I would think that this is a null set. There is nothing that ALL Anglicans believe. We could start with TEC if we are interested in such statements. We might say the TEC accepts the Quadrilateral, and those within TEC believe the same or are in disagreement with TEC. We might even posit that TEC accepts the Articles of Religion, albeit understanding that there are different interpretations of said Articles, as has been the case since the beginning. We might argue whether the understanding of the Articles in the context of 16th England is the proper context for using them in our lives in 21st Century America.
I know John Stott got away with openly declaring Episcopacy not to be a necessary thing for a Christian church. All he ever went on about was Justification by Faith Alone, which other Anglicans certainly disagree with today. Is the Nicene Creed a fair start for what all Anglicans believe in (not what they must believe, but what they generally do believe)?
It ought to be. It is believed by all orthodox Anglicans. I'd agree with Mark that the Quadrilateral should be held in common. The Nicene Creed is part of that.
for our convenience, In 1888, the third Lambeth Conference (an international consultation of bishops of the Anglican Communion) passed Resolution 11. This was a scaled-back version of the resolution passed at Chicago two years earlier, more closely aligned with Huntington's original wording, and reads as follows: That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made towards Home Reunion: (a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. (b) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith. (c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ministered with unfailing use of Christ'sWords of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him. (d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
Oh dear - Stott got away with murder in his sermons! Since no one ever told him to stop preaching presbyterian polity, it doesn't look like (d) has much force today? All Souls, Langham Pl. was just one Evangelical church - I wonder what they've been preaching down at St. Helen's Bishopsgate!
My question is a little bit more interest how can say about himself that he is anglican? Is it enough to accept the the 39 articles and the Lambeth Conference? Do a The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Church or Charismatic Epsicopal Church member claim about himseflt the he is an anglican beleiver? Do you accept them as an anglican beleiver? Thanks the answers.
The "problem" with confessing "Anglicanism" is that the Anglican churches are not infallible, and so may change doctrine against all history and good sense. Unlike Rome, we humbly admit that the faith can become derelict among us, so there is a possibility of members of the hierarchy leading sheep away from the truth. To rely on conferences and updates every ten years to know what "Anglican" is, can be very dangerous, especially in an era of constant change. We can easily miss the fact that this ability to fail is a strength: it gives us all something to fight for, and forces us to have faith. Were all things infallibly defined for us, we would never feel compelled to run the race or defend the honour our holy mother the Church; we would never have faith in God, because it would only be for the bishops to have faith in their own invincible connection to the Holy Ghost. I say we make the Bible & the Nicene, Apostles', and Athanasian Creeds our rule of Anglicanism. We are a catholic church, part of the universal assembly of all believers. Whether we are truly believers depends upon whether we follow antiquity, not upon whether we follow the random statements of a bunch of miter-wearing yobbos on a power trip.
These are great questions! I'm going to say something that will be controversial here, but I ask those who disagree to direct that disagreement elsewhere: you don't have to accept the 39 Articles to be Anglican. There are people here who think that you should or must accept them, but I know confirmed Anglicans who don't know anything about the Articles. Following them is not a condition for being Anglican, despite what people say on this forum. To call yourself Anglican (as an individual), you would confess the truth of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. You would use the Book of Common Prayer (or whatever your official worship book is called). You would recognize the importance of the Sacraments and the real benefits that they confer. You would recognize the three orders of bishop, priest, and deacon. An individual could be an Anglican outside of an Anglican church, but your desire would be to join the fellowship of other Anglicans under the authority of the bishop. Once you have been Confirmed by the bishop, you would be "officially" Anglican in the eyes of your province & the Anglican Communion. The groups you mentioned, CEEC and CEC, are not in communion with Canterbury. They do use the Book of Common Prayer and share some of our traditions, vestments, and ideas. They tend to contain a mixture of Anglican/Evangelical/Charismatic beliefs. They are influenced by some Anglican and Celtic traditions. Now I have met some CEC Christians who call themselves Anglican, and I've met others who do not. It is an interesting situation. Most would probably identify themselves as Anglican, and it is certainly possible to be Anglican without communion with Canterbury. These resources might be very helpful: The Anglican Instruments of Unity - this explains the importance of Lambeth and the other leaders. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral - this explains the basic beliefs and non-negotiables of Anglicans. A definition of Anglican churches Churches in the Anglican Communion Churches in full communion with the Anglican Communion Churches which are more-or-less Anglican, but are not in communion with Canterbury
I think all anglicans believe that their particular theological group is right and the rest are stupid heretics- does that count? I would be interested to hear more brjohnbc, on why you think episcopal polity should be abolished, and on what grounds if not necessarily scriptural ones?
