Blog powered by Typepad

« Palestinian Human Shield | Main | The Clean People »

Apr 25, 2004


Caelius Spinator

Marriage (at least, its basics) is (are) prior both to civil authority and to Moses. Article VII doesn't quite cover it. Now if you want to argue against fullness and sufficiency on the grounds that "they're here, they're queer, but in Genesis 2, they're nowhere." Please go ahead. I'm a big fan of Michael Ingham, for instance.

"Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say,
"The LORD will surely exclude me from his people."
And let not any eunuch complain,
"I am only a dry tree."
4 For this is what the LORD says:
"To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant-
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off." (Isaiah 56:3-5)

Perhaps you should quote the rest of article 26 (which in the original says "Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed."
If +Robinson is thought to be the antichrist his sacraments would still be effective (as you pointed out), but this second part of 26 tells what remedy could be sought if a minister is called into question. One might for example belive a minister should be deposed for not helping the poor. This might be something we could agree on.

As to whether the 39 articles are calvinist (as raised on an earlier thread) article 17 for example would indicate that they clearly are. There are plenty of calvinist anglicans. And many of us are not quiet about it. After all the 39 articles is still regarded as a statement of faith by most provinces of the communion.

John Wilkins

I consider article 17 to refute the traditional Calvinist teaching of double predestination. Clearly Calvin [and especially Bucer] deeply influenced the English Reformation. But Article 17 is ambivalent about God preordaining corrupt people to hell.

Some would argue that the only true catholicism is a reformed [or Calvinist] catholicism.

Article 17 is a ringing endorsement of predestination to life in Jesus. It is silent (as I view the scriptures also )as to predestination to eternal death.
Calvin in his institutes does go furtherand endorses reprobation it is true. You are right to point that out.
I cannot go there, but in the general sense of believing in election I honour the name calvinist. And yes, some calvinists would regard me as wimpish.
A further objection would be that a strict calvinist prefers a different form of church government. I am not sure there is one true model.
Your comment about reformed catholicism is intriging. I need to think more about that. I would assert that true anglicanism at least is reformed.


I agree that true Anglicanism is reformed, especially by a biblical [rather than secular] humanist worldview [ala Luther, Bucer and Erasmus].

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends and Family