jlav09

My Position

As to whether or not I am a Calvinist or an Arminian, I must respond that I am neither, I am an Anglican and our formularies negate points from both of these theological systems. As we have been discussing, Calvinism is summarized by the acrostic TULIP, which stands for: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistable grace, and Perseverance of the saints. All Christians must believe in the predestination of the elect because it is biblical. However, when discussing matters of predestination and human responsibility, there are many varieites in Christian theology to answer the question of what predestination means. There are usually Roman and Reformed counterparts when looking at a particular lens of the issue. I see there as being Augustinian/Lutheran, Thomist/Calvinist, and Molinist/Arminian approaches in Western Christianity. [Orthodoxy has traditionally subscribed to something similar to Semi-Pelagianism.] I fall somewhere with the Thomists and Augustinians because, although, Arminianism is very attractive and has produced many godly saints, in my opinion, it does not have historical and biblical support. Many of these systems have some overlap such as Lutheranism and Thomism both growing from the same source just expressing terms in different styles.

All Christians affirm total depravity (that is orthodox Christians) because the Bible affirms it. As an Anglican, our 39 Articles also strongly express the depravity of man:

IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
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.

X. Of Free-Will.
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

All Christian traditions agree that man cannot reach out to God on his own but must be given special grace to be able to have faith and be saved.

The issue of what the predestination of the elect means is where Christians part ways with one another. Traditionally there are two positions that have arisen to explain what this means. According to Ludwig Ott (a Catholic apologist):

"The Thomists, the Augustinians, the majority of the Scotists and also individual older Molinists (Suarez, St. Bellarmine) teach an absolute Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), therefore ante praevisa merita. According to them, God freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the merits of man's grace, to call certain men to beatification and therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis). In time God first gives to the predestined effective graces and then eternal bliss as a reward for the merits which flow from their free cooperation with grace (ordo executionis). The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis are in inverse relation to each other (glory-grace; grace-glory)."

Calvinists and Lutherans would call predestination ante praevisa merita unconditional election. However, the opposite position is:

"Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, post praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media, sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation. The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory)."

Arminians would call this conditional election. On this issue, I must side with Thomism and agree that unconditional election supplies the best explanation for what the predestination of the elect means. Once one subscribes to predestination post praevisa merita we must discuss single v. double predestination. Historically, Christianity has only affirmed the predestination of the elect and not the reprobation of the damned. Calvinism has historically taught positive reprobation that is that God has also "elected" certain individuals to damnation as he has chosen the elect to life. The Thomist would believe in negative or passive reprobation, which means that God has "passed over" the non-elect people but has left them to their own free will to reject God.

Limited atonement is one of the key problems of Reformed soteriology because it limits God's grace, in my opinion. J.I. Packer lists three options when thinking about the atonement of Christ. Reformed particularism, hypothetical universalism, and actual universalism. Hypothetical universalism is the majority view of Christianity which states that Christ's sacrifice made possible the salvation of all but is only effectual to the elect. Reformed particularism says that Christ died for the sins of the elect but not the non-elect. Many Anglicans believe in this doctrine but without the support of the formularies because Article 31 says:

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

Christ died for all. The Scriptures speak plainly to this.

The "I" of TULIP is irresistible grace. Many Reformed theologians dislike this term and prefer to call it "effectual calling' which implies that God effectively calls his elect to salvation rather than the implication of irresistable grace which seems like God forces the elect to be saved. On this issue Thomists and Lutherans disagree and I really am undecided. It's seems like in Scripture that people do reject God but then again maybe they weren't effectually called. The only statement from the prayer book that I could find was in the article on predestination which states, "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."

And finally the "P" of TULIP is "perseverance of the saints" which means that once God effectually calls one to salvation he will continue to sanctify and glorify until death and glorification in heaven. Here Calvinists and Lutherans differ on terms. Calvinists say that every Christian is a saint (as do Lutherans) and that all the saints are of the elect. Lutherans would say that only some of the saints are of the elect. Therefore, Calvinists say that once a person makes a valid profession of faith he is among the elect and cannot fall from faith. However, Lutherans say that some men may make professions o f faith and later fall from grace (seems more likely based off personal experience). I believe that the Articles agree with the latter position as by this article:

"XVI. Of Sin after Baptism.
Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. 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, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent."

Obviously I would like to highlight this phrase: 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. I think it is pretty hard to argue perseverance of the saints from an Anglican perspective with this article as a formulary.

As I often tell people who ask me if I am an Arminian or a Calvinist, I simply reply, I am a non-committed Augustinian. I affirm total depravity, unconditional election but not reprobation, unlimited atonement, resistible grace and the perseverance of the elect not all Christians.

