anything Biblical or Christian. Those ideas had leaked into the European universities and were attractive to the radicals who hated the present system.
Dear +Lee,
I am very intrigued by the connection between Puritanism and Islamic thought. Could you elaborate?
I remember one of Hilaire Belloc’s books I read looked as Islam as only a grossly heretical form of Christianity.
There’s much that concerns me about DB’s post and it is not so much the positions he takes as how supports and argues them, given that he states: Should mere Anglicanism ever be renewed, it must be based on an accurate and authentic historical understanding.
Disconcerting to me is, again, the conflating of radical Puritanism with a mainstream Calvinism that many of the English post-Marian reformers identified with (too many to list and I have done so in other posts). Even framing the discussion about the Articles and whether they “adopted” Calvinism is somewhat confusing inasmuch as the Articles were essentially a product of the 1540s and early 1550s, well before “Calvinism” as a term was used… and long before the final revision of Calvin’s Institutes in 1559. Indeed, Thomas Cranmer’s “Annotations” and “Great Commonplaces” offer ample documentation that the theological positions underlying the Articles were not inconsistent with Augustine nor, in many instances, the reformed thought of that day on the Continent.
One example of the problem I have with the reasoning in this essay is its mischaracterization of the doctrines of Calvinism, such as Total Depravity. Death’s definition of it is one that no Calvinist would claim… thus a straw man definition easy to marginalize. Here is a more accurate explanation:
The result of the fall is total depravity or corruption, a doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin. By this is meant that every part of man is rendered corrupt… There was no part of his nature that was not affected by sin. The word “total” must not be taken in the absolute sense as though man is completely depraved. Man is not as bad as he can be. There are “glimmerings of natural light which remain in man since the fall.” God does restrain the working of sin in the life of man on earth. And sinful man still has a sense of right and wrong. His corruption is total in the sense that there is no part of his being that is pure and holy… Again, total depravity does not mean that people are as bad as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. The “made in the image of God” is not gone, only corrupted, and thus redeemable.
Total depravity does not mean absolute depravity. Death misstates the doctrine by asserting: that fallen man is devoid of all potential for goodness of any degree… and that it utterly denies the possibility of such [good] works or to categorically brand such works as sins. No, only that the good which fallen man does is never free of the stain of the fall and thus never a truly holy act acceptable as such before God.
So Total Depravity, as more clearly understood, is not inconsistent with either Article IX: Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.;
or Article XIII: 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.
So Death’s own words, “to categorically brand such works as sins” which he uses to dismiss total depravity, in fact agree with the above two articles.
There is more I could interact with here, but I merely point out these inconsistencies in hopes of fostering discussions that will be based on the accurate presentation of particular theological positions of one’s doctrinal opponents. Only then can the merits of debate be truly weighed and thus profitable to each one, even as it is written “iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” Ps 27:17
best regards,
Jack
Jack,
I truly hope that the way you have presented Total Depravity is in fact what is meant by the reformed confessions.
What I presented is true to what is meant by the reformed confessions. My appeal to you is to consider that there is a divide that has been born of secondary sources, many with preconceived notions and agendas. A return to an authentic Anglicanism deserves a respectful representation of all sides. In fact it is necessary.
Blessings… and thanks for your consideration.
hello Death,
I think this is long enough to post and spruce up a bit at Anglican Rose. Meanwhile, I don’t mind going into the points I listed earlier.
May I rephrase our first point of likely agreement? While neither you or I are partisans to full-blown, ‘metaphysical’ calvinism, we also believe Anglican standards indeed exclude it as a complete system? I hope this might be a mutual starting point, i.e., the standards are not 5pt calvinist.
Starting with
Thesis #1., “first, I hope to show the difficulty in lumping calvinistic protestants into a single soteriological camp.”
What makes generic treatment of continental theology difficult is the ‘bottom-up’ development of Swiss and South German doctrine. Germany was divided between many duchies, principalities, and smaller fiefs. Likewise the Swiss were little more than a sifting or lose confederation of free-cities. This is very unlike the English situation whereupon Henry’s Act of Supremacy, the realm was squarely unified, making common profession (more) possible. The continental situation was already politically fragmented and happenstance in comparison.
Upon the outbreak of reformation, which preceded changes in England by some fifteen to twenty years, cities and principalities issued their own confessional statements vis-a-vis Rome, later anabaptism, and much later each other. The earliest and most influential confession, of course, was the Augsburg, circa 1530, and competing concords were typically a response to it. The more ecumenical of the confessions were the Schmalkdic and Wittenberg, but by 1529 the Swiss made substantial break from talks, and it’s at this point a proto- ‘calvinistic tone’ might be distinguished from the more ‘Lutheran’ one. However, Calvin’s Institutes were not published until 1541 (three editions, the first one not really finished, consisting only of six chapters). So there was some development even here. Therefore, it stands to reason not to talk about a ‘calvinist system’ in Switzerland until sometime shortly after this date. Prior confessions are ambiguous on more predestinarian points though agreed on justification and simple Augustinian preventing grace.
