"Anabaptists were not Calvinists" is a truism just as "Roman Catholics were not Calvinists" is also a truism. There is nothing profound in this observation.
Weren't Anabaptists these weird people who rejected private property, who rejected the Bible, and 'heard' God speaking to them in direct revelation?
No, they were deeply committed to trying to follow the teachings of the bible, and just fell foul of the more conventional protestants for rejecting infant baptism and for taking the sermon on the mount seriously. Though I do generalize, they were a diverse bunch, some extremely violent and radical, others deeply pacifistic but still pretty radical on social questions- they did represent a serious quasi-anarchic challenge to the establishment about what the Kingdom of Heaven on earth really looked like, which naturally, got them persecuted and killed.
The only ones who were violent were the Munster group, but they were atypical of the movement. The Anabaptists were for religious liberty, church-state separation, and believer's baptism, which got them murdered by Roman Catholics and Magisterial Protestants alike.
Read the Jerusalem Declaration, it is a good stand on what orthodox Anglicans believe and are. http://fca.net/resources/the_jerusalem_declaration/
I can remember the Jerusalem Declaration being put out! It was interesting and full of hope! How-and-ever, it only held to Four Councils and the One, Holy catholic and Apostolic Church subscribes to Seven. The Protestant Sects hold to four!
As far as I can see, they're not in the BCP, any of them! The Councils are a basic part of the Church fabric with Councils being an inheritance from pre Christian Church. They're mentioned in scripture and from early times the British Church was a player with our Bishops attending various General Assemblies and were present according, to both Orthodox and Roman sources, at Niceae. Which is probably the greatest event in human terms since the formation of the One,Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.These Councils are simply the means of the Holy Ghost's intervention in the life of the Body of Christ. Our Church has held to all of the seven since the Upper Room and have re-affirmed our beliefs regularly since 325 AD.
highchurchman, please name me anyone in communion with the Church of England who accepted the seven councils.
A good Saturday evening to you Stalwart! The Synod of 1536, and 1542 affirmed the Councils, these made them obligatory on the whole Church. There were four Christological, two explanatory and one a matter of Good Manners. In the first Parliament of Eliza, the whole (Anglican,) Parliament affirmed affirmed the councils, and made them the basis for judging heresy. Dean Field, the Theologian of Eliza and James's era in his defining book,'Of the Church', states clearly ,'So that there are but Seven General Councils that the whole Church acknowledgeth called to determin faith and manners." Bishop Andrews, Bishop Bull, In 1688, at the time of the great struggle with Rome Chaytor the Dean of Oxford wrote his book on the Councils and the English Reformation Laud and Heylin. All these affirmed the Councils. But you do violence to reality in your demands, all our Divines who were true Anglicans accepted the Seven Councils, the question was the Seventh, Laud claimed that it was simply about manners, what he was referring to, I'm told, was its relative importance. It was about the way for Church men to behave towards the Mother of God, and the Saints. Was it as important as the Christological agreement of the early councils? The other trouble was that in the first millenium, the Church in England had received a faulty copy of the Seventh which they rejected By God's good grace however, they acted in a correct manner both to the Lady Mary and the Saints. Yet it is somewhat disingenuous to rely on just one part of a two thousand year old part of the Church for truth, the Body of Christ is beyond time.. We have to see it as a whole and to my mind this fractioning of the Church in England is most harmful to all of us!
The first four Councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) have a special place in Anglican theology. This, I believe, is without doubt. They are however, secondary to Scripture as Cranmer and others reiterate in Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum: ‘Though we gladly give great honour to the Councils, especially those that are General, we judge that they ought to be placed far below the dignity of the canonical Scriptures: and we make a great distinction between the Councils themselves. For some of them, especially those four, the Council of Nicæa, the first Council of Constantinople, and the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, we embrace and receive with great reverence. And we bear the same judgment about many others held afterwards, in which we see and confess that the most holy Fathers gave many weighty and holy decis ions according to the Divine Scriptures, about the blessed and supreme Trinity, about Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, and the redemption of man obtained through Him. But we think that our faith ought not to be bound by them, except so far as they can be confirmed by Holy Scripture. For it is manifest that some Councils have sometimes erred, and defined contrary to one another, partly on actions of law, partly even of faith'. In 1559, Parliament, with the assent of Queen Elizabeth I, passed the Act of Supremacy, restoring the sovereign authority of the English Crown over the CofE. In this Act, the first four General Councils were the authority by which heresy was to be defined. Behind these formulas lies the struggle between the Reformed and Roman Churches in the 16th century. Trent was coming to an end just as the 39 Articles were being formulated. Trent was not a free and true General Council and the CofE wanted the world to know that it maintained the traditional Catholic faith of the Church as it was before the illegitimate additions and innovations of Rome. Trent had elevated church tradition to a level equal to that of the Scriptures. The 39 Articles expressely deny that the authority of the Church alone could establish doctrine. It was believed that only the Word of God expressed in Scripture could establish doctrine. The dogmas of the first four General Councils were, for the CofE, definitive but not absolute. They were accepted because the dogmas of the first four Councils truly expressed the teaching of Scripture. Following on from the Elizabethan Settlement, Anglican theologians began to clarify the meaning of the CofE's teaching on the authority of the Councils. Some were ready to acknowledge later Councils. The Book of Homiles, for example acknowledges six. (Peril of Idolatry). Others, such as Richard Field, William Laud, John Bramhall, William Beveridge, Thomas Ken may well have acknowledged seven, at least in part. It is generally accepted that the Cof E accepts the first six General Councils. Laud, in his 'Conversations with Mr Fisher the Jesuit' points out that a council only has the authority that belongs to the Church and nothing more. In line with St Augustine, he notes that whilst a General Council may be relied on to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost, it does not mean that General Councils are infallible: 'It seems it was no news to St Augustine, that a General Council might err, and therefore be inferior to Scripture'. Laud was a clear follower of the 39 Articles here.