Besides divine reprobation, the next three points of Calvinism are the most disputed claims of the theological paradigm. The doctrine is limited atonement or particular redemption. The idea is that Christ's sacrifice was only given for the elect and not the reprobates. Packer says, "the doctrine states that the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God's elect and ensured that they would be brought to faith through regeneration and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve. From this definiteness and effectiveness follows its limitedness: Christ did not die in this efficacious sense for everyone" however, it is this exclusiveness that causes most Christians to doubt the truth of this doctrine. I believe it is appropriate to give the reply by James Akin, "The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as "the Savior of the world," and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." These passages, as well as the official teaching of the Church [20], require the Catholic to affirm that Christ died to atone for all men." This is what the majority of Christians have understood as the atonement throughout Church History. There is even a sect of Calvinism that denies the limited atonement; they are called Amyraldians and the paradigm Amyraldism. All Orthodox and Arminians would deny this doctrine but also Lutherans all Catholics, most Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, even some Presbyterians would join in denying this doctrine. Packer gives us the alternatives to particular redemption, "The only possible alternatives are (a) actual universalism, holding that Christ's death guaranteed salvation for every member of the human race, past, present, and future, or (b) hypothetical universalism, holding that Christ's death made salvation possible for everyone but actual only for those who add to it a response of faith and repentance that was not secured by it. The choices are, therefore, an atonement of unlimited efficacy but limited extent (Reformed particularism), one of unlimited extent but limited efficacy (hypothetical universalism), or one of unlimited efficacy and unlimited extent (actual universalism)." And rightly so, the majority of Christians would support hypthetical universalism saying that Christ's made salvation possible for all but only efficacious for the elect.

Now to let these men speak for themselves.

"Definite redemption, sometimes called "particular redemption," "effective atonement," and "limited atonement," is an historic Reformed doctrine about the intention of the triune God in the death of Jesus Christ. Without doubting the infinite worth of Christ's sacrifice or the genuineness of God's "whoever will" invitation to all who hear the gospel (Rev. 22:17), the doctrine states that the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God's elect and ensured that they would be brought to faith through regeneration and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve. From this definiteness and effectiveness follows its limitedness: Christ did not die in this efficacious sense for everyone. The proof of that, as Scripture and experience unite to teach us, is that not all are saved.

The only possible alternatives are (a) actual universalism, holding that Christ's death guaranteed salvation for every member of the human race, past, present, and future, or (b) hypothetical universalism, holding that Christ's death made salvation possible for everyone but actual only for those who add to it a response of faith and repentance that was not secured by it. The choices are, therefore, an atonement of unlimited efficacy but limited extent (Reformed particularism), one of unlimited extent but limited efficacy (hypothetical universalism), or one of unlimited efficacy and unlimited extent (actual universalism). Scripture must be the guide in choosing between these possibilities.

Scripture speaks of God as having chosen for salvation a great number of our fallen race and having sent Christ into the world to save them (JOHN 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 11:51-52; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 1 Pet. 1:20). Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups or persons, with the clear implication that his death secured their salvation (JOHN 10:15-18,27-29; Rom. 5:8-10, 8:32; Gal. 2:20, 3:13-14, 4:4-5; 1 John 4:9-10; Rev. 1:4-6, 5:9-10). Facing his passion, he prayed only for those the Father had given him, not for the "world" (i.e., the rest of mankind, JOHN 17:9,20). Is it conceivable that he would decline to pray for any whom he intended to die for? Definite redemption is the only one of the three views that harmonizes with this data.

There is no inconsistency or incoherence in the teaching of the New Testament about, on the one hand, the offer of Christ in the gospel, which Christians are told to make known everywhere, and, on the other hand, the fact that Christ achieved a totally efficacious redemption for God's elect on the cross. It is a certain truth that all who come to Christ in faith will find mercy (JOHN 6:35,47-51,54-57; Rom. 1:16, 10:8-13). The elect hear Christ's offer, and through hearing it are effectually called by the Holy Spirit. Both the invitation and the effectual calling flow from Christ's sin-bearing death. Those who reject the offer of Christ do so of their own free will (i.e., because they choose to, Matt. 22:1-7; JOHN 3:18), so that their final perishing is their own fault. Those who receive Christ learn to thank him for the cross as the centerpiece of God's plan of sovereign saving grace."

And,

"Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all. They claim Christ died only for the elect. To prove this they cite verses which say Christ died for his sheep (John 10:11), for his friends (John 15:13-14a), and for the Church (Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25) [18].

One cannot use these verses to prove Christ died only for the elect. A person may be said to have given himself for one person or group without denying that he gave himself for others as well [19]. Biblical proof of this principle is found in Galatians 2:20, where Paul says that Christ "loved me and gave himself for me," not at all implying that Christ did not also give himself for other people. That Christ is said to have given himself in a special way for his sheep, his friends, or the Church cannot be used to prove Christ did not also give himself for all men in a different way.

The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as "the Savior of the world," and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." These passages, as well as the official teaching of the Church [20], require the Catholic to affirm that Christ died to atone for all men.
Aquinas stated, "Christ's passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'" [21]

This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. One may say that although the sufficiency of the atonement is not limited, its efficiency is limited. This is something everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge because, if the atonement was made efficacious for everyone, then no one would end up in hell.