Though various leagues somewhat coalesced around one of two families of confessions– either the Augsburg or Helvetic– local elaboration did not cease. By 1552, the date of the 42 Articles, a number of prominent confessions were at play, the most “Reformed” being the Tigurinus, and the south German ‘Tetrapolitan’ being a middle sort.
On the continent local diversity was prominent while England was really the first ‘realm’ to have adopted a somewhat ‘uniform’ Protestant faith. Left unsettled on the continent was the extent sacramentology and soteriology should be defined, the more rigorous (or rationalistic) belonging to the Swiss. The WCF came through that more notorious Geneva line, obviously through Knox, who established a strict calvinism in Scotland (especially with Melville). However, elsewhere a general and less specific “Augustinian consensus” prevailed in the north, particularly in the Palatinate and with Rhineland cities like Strasbourg. It’s this ‘third’ strain of continental reformation, neither Lutheran nor Genevan, that makes homogenous treatment of European developments most difficult, particularly with the contested points of predestination as mentioned above.
It’s also from this ‘third strain’ I hope to give a better ‘calvinistic’ parallel to the 39 Articles than WCF. Recall, by the mid-16th century Puritans looked to Geneva through Scotland. Not only is this tardy with respect to Cranmer, but Geneva was never the favorite ecumenical direction of the late Henrician and even Edwardian reigns. The bias, if any, was typically more German, in line with Erasmus, Melanchthon, and Bucer. But this too had its sunset, particularly by the time of the ‘gnesio-Lutherans’ after the Interim in 1541 (this is an interesting date/event. Article commentators often like to refer to the late date of Trent. True, but Anglicans were more likely to be responding to the 1541 Interim rather than even early, 1545 Trent)
By the 1560’s Swiss, Palatinate, and German differences finally harden. The Palatinate, sadly, is often glossed over, but it is from this school of thought we get confessions which purposely avoid certain ‘knotty’ opinions. The Heidelberg Catechism offers a case in point. John W. Nevin, in his Genius of the Heidelberg Catechism, gives a summary of it here:
and
137 “Here is a material difference, between the Heidelberg Catechism and the symbolic books generally of the Reformed Church. It may be said indeed that the Calvinistic points to which we have now referred, are at least involved in the system which it teaches. So it must have seemed of course to that part of the Reformed body, for which these points had become of confessional authority; otherwise it could not have been endorsed, by the Synod of Dort for instance, as sound and orthodox. But this only shows that the Catechism leaves these points untouched. They lie beyond the horizon. The Belgic Church might consider them necessary to complete its system; but there was always a part of the Reformed Church which thought differently…The authors of it seem to have held their own theological convictions purposely in abeyance, that they might be true to the objective church life with which they were surrounded. This we all know included much, that could never have been satisfied with anything like extreme Calvinism, on the subject of decrees. From all this the catechism was made perfectly to abstain”
138 “the Catechism, like the Bible, is willing to tolerate such contradictions; and does so in fact. Its orthodoxy is not necessarily that of the Belgic Confession. It allows this of course; but it does not require it.”
In conclusion, one cannot fairly lump continental thought together. There was a very great diversity opinion, mostly due to the fragmented origins of the movement, given the many principalities, duchies, canons, districts, etc. in Switzerland and Germany. Nonetheless, in the palatinate, you might be surprised to find a temperament that resonates with 39 Articles.
It’s worth expounding upon this for two reasons:
1. The 39 Articles were not written in reference to Trent nor WCF or even the Scottish confession of 1560. Rather, they were written in mind with confessions belonging largely to the 1530’s. Even the more irenic Roman position was known in 1541 at Ratisbon. So though the 39 came earlier, they dealt with the Roman and Continental positions of their time.
2. To say the English knew nothing or suspended all interest in continental affairs and controversies is an amazing statement. Royalty at least had a direct investment in France, Spain, and the lowlands. Moreover, Protestantism in general shared in the same humanistic and patristic foundations, therefore constituting a ‘northern catholicsm’. I believe its the later which Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican viewed themselves rather than ‘protestant’ which is a later term. Early Northern catholics treated eachother in a collegiate way, not refraining from intercourse. This early, more irenic period, before the Peace of Augsburg (when Calvinists realized they were left in the dust with anabaptists) and Trent (when protestantism in general abandoned reconciliation with the Papacy) is important, because this narrow window of optimism is where numerous confessional nations/princes were seeking greatest accord, and the particulars and violence of later calvinism was known at most as an anomaly.
