"I Believe In One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" Reprised
Embryo Parson Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 11:55PM I was recently invited to a blog of a learned fellow who serves as a "priest-at-large" in one of the "Old High Church" Continuing jurisdictions.
He represents himself as unabashedly Calvinist, and writes the following about his beliefs:
- "The Church is never to be stagnate (sic), we are to be 'Reformed and always Reforming.'"
- "This Reforming must be via the active engagement of God's inerrant, infallible Word which is our sole absolutely infallible authority. However, the active engagement MUST include the historical wisdom and authority of Christ's Church and the judicious and necessary use of reason. While neither rise to the level of absolute, infallible authorities equal to Scripture, they are nonetheless, authorities to which we must listen and take account."
- "We are Reformed theologically as we are informed by the history of the Churches understanding of such coming to us through the Apostle Paul, St. Augustine, Gottschalk (Godelsec), St. Thomas Aquinas, Jan Hus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Jewel, John Whitgift, Francis Turretin, George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, John Williamson Nevin, Phillip Schaff, J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, John Frame, and so many more."
He goes on to defend high ceremonial, and I take no issue with him there. However, when I see the emphasis in his blog on all things Calvinistic, with several hashtags #CalvinismThis and #CalvinismThat, and that he references not one Caroline or Tractarian Divine in his list of Catholic and Anglican theologians, but several Presbyterians, I have to ask myself what's truly Anglican about him.
I want to mention here four books that have shaped my thinking since I became an Anglican, and accordingly why I am appalled at this Anglican "priest-at-large's" devotion to all things Calvinist:
Anti-Calvinists - The Rise of English Arminianism c. 1590-1640, Nicholas Tyacke (Anglican, Church of England)
The Panther and the Hind: A Theological History of Anglicanism, Aidan Nicholas (Roman Catholic)
The Quest for Catholicity: A Study in Anglicanism, George Tavard (Roman Catholic)
Fathers and Anglicans: The Limits of Orthodoxy, Canon Arthur Middleton (Anglo-Catholic in the Church of England)
Tyacke's book details the overthrow of Calvinism in the Church of England that began in the time frame cited in the title. Calvinism had its shot, but it ultimately did not "take" in the English Church. Reformed Anglicanism would go on to exist in certain pockets of the Church, but it would never again be a mainstream theology.
The other three books detail the issue of Anglican identity, and each in their own way demolishes, expressly or implicitly, the argument that the English Reformers' appeal to the mind of the Fathers could be defended in the final analysis, and accordingly that either Caroline or Tractarian divinity, or perhaps a combination of them, represented a greater degree of patristic authenticity.
That is why among other reasons I call myself a Catholic Anglican and not a Reformed Anglican. It doesn't mean I reject every aspect of the English Reform. I love our prayer book tradition and having a Bible and a liturgy in English, but my support of the English Reform does not go much beyond that. I believe that both Caroline and Tractarian divinity were necessary correctives to the Calvinism that nearly destroyed the English Church, and I accordingly have no truck with the "Reformation Anglicans" or the "Anglicanism-As-Established Anglicans" of today.
We are not Presbyterians with prayer books and we are not English Protestant Erastians.
Furthermore, we confess no "Protestant" or "Calvinist" or even "Anglican" church in the Creed. The framers of the Creed were Catholics - Latin and Greek Catholics. They had a certain understanding of the word "Catholic", which involved theology that was in no way classically Protestant. Accordingly, ideological Protestants cannot truly recite the Creed in good faith IMHO.
That's my story and I am sticking to it until I die. It is Catholicism or nothing.
Reader Comments (3)
Excellent article. Coming from an EO background into the ACC. I couldn't agree more.
Since this post was directed at me and taken directly from my "Who we are" section of my website, I'll comment here briefly.
I don't know who you are, but I do have an idea. It is a shame you didn't see fit to simply contact me directly, but so be it.
I'm merely going to say this:
1. My blog is not intended to be exhaustive on any subject in any context. Therefore, though I identify as a Reformed Anglican, my inclusion of St. Augustine links me to the Fathers and hence my catholicity. I'm not going to list all of the Fathers simply to prove that.
2. In other places I've identified my catholicity which I didn't feel needed to be repeated in my "Who we are" section of my website.
3. To imply I'm more Presbyterian than Anglican merely because I cite Presbyterian's is intellectually immature. I also cited Jewel, Whitgift, and Packer. Being a Reformed Anglican, while I acknowledge the Caroline Divines within our tradition, I'm not going to cite Lancelot Andrewes, et al, due to their hostilely to Calvinism and the Reformed expression of Anglicanism. The title of my website and blog, after all is, "Reformed High Churchman."
4. If you claim to be Anglican then you know Anglicanism is a broad tent and includes differing theological perspectives. You want to cite the Caroline Divines, all well and good. I'll cite the Reformed Anglicans; that doesn't mean I'm a Presbyterian.
5. Lastly, the names I included from the past, though limited, should tacitly support my catholicity; and the perspicuous reader will note that I never identified as a "Protestant" in that section you cited. All one "might" infer is that I possibly lean that way, in which case it would be nice if someone asked in order to give me an opportunity to explain. But within Christian dialogue today, that type of honestly is sorely lacking.
I can see you would rather take issue with me than engage me personally and directly, that's your prerogative. If you don't want to be included in receiving the blog from my website, you didn't have to accept the invitation; you could've read the information off the website first and declined to accept. If you so choose, I'll make sure you're not included in any further communications.
It is very disappointing that Christians can't engage one another directly before launching into an online attack without the courtesy of even one direct, personal communication. I have little respect for those who hide behind anonymity when criticizing someone. But this is where the world of Christianity is today.
My identity can be found here: About . It was just a click away.
And I did decline to accept for the reasons stated in my post.