The difference between the atonement's sufficiency and its efficiency accounts for Paul's statement that God is "the Savior of all men, especially those who believe." [22] God is the Savior of all men because he arranged a sacrifice sufficient for all men. He is the Savior of those who believe in a special and superior sense because these have the sacrifice made efficacious for them. According to Aquinas, "[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect." [23]

A Catholic also may say that, in going to the cross, Christ intended to make salvation possible for all men, but he did not intend to make salvation actual for all men--otherwise we would have to say that Christ went to the cross intending that all men would end up in heaven. This is clearly not the case. [24] A Catholic therefore may say that the atonement is limited in efficacy, if not in sufficiency, and that God intended it to be this way. [25] While a Catholic could not say that the atonement was limited in that it was made only for the elect, he could say that the atonement was limited in that God only intended it to be efficacious for the elect (although he intended it to be sufficient for all). [26]"

One issue that has caused endless debate in Christian, theological discussion is that of the nature of predestination. True, the average layman probably is not aware of the biblical doctrine of predestination, assuming that it is a purely Calvinistic conception. However, one only has to read the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians to grasp the biblical notion of God's election of the Church. The problem in Christian theology is defining predestination. Is it a foreknolwedge of God, whereby he forsees and chooses based on the faith of the beiever; i.e. conditional election (as the Orthodox, some Catholic and Anglican, and Arminian traditions say)? Or is it a decree of God not based on anything found in the believer (Reformed, Lutheran, some Catholics and Anglicans). Surprising as it may be, the majority of Christian tradition supports the latter claim (this coming from a formerly convinced Molinist/Arminian) of course excluding the Orthodox which have always supported something similar to Semi-Pelagianism (condemned at the Council of Orange in the West). The division between these interpretations of election is determining the nature of election (conditional or unconditional?) but within the unconditional election camp there exists two possibilities of interpretation. One, the more ancient view, is that of single predestination. Single predestination says that God, out of his mercy, has chosen a people for himself and provided everything needed for their salvation. It is only by his grace that we are saved. AS to those who do not believe, God does not "elect" them to damnation (called reprobation). He "passes over" them in an act of passive reprobation that allows them to fulfill the desires of their own heart. This view is associated with St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Luther. Double predestination, however, teaches that in addition to electing his people, he also actively reprobates, that is determine who goes to hell, the rest of the people on the earth. However logical it may be, active reprobation is not biblical and makes God to be evil. This view is associated only with John Calvin.

Now I will let the Rev. Packer speak and a reply from James Akin.

"The verb elect means “to select, or choose out.” The biblical doctrine of election is that before Creation God selected out of the human race, foreseen as fallen, those whom he would redeem, bring to faith, justify, and glorify in and through Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10). This divine choice is an expression of free and sovereign grace, for it is unconstrained and unconditional, not merited by anything in those who are its subjects. God owes sinners no mercy of any kind, only condemnation; so it is a wonder, and matter for endless praise, that he should choose to save any of us; and doubly so when his choice involved the giving of his own Son to suffer as sin-bearer for the elect (Rom. 8:32).

The doctrine of election, like every truth about God, involves mystery and sometimes stirs controversy. But in Scripture it is a pastoral doctrine, brought in to help Christians see how great is the grace that saves them, and to move them to humility, confidence, joy, praise, faithfulness, and holiness in response. It is the family secret of the children of God. We do not know who else he has chosen among those who do not yet believe, nor why it was his good pleasure to choose us in particular. What we do know is, first, that had we not been chosen for life we would not be believers now (for only the elect are brought to faith), and, second, that as elect believers we may rely on God to finish in us the good work that he started (1 Cor. 1:8-9; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; 2 Tim. 1:12; 4:18). Knowledge of one’s election thus brings comfort and joy.

Peter tells us we should be “eager to make [our] calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10)—that is, certain to us. Election is known by its fruits. Paul knew the election of the Thessalonians from their faith, hope, and love, the inward and outward transformation of their lives that the gospel had brought about (1 Thess. 1:3-6). The more that the qualities to which Peter has been exhorting his readers appear in our lives (goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, love: 2 Pet. 1:5-7), the surer of our own election we are entitled to be.

The elect are, from one standpoint, the Father’s gift to the Son (John 6:39; 10:29; 17:2, 24). Jesus testifies that he came into this world specifically to save them (John 6:37-40; 10:14-16, 26-29; 15:16; 17:6-26; Eph. 5:25-27), and any account of his mission must emphasize this.

Reprobation is the name given to God’s eternal decision regarding those sinners whom he has not chosen for life. His decision is in essence a decision not to change them, as the elect are destined to be changed, but to leave them to sin as in their hearts they already want to do, and finally to judge them as they deserve for what they have done. When in particular instances God gives them over to their sins (i.e., removes restraints on their doing the disobedient things they desire), this is itself the beginning of judgment. It is called “hardening” (Rom. 9:18; 11:25; cf. Ps. 81:12; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28), and it inevitably leads to greater guilt.

