Puritan Demands -An Overreaction?

​

Reformed Catholic said:
How so? What parts of the Reformed Episcopal Church have become Anglo-Catholic that weren't so in the past?
Click to expand...

Here is the original 1873 Declaration of the Reformed Episcopal Church

1) The Reformed Episcopal Church, holding "the faith once delivered unto the saints," declares its belief in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God, as the sole rule of Faith and Practice; in the Creed "commonly called the Apostles' Creed;" in the Divine institution of the Sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper; and in the doctrines of grace substantially as they are set forth in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.​


2) This Church recognizes and adheres to Episcopacy, not as of Divine right, but as a very ancient and desirable form of Church polity.

3) This Church, retaining a liturgy which shall not be imperative or repressive of freedom in prayer, accepts The Book of Common Prayer, as it was revised, proposed, and recommended for use by the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, A.D. 1785, reserving full liberty to alter, abridge, enlarge, and amend the same, as may seem most conducive to the edification of the people, "provided that the substance of the faith be kept entire.

4) This Church condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange doctrines as contrary to God's Word:

First, that the Church of Christ exists only in one order or form of ecclesiastical polity:

Second, that Christian Ministers are "priests" in another sense than that in which all believers are a "royal priesthood:"

Third, that the Lord's Table is an altar on which the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ is offered anew to the Father:

Fourth, that the Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is a presence in the elements of Bread and Wine:

Fifth, that regeneration is inseparably connected with Baptism.

© 1995, The Reformed Episcopal Church.
 
MyCrows said:
I stand corrected. And baffled!
Click to expand...

yeutter said:
Fifth, that regeneration is inseparably connected with Baptism.
Click to expand...
I’ve always appreciated your contributions to PB over the years. But this point seems problematic. Sure, I’m a confessional Baptist, but baptismal regeneration is a real problem.

Edit: Please disregard. I forgot how to read when I wrote this.
 
Last edited:
VictorBravo said:
I’ve always appreciated your contributions to PB over the years. But this point seems problematic. Sure, I’m a confessional Baptist, but baptismal regeneration is a real problem.
Click to expand...

Hi Vic,

Did you miss subpoint 4? It reads, "This Church condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange doctrines as contrary to God's Word."
 
This quote from Muller illustrates the frailty of a "Reformed Catholicity" held together by the 39 Articles themselves. I alluded to it earlier, but the Anglican Church couldn't keep out encroaching Arianism, much less Arminianism, because the Articles were written at a time before some maturation and consolidation. It might be imagined that the Westminster Divines went "too far." because it is imagined they had no sense of history or where the Church had been or was going. The opposite is the case. The Reformation began almost a century and a half earlier and Churches had to respond to Remonstrants, Anabaptists, Socinians, Roman Catholics, and other errors. Prior to the Reformation, the Chuch had never really even developed a full-orbed doctrine on the Scriptures themselves and then sought to develop dogmatic along exegetical lines rather than simply adopting dogmas and practices from the past and assuming that the Word supported the ideas.

What I'm trying to get at is that we need to understand where the Confessions and practices of something like the Westminster Confession came from in terms of its historical context as well as the context of the "ancient Church". Someone imagining themselves a "Reformed Catholic" who doesn't understand why Churches ended up landing on a stable Confessional platform after centuries of wrangling over the same ideas will only find themselves repeating some of the same controversies and problems that occurred 4 centuries ago, not realizing that others worked through them. I think the attraction of Anglicanism is that it makes few Confessional demands, but it's also why it is so wide open to such basic heresies. While I'm grateful for fellow believers in the ACNA, I doubt it will be 10-20 years before another branch needs to be created. I know that seems like a strange response to the question about why the Puritans rejected making the sign of the Cross, but I'm just trying to demonstrate how it's sort of weird to ask why Puritans were so "messed up" about "basic practices" while skimming past what has happened to the erstwhile "normal" Anglicans.

A subcontroversy, typical of the eighteenth century, was the debate between Clarke and his opponents over Arian subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. Clarke had contended in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity that subscription was a matter of accepting the articles in the light of one’s reading of Scripture and that, therefore, he could subscribe to the article on the Trinity: the sense of the article was indeterminate, he noted, not clearly Arian, Nicene or Sabellian! Waterland argued that the sense of the authors of the Thirty-nine Articles was intrinsic to their correct interpretation, that the authors were Nicene trinitarians, and that, therefore, no Arian or Sabellian could in good conscience subscribe. Waterland was, unfortunately, Arminian in his soteriology. It was quickly pointed out by Arthur Ashley Sykes that the authors of the articles and the original intent were Calvinist. If Waterland’s logic concerning Arianism and subscription were correct, then the same logic would prevent Waterland, as an Arminian from subscribing to the articles! This subcontroversy represents but one aspect of the gradual shift away from serious dogmatic subscription to articles and creeds that was characteristic of the eighteenth century in its tendency toward rational rather than traditional doctrinal theology.

