I have just learned that Steven Wedgeworth converted to Anglicanism

I thought the guy kneeling at the desk was a part of the painting at first ha!

 

Why? It's perfectly consistent with the Articles of Religion and historic Anglicanism. There is zero requirement to do so.

 

He wouldn't. People like to expunge Reformed Anglicans from the flock. They forget that the Church of England was invited to the Synod of Dort, sat in on the proceedings and opposed the Remonstrants.

One does not need to be a Calvinist on election to be Anglican or conform to the formularies but they also authorize that belief if one wishes.

 

The 1662 Catechism explicitly denies Limited Atonement.

 

Because it is wrong

 

"If Christ made satisfaction for all, then ought all to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore he did not make a perfect satisfaction. Answer: Christ satisfied for all, as respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction he made, but not as it respects the application thereof; for he fulfilled the law in a two-fold respect. First, by his own righteousness; and secondly by making satisfaction for our sins, each of which is most perfect. But the satisfaction is made ours by the application, which is also two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin; the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves the merit of Christ when, by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benefit to us." - Zacharias Ursinus

Most Calvinists do not deny that Christ's atonement is a perfect satisfaction and sufficient for all men, so Christ did indeed die for all men in that he has made satisfaction for everyone. However, Calvinists would say that God only makes application of that satisfaction to those whom he has chosen (the elect). The Synod of Dort also agrees with the Heidelberg Catechism and Zacharias Ursinus.

Heidelberg Catechism (one of the most famous Reformed documents that were used widely by the CoE):
Question 37:What do you confess when you say that He suffered?
A. During all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end, Christ bore in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. Thus, by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice,[2] He has redeemed our body and soul from everlasting damnation,[3] and obtained for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.

John Calvin: "It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins 'of the whole world'"

It can be said that the atonement was unlimited in sufficiency and scope, but limited in purpose/intent.

That's why people like R.C Sproul prefer the terms "definite atonement" rather than limited atonement, which is a term that can confuse the actual doctrines of Grace.

 

What proof do you say that it was widely used in the CofE, when we have our own catechisms, the 3 vast Nowell catechisms, and the BCP catechism, along with tons of commentaries on the BCP catechism.

I'm not taking sides in the discussion on atonement, since our Church does not yet have a settled definition, apart from the two historic majority positions: hypothetical universalism, and unlimited atonement. (True limited/definite atonement has 0 representation in the Anglican divines, including those who attended the Synod of Dort). Most of the fathers believed in unlimited atonement, but Peter Lombard taught hypothetical universalism; so fine, we can accept both views as viable.

All I am saying here is, that I bristle when people say "X non-CofE document was taken as definitive by CofE" as if our own tradition weren't rich or sufficient enough to provide its own answers.

 

"When Oxford revised its statutes in 1578, the Heidelberg Catechism was prescribed for students alongside Alexander Nowell’s Larger Catechism, John Calvin’s Catechism of the Church of Geneva, and the Elements of the Christian Religion of Andreas Gerhard Hyperius, a Flemish theologian whose theology lies between Lutheran and Reformed beliefs. Hyperius is best known for a treatise on preaching." -Robin Grant Jordan from the EMC

 

Are you quoting from this?
https://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/p/the-h.html

This is a sad, famous, incredibly biased, and ideological site that has over the years made wild statements without any proofs or citations. If Cambridge was still mandating those texts in the 1590s, then Samuel Harsnett who explicitly preached against Calvinism would not have been made the Metropolitan Archbishop of York.

"Harsnett was a strident anti-Calvinist.[12] The extent of his Arminian theology has been discussed by historians.[13]"
"He was also Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University for the years 1606, the same year he gained his Doctor of Divinity degree,[1] and 1609"

(Again, not endorsing Arminianism, just denying any validity to ludicrous ideological websites.)

 

As far as I am aware, Peter Baro was never Archbishop of York and was expelled from his position at the University of Cambridge due to his opposition towards the Lambeth Articles. As relating to the website (it may or may not be biased), I have no reason to disbelieve that the "Heidelberg Catechism was prescribed for students."