Reprobation is a biblical reality (Rom. 9:14-24; 1 Pet. 2:8), but not one that bears directly on Christian behavior. The reprobates are faceless so far as Christians are concerned, and it is not for us to try to identify them. Rather, we should live in light of the certainty that anyone may be saved if he or she will but repent and put faith in Christ.

We should view all persons that we meet as possibly being numbered among the elect."

Now from James Akin:

"The verb elect means “to select, or choose out.” The biblical doctrine of election is that before Creation God selected out of the human race, foreseen as fallen, those whom he would redeem, bring to faith, justify, and glorify in and through Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10). This divine choice is an expression of free and sovereign grace, for it is unconstrained and unconditional, not merited by anything in those who are its subjects. God owes sinners no mercy of any kind, only condemnation; so it is a wonder, and matter for endless praise, that he should choose to save any of us; and doubly so when his choice involved the giving of his own Son to suffer as sin-bearer for the elect (Rom. 8:32).

The doctrine of election, like every truth about God, involves mystery and sometimes stirs controversy. But in Scripture it is a pastoral doctrine, brought in to help Christians see how great is the grace that saves them, and to move them to humility, confidence, joy, praise, faithfulness, and holiness in response. It is the family secret of the children of God. We do not know who else he has chosen among those who do not yet believe, nor why it was his good pleasure to choose us in particular. What we do know is, first, that had we not been chosen for life we would not be believers now (for only the elect are brought to faith), and, second, that as elect believers we may rely on God to finish in us the good work that he started (1 Cor. 1:8-9; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; 2 Tim. 1:12; 4:18). Knowledge of one’s election thus brings comfort and joy.

Peter tells us we should be “eager to make [our] calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10)—that is, certain to us. Election is known by its fruits. Paul knew the election of the Thessalonians from their faith, hope, and love, the inward and outward transformation of their lives that the gospel had brought about (1 Thess. 1:3-6). The more that the qualities to which Peter has been exhorting his readers appear in our lives (goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, love: 2 Pet. 1:5-7), the surer of our own election we are entitled to be.

The elect are, from one standpoint, the Father’s gift to the Son (John 6:39; 10:29; 17:2, 24). Jesus testifies that he came into this world specifically to save them (John 6:37-40; 10:14-16, 26-29; 15:16; 17:6-26; Eph. 5:25-27), and any account of his mission must emphasize this.

Reprobation is the name given to God’s eternal decision regarding those sinners whom he has not chosen for life. His decision is in essence a decision not to change them, as the elect are destined to be changed, but to leave them to sin as in their hearts they already want to do, and finally to judge them as they deserve for what they have done. When in particular instances God gives them over to their sins (i.e., removes restraints on their doing the disobedient things they desire), this is itself the beginning of judgment. It is called “hardening” (Rom. 9:18; 11:25; cf. Ps. 81:12; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28), and it inevitably leads to greater guilt.

Reprobation is a biblical reality (Rom. 9:14-24; 1 Pet. 2:8), but not one that bears directly on Christian behavior. The reprobates are faceless so far as Christians are concerned, and it is not for us to try to identify them. Rather, we should live in light of the certainty that anyone may be saved if he or she will but repent and put faith in Christ.

We should view all persons that we meet as possibly being numbered among the elect."

I find myself supporting some form of Augustinianism or Thomism which is roughly the same as Lutheran thought on the matter, that meaning up to this point I agree with "total depravity" and "unconditional election" of the TULIP model (if understood as single predestination). However, as we move along on the model, the Thomists and Lutherans will depart from Calvin.

I have been thinking about the so-called "doctrines of grace" that hallmark of Reformed theology. I read an article from James Akin that gives a Roman Catholic interpretation of the TULIP acrostic. Given that Anglicanism classically has subscribed to at least an Augustinian interpretation of the predestination issue I figure that it would be meaningful to discuss these doctrines. First, I have also found online a chapter from J.I. Packer's Concise Theology, entitled "Inability"

"Clear thought about the fallen human condition requires a distinction between what for the past two centuries has been called free agency and what since the start of Christianity has been called free will. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and others spoke of free will in two senses, the first trivial, the second important; but this was confusing, and it is better always to use free agency for their first sense.

Free agency is a mark of human beings as such. All humans are free agents in the sense that they make their own decisions as to what they will do, choosing as they please in the light of their sense of right and wrong and the inclinations they feel. Thus they are moral agents, answerable to God and each other for their voluntary choices. So was Adam, both before and after he sinned; so are we now, and so are the glorified saints who are confirmed in grace in such a sense that they no longer have it in them to sin. Inability to sin will be one of the delights and glories of heaven, but it will not terminate anyone’s humanness; glorified saints will still make choices in accordance with their nature, and those choices will not be any the less the product of human free agency just because they will always be good and right.