Muller, R. A. (2003). Post-Reformation reformed dogmatics: the rise and development of reformed orthodoxy; volume 4: the triunity of God (pp. 133–134). Baker Academic.
Click to expand...
 
Reformed Catholic said:
How so? What parts of the Reformed Episcopal Church have become Anglo-Catholic that weren't so in the past?
Click to expand...
Wikipedia:

Although the REC was founded as an evangelical and Reformed Anglican body, it now has Anglo-Catholics among its members and has entered into an intercommunion agreement with an Anglo-Catholic body, the APA. A 2006 document of the REC bishops, "True Unity by the Cross of Christ", grants wider flexibility to re-interpret the Thirty-nine Articles in an Anglo-Catholic manner while maintaining the perspective of the English Reformers. It uses the terms "priest", "altar", and "Real Presence", and speaks of the authority of tradition as well as that of Holy Scripture.

Reformed critics characterize these developments as rejecting the 39 Articles, revising the force of the Declaration of Principles, as well as departing from the Church's evangelical and Reformed heritage in order to accommodate Anglo-Catholicism.

Take a look at the articles of intercommunion with the Anglo-Catholic APA. APA priests are eligible for pastoral charges in the REC.
 
Last edited:
Semper Fidelis said:
While I'm grateful for fellow believers in the ACNA, I doubt it will be 10-20 years before another branch needs to be created.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate and agree with a lot of what you've written, I know if I say this to an Anglican, they can say the same exact thing straight back to us Presbyterians. Our "mother ship" denominations have strayed headlong into apostasy despite their intricate confessions (ie. the Church of Scotland, the PCUSA, etc...). Surely, if detailed Confessions could save from heresy we would still have a functioning mainline denomination, wouldn't we? (Heck, many are even worrying the same trend is happening slowly in the PCA today! But I digress.) An Anglican may justly point out that the problem of Church bodies shifting to heresy must be some other factor
 
The Reformed Episcopal Theological School remained a solid Bible teaching Reformed seminary as long as Robert K. Rudolph was on the faculty
The Reformed Episcopal Church itself became increasingly Anglo-Catholic when Rev. Royal U. Grote Jr. and Rev. Ray Sutton became bishops of that body. Under Grote and Sutton the 1873 Declarations of Principles of the Reformed Episcopal Church became essentially a dead letter. This culminated in the Reformed Episcopal Church entering into inter-communion with the Anglican Province of America. They doubled down on their ecumenical error by becoming a founding jurisdiction of the Anglican Church in North America, a body that ordains women presbyters.
In about 1963 Rev James Parker Dees reacted to the obvious apostasy that was present in the Protestant Episcopal Church, as evidenced by that bodies failure to discipline Bishop Pike, by founding the Anglican Orthodox Church.
Why didn't Bishop Dees just go to the Reformed Episcopal Church rather than forming a new jurisdiction? You will frequently hear the accusation that Bishop Dees was opposed to desegregation, something the Protestant Episcopal Church embraced, and at that time most of the Reformed Episcopal Church parishes in the South were predominantly African American. Bishop Dees had previously served a predominantly African American parish in the Episcopal Church, and continued to have cordial relations with African Americans in the Episcopal Church and the Reformed Episcopal Church. Racism does not seem to be the reason that Bishop Dees did not go to the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Dees was, even in the early 1960s, very concerned about the direction the Reformed Episcopal Church was taking. A noted Presbyterian fundamentalist Dr. Carl McIntire, wrote in the Christian Beacon, high words of praise for the Reformed Episcopal Theological School in Philadelphia, but expressed serious reservations about Reformed Episcopal Church Bishop, the Rt Rev William Culbertson, who was then the President of Moody Bible Institute. The Christian Beacon expressed serious concerns about the ecumenical direction that the Reformed Episcopal Church was heading. Many observers think that Dr. McIntire's criticism of the Episcopal Church and the Reformed Episcopal Church came to him from Bishop Dees.
The Anglican Orthodox Church and the United Episcopal Church of North America are the two Anglican jurisdictions in North America that still require their clergy to subscribe to the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion.
 