 

The reign of Charles I had a major impact on how many within the CoE viewed Calvinism. Charles I (who some believed was trying to reintroduce Romanism) was in conflict with the radical Puritans/Presbyterians of his era. Therefore the CoE took a more anti-Calvinist position after his coronation, which I don't believe is reflective of the CoE prior to the controversy between radical Puritans and the CoE. This Arminian vs Puritan battle led many within the CoE to attempt to whitewash away the Snoyd of Dort, Lambeth Articles, and many of the ContReformed ties with the CoE (same as how the ACs have rewritten Anglican history). I noticed that the new individual that you have mentioned (Samuel Harsnett) was installed as Archbishop in 1629 three years after Charles I started his reign, which would line up with Charles I push to destroy the Presbyterians and Radical Puritans (whom he wanted to destroy for political reasons).

 

I first wrote Peter Baro as one of those who refuted Calvinism. But the man I meant to say was Samuel Harsnett, as I made in my edit. He also refuted Calvinism in public lectures in Cambridge, and became the Metropolitan Archbishop of York. There were many who publicly refuted Calvinism in those years, both in Cambridge and elsewhere, so forgive me for confusing the two names.

That's not how logic works. You first have to have reason to believe something in the first place.
So the right question is, what reason do you have at first, to believe this statement? "It says something I'd like to be true; therefore I'll take it as accurate."

Why would anyone need to whitewash:
-the one that was never adopted in England;
-the second that was crushed when some tried to propose it?

You do know that John Davenant wrote the book on hypothetical universalism, right?

Interview: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...niversalism-with/id1476529038?i=1000545735403
Article: https://northamanglican.com/book-review-john-davenants-hypothetical-universalism/


Anyway, that's all I intend to say. My first point remains unanswered, that the Blog is rabidly ideological, and there's zero proof of wide use of the Heidelberg Catechism, when we've had so many of our own theological works.

 

1) I like how you use the word refuted. Obviously, you are very impartial on this issue. Of the two people you mentioned, one was expelled from a university because he opposed the Lambeth Articles, and the other was installed under Charles I who supported anti-Calvinism as a political tool to attack his enemies in Parliament and Scotland who happened to be Calvinists (whose father, James I famously hated the Arminians).

2)"It was this catholic spirit that caused it to take deep root in the English Reformation. Once translated into English, the University of Oxford’s Catechetical Statute of 1579 prescribed the Heidelberg for all juniors and those without degrees. It even prescribed punishments for negligent scholars! All this for a foreign catechism while the English Church’s own Thirty-Nine Articles and John Jewel’s official Apology of the Church of England were optional reading."- https://davenantinstitute.org/the-h...book-of-comfort-davenant-hall-course-preview/ (you may consider this to be a biased source as well?)

"... in fact, Genevan theological works were actually vastly more popular in England than in other Protestant countries, with ninety editions of Calvin's works and fifty-six of these of his successor Beza published in English by 1600. But Geneva and Zurich were not the only sources of foreign Reformed influence: the Rhineland Palatinate and its Heidelberg Catechism can lay claim to an equally substantial impact upon English Protestantism. Oxford's Catechetical Statute of 1579 prescribed the Heidelburg Catechism (along with several others) as a set work to be used by all juniors in the university and those without degrees. The catechism was the only catechism to be printed in Oxford University, and the two editions of the catechism published in 1588 were printed with the arms of the university on the title page. Just three years later the catechism was published by the king's printer in Edinburgh with the specific declaration on the title page that it was 'authorized by the Kinges Maiestie, for the use of Scotland'. Copies of the catechism continued to be published in England well into the Jacobean period, and there is evidence of its being used to catechize students in Cambridge well into the 1630s. Another aspect of this formal approval of the Heidelberg Catechism was the enormous popularity of English translations of the commentaries upon the catechism by the Palatine divines of Jeremias Bastingius and Zacharias Ursinus." -The Oxford History of Anglicanism (biased as well?)