Free will, however, has been defined by Christian teachers from the second century on as the ability to choose all the moral options that a situation offers, and Augustine affirmed against Pelagius and most of the Greek Fathers that original sin has robbed us of free will in this sense. We have no natural ability to discern and choose God’s way because we have no natural inclination Godward; our hearts are in bondage to sin, and only the grace of regeneration can free us from that slavery. This, for substance, was what Paul taught in Romans 6:16-23; only the freed will (Paul says, the freed person) freely and heartily chooses righteousness. A permanent love of righteousness—that is, an inclination of heart to the way of living that pleases God—is one aspect of the freedom that Christ gives (John 8:34-36; Gal. 5:1, 13).

It is worth observing that will is an abstraction. My will is not a part of me which I choose to move or not to move, like my hand or my foot; it is precisely me choosing to act and then going into action. The truth about free agency, and about Christ freeing sin’s slave from sin’s dominion, can be expressed more clearly if the word will is dropped and each person says: I am the morally responsible free agency; I am the slave of sin whom Christ must liberate; I am the fallen being who only have it in me to choose against God till God renews my heart."

With this, I think every Christian would agree. Human beings, because of the Fall are incapable of desiring God in their own nature. They must be given a special grace to desire him. James Akin has this to say:

"Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love [9].

What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term "total depravity" to describe the doctrine [10], he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so [11].

Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere [12]."

That's the million dollar question, What is Anglicanism? It is an answer that has seldom been found if there exists an adequate answer to it. All other theological systems or paradigms have an implied meaning with the name. For example, Lutherans follow the teaching of Luther which includes justification sola fide, sacramental union, conservative liturgy, etc... Calvinists follow Calvin and that implies TULIP, presbyterian church polity, etc... and Baptists althought not following one theologian have their denominational identity as credobaptists and memorialists in regards to the sacraments. But what about Anglicanism? I suppose you could say that in the US it implies "Catholic lite" or the via media that we strive to represent but that is not universal for all Anglicans. For instance, many British Evangelical Anglicans are called "Presbyterians with a Prayer Book" which implies doctrinal unity with the Presbyterians.

Literally "Anglican" only means "English" coming from the Latin word anglicana which we see in the ancient title for the Church of England: Ecclesia Anglicana. Our name does not give us away we must further clarify what we are. Simply put, Anglicanism is a way of being Christian that has developed in England. Although nowadays most Anglicans are not English or of English descent but historically have developed through the missionary efforts of British colonists. The Anglican Church, if we can say that, is really the Anglican Communion, a communion of independent churches all connected with this common historical and theological unity that originates in England and has agreed upon common instruments of unity (i.e. the Archbishop of Cantebury) to unite us together. The Anglican Reformation was unique in regards to the Continental Reformation in that it retained the Catholic order of the early church. That is it retained the historic episcopate (bishop, priest, deacon) and the apostolic succession (although with much protest). Many Anglicans (including the Church of England) refer to themselves as "Reformed and Catholic" that meaning that they draw from both the Catholic and Reformed traditions of Christianity for our faith; truly being the via media between Continental Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Other Anglicans prefer the term "Reformed Catholic" to describe their faith including myself. Being a Reformed Catholic acknowledges that the Anglican Church developed throughout time in the British Isles and did not stop at the Reformation but valued the insights of the Reformers while maintaining Catholic order and practice. That is why Anglicans typically believe in justification by faith alone but also believe in baptismal regeneration and some form of eucharistic presence (among American Anglicans typically sacramental union but also some receptionists and transubstantiation). We have bishops, priests, and deacons but do not emphasize their sacradotal duties over their pastoral or preaching functions. That is why we have vestments and liturgy but also sermons.

Being an Anglican implies more a set of practices than it does a core set of beliefs. Of course, to be an Anglican you must believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of our Lord, the Sufficiency of the Scriptures, and all other traditional Christian doctrines but we allow some fluidity in regards to matters of adiaphora that is things that are not necessary to salvation. Anglicanism is built around the daily recitation of the Divine Office, a unique trait in Christendom. The offices originated in the cathedrals in the early church but were quickly hoarded by the monastics. Archbishop Crammer revised the offices to be accessible to the common layman and forever since the daily offices have been a foundation of Anglican spirituality. Praying the office includes recitation of the Psalms and faihtful reading of the Bible. Also the Anglican spiritual life is regulated by regular participation in the sacramental life of the Church. This means that Anglicans are to regularly receive Holy Communion. There is not private Mass in the Anglican Church. The Anglican Reformers fought hard against the doctrinal abuses of the medieval Mass and sought to bring the Mass back to the people that is why we always communicate at every Mass.

If I were to summarize Anglican Christianity I would do it as such. Anglican Christianity is a unique brand of Christianity that developed in England over the past two thousand years. It is a Reformed Catholic Church that maintained Catholic order at the time of the Reformation but also leanred form the insights of the Continental Reformers. It is a Christianity that emphasizes the Daily Office and regular participation in the Sacraments of the Church and a humble and receptive heart towards God in his rich mercy towards us.