Brother Lee brings up an interesting point: the Islamic influence.
I think what he is referring to is the matter of absolute inerrancy and direct inspiration of Scripture.
Any acquaintance with Islamic history, and the origin and transmission of the Quran shows us that the concepts of absolute inerrancy and direct inspirayion have more to do with the Quran than the Bible
Dor those not familiar, the thesis is that the Quran was pre-existent in Heaven, and was directly dictated to the Prpohet, who delivered it to his followers.
The Prophet also delivered many sayings and other dicta, all of which, along with the transmission of the Quranic passages, were kept in memory with some written down.
The collections of Hadith, or Traditions, are passed down by chains of witnesses, bearing testimony to the exact wording. There are parallel chains, each dealing with the variant wordings.
The Quran went through three rescensions. The first, under Caliph Abu Bekr, reduced the Quran to a written form. A later rescension, under Caliph Omar, cleared up the variants. A final rescension under Caliph Uthman stabilised the text for good. At that time, all variant written versions were destroyed. The present form of the Quran, which is that of Caliph Uthman, is the established and received text, period. To be sure, there are alleged problems with the arrangement of the texts. The Surahs frequently do contain seemingly unrelated passages. These have to do with the rescensions.
Historical studies over the years has amply demonstrated that in certain societies, the oral tradition can be extremely accurate over centuries. To this day, it is somewhat common for Muslims to commit the entire Quran (about the length of the NT) to unerring memory After all, Muslims believe that the Quran is the absolutely inerrant and directly inspired Scripture, handed down directly from on high.
Yes, for us, the Quran seems very confusing. This is due to the manner in which it was delivered—in bits and pieces
When we contemplate the Quran, we need to realise that 7th c Arabia was well off the beaten track. What the Prophet knew of Judaism and Christianity was highly Gnostic. The Prophet had no way to tyest the authentic Scriptures of the OT and NT. We also need to realise the nature of early Islam. Evangelism by the sword was and is a reality Islam is overlain/ underlain with a mass of ancient and local traditions of the region which are not ours. The OT gives an idea of how people thought and lived then and into our own times.
In +,
Benton
Dear Death,
I’ve somewhat elaborated upon my earlier points in reply to your recent comment at Anglican Rose. Some of this touches my fourth point, “how our articles have no necessary Arminian interpretation from plain reading”. In particular I was wondering what was meant by good works committed without faith being acceptable to God?
Dear Jack,
I was churched presbyterian, and was never taught double predestination nor utter depravity. When asked about, the elders rejected such doctrines on the basis of WCF and scripture. So, this essay, unless better qualified, comes off like a kind of like a strawman. It reminds me of Roman-pagan rumors that christians were carnivores. Dislike of calvinism might be found elsewhere, perhaps RPW which started the Great War? Likewise, the strong dislike of continental protestantism needs to be explained in light of their own disagreements at Dort, Marburg, and other failed colloquies/disputations. Let’s not continue the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic propaganda mill when early Protestants can neither be lumped together nor were indifferent toward the primitive church.
Regarding double predestination, which is much misunderstood and thus maligned, as taught in the WCF:
The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643
“As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
“The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. III — Art. VI and VII)”
One can certainly deny the truth of the above, but it seems rather difficult to make a blanket statement that double predestination is not taught therein. Does this make God the originator of evil and sin in man? No.
The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566
Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man’s evil into good. . . . St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion: “What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly.” (Art. VIII)
As to “utter depravity”, there is no such phrase used by reformed confessions. Whereas what I wrote above concerning total depravity is consistent with the reformed confessions such as WCF and the Articles, fairly read.
All that said, I don’t think the 39 Articles express anything more than a moderate Calvinism, if one wants to use the term Calvinism.
That said, there is plenty to dislike about calvinistic iconoclasm and 5pts. Let’s agree on this!
Meanwhile, let me edit what I said earlier, “So, this essay, unless better qualified, comes off like a kind of strawman. It reminds me of Roman-pagan rumors that christians were CANNIBALS.” –not ‘carnivores’….
I’m not accusing brother Death of anything intentional. But it’s always better to read calvinism from calvinists before EO, AC, and RC propaganda. There was a time when I was very angry with calvinism, but I’ve been able to mend some fences through Bucer and Melanchthon.
A good essay on double predestinaton (from which I borrowed above) is this one by R.C. Sproul:
http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html
More thoughts here:
http://anglicanrose.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/moderate-monergism/
[…] Calvinism and the 39 Articles. This may be of interest crimsonleaf. Confessional Calvinism and the Articles of Religion | River Thames Beach Party __________________ All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of thing shall be […]
It is not the case that Evangelical and Calvinist Theologies are synonymous, nor that Arminian theology is incompatible with Evangelical theology. Other than that, I agree with your analysis. It’s very good.