3) Relating to the Synod of Dort:

"In fact, however, for all their disagreements with some of the other delegations [to the Synod of Dort], there is nothing to suggest that the English delegates were uniquely 'moderate' in their behaviour, or that they disapproved of the dismissal of the Arminians, or that their subscription to the canons (which they were happy to defend subsequently) was anything less than sincere. And if they were technically royal appointees, it would nevertheless make a nonsense of the synod's proceedings to suggest that they were not regarded as de facto representatives and spokesmen of the Church of England. And far from losing an appetite for engaging with foreign Reformed divines, some of the delegates continued to play a mediating role in the divisions among and within the Reformed Churches of the continent in the 1630s." _The Oxford History of Anglicanism

Relating to the Lambeth Articles: They were signed by Archbishop John Whitgift of Canterbury, Bishop Richard Fletcher of London, Bishop Richard Vaughan of Bangor, and many others. They were suppressed by Queen Elizabeth after she learned that they were submitted without her authority. It is interesting to me that the attitude of the King or Queen only matters when they attack Calvinism but not when they ferociously attack Arminianism as was the case with King James I. Furthermore, the Lambeth Articles have a place within the Anglicanism based on the fact that they were adopted by the Irish Church (which is an Anglican Church) in 1615.

4) Regarding John Davenant: Many scholars have disagreements regarding Davenants views.

"John Davenant was a definite and doctrinal Protestant as we see from his book A Treatise on Justification. He was clear on the biblical teaching of justification by faith alone and he had no sympathy with the views of the Roman Catholic party in England. He was also Calvinistic in his understanding of the Doctrines of Grace. It is indeed arguable that Davenant was the most influential member of the most important group (the English divines) at the Synod of Dort. At Dort the 'Five points of Arminianism' were refuted comprehensively and the Calvinistic position vindicated. The influence for good of the Synod of Dort itself and of the Reformed Confessions which were written in the light of it (Westminster Confession, Savoy Declaration and 1689 Baptist Confession) is incalculable."-John and Angela Magee, The Theology of John Davenant from Biography at Emmanuel Church Salisbury, UK. ( I guess this is a biased source as well?)

In my research, I found it interesting that John Davenant refuted the first worked-out attack by an English Churchman on Calvinism (by Samuel Hoard). It is interesting that the "first worked-out attack" on Calvinism in the Church of England was published in 1633 during the reign of Charles I, who, as we all know, was attacking the religious liberty of radical puritans and Presbyterians for political purposes.

This conversation was started because certain individuals said that one cannot be an Anglican and a Calvinist. I find this untrue and insulting. I have never said you can't be an Anglican and Arminian. I do not need to demonstrate that Anglicanism prior to Charles I was reformed in a modern sense. I only need to demonstrate that there were many Calvinists and Calvinistic influences in the Church of England.

 

The issue here is that for any other creed, confession, formulary, etc., to have been binding on the Church of England would have required an Act of Parliament and the Royal Assent. Outside the Interregnum, no such Act exists. Neither Dort nor Heidelberg was ever made binding on Anglicans by the sole body which had the authority to do so: the English Parliament.

 

In a statutory sense, yes. In temporal jurisdiction. But it's the same in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction: no Convocation or Synod has endorsed these books, and we don't have any canons recommending such books, in the way that we do have canons which tell everyone to read Nowell's Catechism. And of course the BCP Catechism.

So even if some dissenting Cambridge don expressed his private non-CofE preferences (of which I still haven't any evidence btw), the simple fact is that others had their own contrary private preferences also. Bilson, Hooker, Hall, Harsnett, Baro, Bancroft, Hutton (who stopped the Lambeth Articles) made their views quite clear.

We're not discussing anyone's private, temporary views.

Similarly for Dort: whatever we may think of it, the fact is that all it shows us is the voting preferences for those 5 delegates and no one else. The Canons of Dort were never ratified in Convocation or Synod (ecclesiastical jurisdiction), or Parliament (temporal jurisdiction).

 

I would love a link to Nowell's Larger Catechism.

 

Here is the link to Nowell's Catechism (it doesn't say if it is the large Catechism, but it is over a hundred pages in length): https://ia800206.us.archive.org/11/items/catechismwritten00noweuoft/catechismwritten00noweuoft.pdf
The first part is in Latin and the English translation starts on page 142.

*warning* Alexander Nowell (English Priest and Theologian) was a Calvinist, so he obviously wasn't an Anglican and didn't understand the teachings of his church. Nevertheless, Nowell's Catechism would be adopted as the official Anglican Catechism.

 

Of even greater significance for the history of Anglicanism is the fact that Nowell invented bottled beer.

 

Oh he was an Anglican for sure he just erred on a few things.

 

Calvinist Anglican: "Nowell was a Calvinist."
99.9% of Anglicans: "Nobody's perfect."