Due to recent developments in the Episcopal Church, I've been thinking about the future of Anglicanism. One of the things I've noticed, especially in the Church of England, is that there is extreme polarization in regards to churchmanship. Thankfully, in the US we have been blessed without extreme differences in ceremonial churchmanship (most parishes in the US would be considered "broad"). But in England, one can find a parish with a "minister" in surplice and tippet or down the street a Mass sung in Latin with priest and subdeacon. The Catholic clergy in England are departing to Rome due to the new Apostolic Constitution. I think the only hope for Anglican future would be an agreement on the essentials of centrala Anglicanism. I would define Central Anglicanism as those beliefs that have a longstanding historical credence in the Communion that are supported by the formularies and are unitive in nature, i.e. composing of Anglicans of different churchmanship.

The Central Anglican looks to the Bible and the Prayer Book to support his faith. Not that the Church Fathers are not important because they are, however the Central Anglican agrees that the Articles of Religion as interpreted with the Catechism and liturgy of the 1662 Prayer Book are a standard and faithful interpretation of the Catholic faith. It is a unique expression of the Christian tradition that has not been seen since the early days of the Church. Confessionalism from the 16th century brough extreme dogmatic expression to matters of adiaphora in Christian communities. However, the Articles do not elevate adiaphora to dogma.

The Central Anglican holds trinitarian doctrines to absolutely necessary to salvation and affirms with the Apostle's, Nicene, and Chalcedonian Creeds as authoritative expressions of Christian belief in the Triune God. He accepts the Scriptures as containing all things necessary for salvation but also accepts as authoritative the voice of the Church throughout the centuries. He also accepts the insights of the continental Reformers, however not holding their ideas to be necessary to the faith. He holds that justifiction is by faith through grace but believes this in no way contradicts the regeneration received in baptism.

The Central Anglican affirms wholeheartedly the unique role of Christ as the sole mediator of salvation to his people. He believes in the two sacraments of the Gospel while leaving open the nature of the other five sacraments (sometimes called lesser or eccesiastical, or sacramental rites). As to the nature of these sacrments there are options for belief in Central Anglicanism. The Articles condemn transubstantiation and memorialism in regards to the Holy Eucharist. The Prayer Book supports the view that Christ is objectively and sacramentally present to us in the sacrament but many Anglicans have believed in what is called the subjective presence or receptionism, that is, that the body and blood of Christ is only present to the believer through faith and has no change in the elements. Historically, the Prayer Book required Confirmation before one could receive Holy Communion and the Central Anglican wishes to continue this godly practice.

The Central Anglican believes in the apostolic ministry through the succession of bishops. However, he generally believes that this form of ministry is of the bene esse of the Church rather than her esse. He believes that a validly ordained man should be the lawful celebrant of Holy Commuion and the other sacraments.

Then comes the things that have historically divided Christians. The Prayer Book condemns "Romish" doctrines about purgatory, invocation of the saints, indulgences, etc... The key word in this Article is "Romish." Any inspiration that we get in these indifferent matters must come from Orthodox and the Early Church. The Central Anglican denies Roman additions to the Catholic faith regarding the medieval penal system of indulgences and penances and masses for the dead to atone for sinners in purgatory. However, the Central Anglican would think twice before foregoing the idea that further sanctification continues after death. But he denies the medieval additions to this and leaves the details to mystery. He affirms that auricular confession is an integral part of the Church but not a necessity to the salvation of an individual. He condemns the indulgences and penances as substitutes for the saving work of Christ. As to the saints, he condemns medieval ideas that the saints can apply their merits to his life and avoid superstitution when asking their intercession. However, he also does not condemn the practice. He would, however, view it as best practiced as a private devotion rather than an essential discipline of the Christian life.

In matters of predestination, the Central Anglican would be wise to allow multiple interpretations of the mystery of God's predestination. However, historic Calvinist positions such as unlimited atonement, irresistable grace, and the perserverance of the saints, are not supported by our Prayer Book nor the Scripture and should not be taught in the churches.

Anglicans have traditionally interpreted Christian doctrine in light of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. This methodology of interpretation was crystallized by Richard Hooker in the 17th century which can be seen in this quote:

"“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14)."

There has been an innovation in the modern church that we have never seen until this day; that is the so-called "ordination" of women to the priesthood. Sometimes evangelical supporters of women's "ordination" will offer some scriptural support for this innovtion but mostly a civil rights approach is taken. For me, there is no room for civil rights cases in Christian theology.

I have looked into all aspects of the debate and cannot find any shred of evidence for it in the Tradition of the Church and only sketchy scriptural arguments. Reason advises us against it as well because it is tearing the Church apart.