Hmm I am Anglican because the Parish Church in my parish is Anglican... So it has become what I am used to over the years. Does that make me Anglican or not? If we go to our Parish Church and continue to go then by going to that church defines us rather than "We are Anglican pers se" There is a Methodist Church in the village and nowadays Mormons have a church? in the village. If St Paul's had been Low Church of England then would I still be Anglican? So really unless we have chosen our church building because it is Anglican, then that would make us Anglican but if we just happen to fall in with it by chance and it is comfortable enough not to leave are we Anglican or not. Naturally I say I am because most people aren't that interested in specifics but in the interest of this discussion, do you attend the church in your parish which happens to be Anglican or have you made a deliberate choice to go elsewhere because they are definately Anglican and your parish church isn't...?
I am an Anglican. What my friends think of me: A caring, loving, and accepting church. What my Anglican ancestors think of me: Which Anglican ancestors? What I think of me: Descended of the Apostles and deserving of respect. What society thinks of me: Irrelevant. On this forum we are not allowed to make slurs about Anglicanism. -Admin
You are a member of a particular church if you are baptized or confirmedinto that church and stay by choice or as an adult you join that particular church by asking that your name be put on the roll or when you ask for envelopes. Just because you worship in a particular building does not necessarily make you a member of that denomination. Be Blessed
Well, as far as I see that all Anglican do beleive that Book of Common Prayer is the common point in their faith practice. Perhaps it is another topic that which version of the BCP is the best.
that is how I kind of view it. Anglican by what church I am a member off rather than Anglican Per se. And I wonder how many are just like me but not keen to admit that reality
There are huge differences. Some are worse than others of course, but for the word "Anglican" to have any meaning, all versions other than the 1662 should have the false labeling removed.
"What do all Anglicans believe? Simple really, The Revelation of Christ once revealed to the saints. (S.Jude). Recorded in Scripture and Interpreted, explained and completed by The Holy Fathers in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. This has been the Canon of faith within the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in England from the early days to the last centuries, the Church isn't an Omnibus, where one buys a ticket and abandons at one's convenience. It is the Body of Christ where we become Members through baptism. We learn from Christ, we become Christians through joining Him. If we don't hold the faith as taught by His Body the Church, how can we call ourselves Anglican?
Yes, you reject the notion that no magisterium exists save that of the Bible itself, which is the essence of "sola scriptura". I have no doubt that your's is a majority and even the official Anglican view today, and that you are prepared to impose it on the Church for the purpose of allowing tradition to trump the authority of Scripture where it suits, but that view is not the view of early Anglicans. As on a parallel thread, I refer you to J.I. Packer: http://www.ccel.us/godsinerrantword.ch2.html
The Magisterium, (or teaching authority ) for the Anglican Church is simple, Revelation, Scripture and Tradition! It is not a majority view within the Anglican Church to my mind, certainly not at the present time! If we read the thoughts of many of our friends here we are more like Pentecostals, choosing our own way and ignoring the teachings of the apostles and bishops , unless that is, they agree with us, as it were!. As for imposing it? You might be right, it is certainly historically correct and there is a dearth of teaching if the internet is representative! As for Holy Tradition trumping scripture show me where and when? As for not being the view of early Anglicans? Read the books I've mentioned. The trouble being that, to my mind, there is a wrong understanding of the Church, it is the Body of Christ,here on earth. Many of our friends consider it just another sect! As I think you do!
Indeed. The convictions of the Tudor churchmen were threefold: 1) They believed that the Church of England had a continuous history reaching back before the arrival of Augustine of Canterbury. 2) Whilst the life of the Church needed to be drawn into renewed conformity with the teaching of the Bible, this had to be done without breaking the continuity of faith and history. 3) Whilst abuses should be corrected, things of value should be retained - ceremonies or ideas not explicitly contraindicated by Scripture were left open. The Church of England was still seen as part of the Catholic Church. This is clearly evident in the title of the BCP, where it sets forth the 'Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England'. The compilers of the BCP collected and arranged liturgical sources from the historic Church and made them available for use by the English in their own language. The English liturgy borrows from various periods of ecclesiastical history, and expresses the conviction that the Church is one, and the Church of England, a part of it: In the Prayer for the Church Militant (intercessions in Holy Communion ) we ask God to 'inspire continually the universal Church with a spirit of truth, unity and concord'. and that 'all they that do confess thy holy name may agree in the truth of thy holy Word'. In Baptism the Priest receives the candidates into 'the congregation of Christ's flock' and declares them sacramentally regenerate and 'grafted unto Christ's Church' with the expectation that they would become 'lively members of the same'. In the Rite of Ordination, the Bishop lays his hands on those being priested with the words 'Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest within the Church of God'. To belong to the Church of England was to be part of the Catholic Church.
Again, you distort the history of the Church in the reformation. The voice of the Anglican Church was heard and still is, from or through, the Church's Synods and not through a bunch of individuals. Anabaptist were not protestants? I always thought they were Calvinists seasoned with a touch of Anarchism? Whilst the Articles, no matter how many, were and still are, lines in the dust , past which men like you and I and of course' others who know more ,' must not pass! Have you ever taken the time to prove a point?