First, I will show that Scripture does not teach that women are to be ordained. The most common passage used to support WO (women's "ordination") is Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The sentiment is that because of the saving work of Christ, the presbyterate is open to all because Christ does not see difference between male and female, at least that's what I gather. While it is true that the Bible never plainly says, "Only men are to be priests" it rarely does this on any theological point, we must deduce it from the text itself. The Bible assumes that women will not be ordained. For example, in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, the Apostle Paul says, " 1The saying is(A) trustworthy: If anyone aspires to(B) the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore(C) an overseer[a] must be above reproach,(D) the husband of one wife,[b](E) sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable,(F) hospitable,(G) able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but(H) gentle, not quarrelsome,(I) not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity(J) keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for(K) God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may(L) become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by(M) outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into(N) a snare of the devil." Following that in verses 8-13, Paul deals with the qualifications for a deacon which follow a similar pattern (Also see Titus 1:5-16). There is some debate about the women "Phoebe and Junia" mentioned in Romans 16:1-16. Of Phoebe, Paul says, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant [or deaconess] of the church at Cenchreae," debate about what the word "deaconess" means in this situation is contested by both sides. However, it is proper to look at church history to see what "deaconesses" were in interpreting the role of Phoebe. The Apostolic Constitution says of deaconesses,""Appoint, [O Bishop], a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them." However, they were not ordained ministers of the church, "For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ... A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women."

Quoting the Apostolic Constitution moves us to the next important element in the discussion of the priesting of women. That is what has the Church said over the centuries on the matter? Clearly from the Apostolic Constitution we see the answer is "no" but here are some other quotations from early church fathers to justify the point.

For instance, the Council of Laodicea declared, ""[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church" (Canon 11 [A.D. 360])." At Nicea the bishops decreed, ""Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity" (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]). How about individual Fathers? Tertullian says, ""It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34–35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office" (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 206]). Hippolytus, a writer who has influenced modern liturgy so much, said, "Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy; but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all" (The Apostolic Tradition 11 [A.D. 215]). Why can't women teach then? The Didasclia says, "For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]). Here is a great quote from Epiphanius of Salamis:

"Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] ... In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony ... ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit" (Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).

"It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess" (ibid.).

"From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses" (ibid.).

"If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good" (ibid., 79:3).

This is just a sketch of the views of the early Church Fathers on the role of women in the Church. I would like to thank the author at this blog: http://orthodoxanglicanism.blogspot.com/2008/04/articles-of-orthodoxy.html for providing excellent quotations.

Then there is reason. God gave us brains to use. We know that Anglo-Catholics do not approve of priestesses but many people overlook the many Evangelicals who do not support the idea. By priesting women, the Episcopal Church, Church of England, and even the ACNA are alienating their most supportive members and are causing division in the body of Christ.

My suggestion to Anglican bishops is to stop ordaining women for the moment until a consensus can be agreed upon. Of course, allow the already commissioned female ministers to continue in their ministry and provide sacramental oversight to those who are opposed but mostly pray for male seminarians.

At our AMIA parish, our priest usually vests in alb, stole, and chausable but during the Sundays of Advent he has been vesting in cassock, surplice, and stole. Coincidentally, I have been reading a book by J.I. Packer (who probably would favor this vestige minus the cassock and stole). Basically, it got me thinking about the history of Anglicanism and its shaky past especially during the first age of Anglicanism up to the Elizabethan settlement. Anglicanism had a shaky "Protestant" identity during the first few years during the reign of Henry VIII. For the average layman there was little change in the Church from the 1530's until 1549. The Mass remained in Latin, the priests faced eastward, sure Archbishop Crammer and some theologians were debating about the Reformation in Germany but this was England, they were staunchly Catholic. And the Henry died. That was in 1547, by 1549, Crammer had the first Book of Common Prayer (BCP) in use in the parishes of England. It seemed as though overnight England had become Protestant. This BCP maintained the structure of the Roman rite while significantly reforming it but a mere three years passed and the second BCP was released. This 1552 edition completely revised the liturgy into something uniquely Anglican. The problem was the theology it was severely influenced by Reformed theologians such as Bucer from the continent. Gone was the real presence and other rituals associated with the Holy Communion, the altar removed, the vestments gone. There were basically two factions, traditionalists and reformers, both rather extreme in their views. There was a compromise on the issue of vestments, the 1552 book appointed that the "minister" no longer called priest should wear a surplice for the celebration of the Eucharist. Sometimes a tippet was added to this (a preaching scarf that looks like a stole). Historically, the surplice is a choir vestment i.e. not for eucharistic worship. But out of compromise, Archbishop Crammer, himself liking historical liturgy, allowed the surplice. Shortly after its release the 1552 book was suppressed because Queen Mary ascended to the throne and reverted the nation back to Roman Catholicism. She died shortly thereafter and Queen Elizabeth became the ruler of England. She separated the Church from Rome again and released the 1559 Act of Uniformity and the 1559 BCP. One could say that the religion she constructed was the first expression of Anglicanism proper as a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. She needed religious peace so she allowed certain things to the Catholic-minded clergy and other things to the Reformers. She liked the historic liturgy and religion but had to concede to the protestants so she allowed the surplice and cope but not the "mass vestments" i.e. alb, stole, and chausable although her prayer book said this about vestments and ornaments, "The Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in the accustomed Place of the Church, Chapel, or Chancel; except it shall be otherwise determined by the Ordinary of the Place. And the Chancels shalt remain as they have done in times past. And here is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all Times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth." There has been much historical debate about what this actually allows but I will add this, the second year of Edward would have been 1549 and in that BCP it says, "the Priest that shal execute the holy ministery, shall put upon hym the vesture appoincted for that ministracion, that is to saye: a white Albe plain, with a vestement or Cope. And where there be many Priestes, or Decons, there so many shalbe ready to helpe the Priest, in the ministracion, as shalbee requisite: And shall have upon them lykewise the vestures appointed for their ministery, that is to saye, Albes with tunacles." The "vestment" is a chausable, in my opinion. This is when the first "central Anglican" or broad church party developed one that was hostile to Puritanism but not adhering the Roman doctrine. The 1559 book removed things that were contradictory to Catholic doctrine and produced the Articles in 1563 which are a confession that allows a variety of opinion within orthodox, catholic faith. Fast-forward a few hundred years to the Oxford Movement in the 1800's. The Catholic heritage of the Anglican church had been lost to years of protestantism. The Tractarian fathers restored the Catholic vision of the faith but still vested in surplice and tippet for Mass. My point is that the surplice has a long history in Anglicanism and should not be abandoned. I know it is not prescribed as a eucharistic vestment by Rome but we are not goverend by Rome. I think the surplice and stole is a nice complement to Anglo-Catholics and Puritans in the ACNA and should be allowed.

Readings

Psalm 65
Deuteronomy 8:1-3,6-10(17-20)
James 1:17-18,21-27
Matthew 6:25-33

The Collect

Almighty and gracious Father, we give you thanks for the
fruits of the earth in their season and for the labors of those
who harvest them. Make us, we pray, faithful stewards of
your great bounty, for the provision of our necessities and
the relief of all who are in need, to the glory of your Name;
through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with
you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.<input ... ></input><input ... >

<input ... ></input><input ... >I read an article from the Church Society entitled, "Is there Popery in the Prayer Book, Historically Considered?" (which may be read here: http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/documents/CAT016_Boultbee-Popery.pdf). The thrust of their argument was that there was no Catholic theology in the Prayer Book, a concern of the Puritans. I have written this post in response to various people who claim that the Prayer Book teaches Calvinism.

To review, the basic points of Calvinism are:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

Remember that these are not all unique to Calvin but originate from the Synod of Dort and Theodore Beza after the death of Calvin.

The Reformation was rooted in the theology of St. Augustine and naturally the Articles affirm the orginal sin of man:

"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 phronema sarkos (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 itself the nature of sin."

However, this point is agreed upon by most Christians anyway. Continuing in good Augustinian theology the prayer book says this of free will:

"The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will." It is directly after this that the prayer book tells us, "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," following in Fr. Luther's theology and the nature of works before justification, "done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy 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."

The next point is unconditional election, either in single predestination (Augustinian/Lutheran) or double form (Calvin). Arminians would hold to conditional election. The way I read the Article it gives an Augustinian/Lutheran answer to the issue of predestination:

"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 feeling 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 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."

I see a single-predestination hinted at here and a denial of the irresistability of grace considering the underlined portions.

The crucial statement of the prayer book is Article XVI - Of Sin After Baptism, which states:

"Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. 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 they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent."

The underlined portion condemns the doctrine of perservation of the saints. (I also see in this article an implied distinction between mortal/venial sins).

My view is that the Prayer Book teaches an Augustinian/Lutheran approach to matters of predestination/election not a traditinal Calvinist approach.

UPDATE

I have found these comments from an author chronicling the history of the doctrine of the perserverance of the saints. These are his comments on the Anglican confessions and the doctrine.

"The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England were promulgated in 1563 and are rooted in the various creedal discussions taking place among the English Reformers during the reign of Henry VIII. They represent a revision of the Forty-Two Articles of 1553, which were largely the work of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. [46]

Article 17, "Of Predestination and Election," states that those whom God has chosen in Christ for eternal salvation are not only called, justified, adopted and sanctified, but "at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity." Like Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, this article teaches that God's elect will finally persevere to eternal salvation. On the question, however, of what degree of certitude the believer can enjoy in this life concerning his own election, the Thirty-Nine Articles are cautious if not ambiguous. The same article 17 states that a "godly consideration of...our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons" and helps to "confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ." [47] This seems to teach that a believer can have a meaningful degree of assurance concerning his election and perseverance and yet stay short of the certitude claimed by Calvin and later by the Westminster divines and by the Synod of Dort. This caution in theological expression reflects the character and purpose of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which were designed to provide a minimal creedal basis for a national Church that could accommodate both the Catholic and Protestant traditions."

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a133.htm



<input ... ><input ... >