Reformed Catholic said:
While I appreciate and agree with a lot of what you've written, I know if I say this to an Anglican, they can say the same exact thing straight back to us Presbyterians. Our "mother ship" denominations have strayed headlong into apostasy despite their intricate confessions (ie. the Church of Scotland, the PCUSA, etc...). Surely, if detailed Confessions could save from heresy we would still have a functioning mainline denomination, wouldn't we? (Heck, many are even worrying the same trend is happening slowly in the PCA today! But I digress.) An Anglican may justly point out that the problem of Church bodies shifting to heresy must be some other factor
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about orthodoxy in perpetuity. I know Presbyterians have had their problems historically. It's just that Anglicanism has long been very loose in its doctrinal fidelity. I mean, the PCA has its problems, but we're not arguing about whether or not a Bishop is an atheist. Also, while only 50 years old, the PCA may not be as pure as she ought, but the ACNA has already got some loose stuff going on, and it's so new that it still has that new car smell. :)
 
Reformed Catholic said:
Surely, if detailed Confessions could save from heresy we would still have a functioning mainline denomination, wouldn't we?
Click to expand...
From what I see, there is a big difference between wanting to interpret the scriptures faithfully, and coming to different conclusions, and on the other hand, having a blatant disregard and contempt for the scriptures. I don't know why people in that category would still even want to call themselves a church. It's like, come on, just call yourselves something different. You clearly don't want to follow the bible.
 
Reformed Catholic said:
Historic, established Protestant churches. PCUSA, Episcopal, ELCA, United Methodist, etc...
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Churches and Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America both be historic and established Protestant churches? Unless you are using established to refer to established by the state, which the ones you listed aren't either.
 
Sam Jer said:
Wouldn't the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Churches and Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America both be historic and established Protestant churches? Unless you are using established to refer to established by the state, which the ones you listed aren't either.
Click to expand...
Technically, sure. So would the SBC. But most people generally do not categorize them with the other mainlines. Also, compared to the mainline denominations I mentioned, the RPCNA and ARP are not well known and have far less institutional authority / resources. I would add that as another requirement in the definition of what is often meant by "mainline denominations".
 
Sam Jer said:
Wouldn't the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Churches and Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America both be historic and established Protestant churches? Unless you are using established to refer to established by the state, which the ones you listed aren't either.
Click to expand...
In the USA and Canada, the term "mainliner" or "mainline church" tends to be pejorative, too, which is why it's not typically applied to the other examples given.
 
Last edited:
J.L. Allen said:
In the USA and Canada, the term "mainliner or mainline church" tends to be pejorative, too, which is why it's not typically applied to the other examples given.
Click to expand...
Yes, speaking as an ARP (and I'm sure my RPCNA brothers would agree)...we are NOT mainline churches. "Mainline" typically means theologically liberal, if not apostate.
 
I just noticed you used the Church of Scotland as an example... Are you aware of all the shenanigans that went on there? It split all the way back in 1733 because the government was meddling (and that ignores those who never agreed to join in 1690 in the first place). It happened more than once in Scottish church history that the government overstepped it's bounds, causing a split where all the resources and buildings stayed with the government's friends.
I am pretty sure the PCUSA's beginings were affected by this too but I am not so sure.

J.L. Allen said:
In the USA and Canada, the term "mainliner or mainline church" tends to be pejorative, too, which is why it's not typically applied to the other examples given.
Click to expand...
CGS said:
Yes, speaking as an ARP (and I'm sure my RPCNA brothers would agree)...we are NOT mainline churches. "Mainline" typically means theologically liberal, if not apostate.
Click to expand...
I know. This makes the lack of a faithful mainline denomination quite an irrelevant question, which is the essence of the point I tried to prove.

Reformed Catholic said:
Also, compared to the mainline denominations I mentioned, the RPCNA and ARP are not well known and have far less institutional authority / resources
Click to expand...
Is it a surprise that unfaithful men are more respected by the world?
 
Sam Jer said:
Is it a surprise that unfaithful men are more respected by the world?
Click to expand...
That is true, but it has nothing to do with what I said. The SBC is incredibly well known in America and it is not apostate. It's more about denomination size and how impactful they have been in terms of institutions (like hospitals, universities, schools, etc...)
 
Reformed Catholic said:
That is true, but it has nothing to do with what I said. The SBC is incredibly well known in America and it is not apostate. It's more about denomination size and how impactful they have been in terms of institutions (like hospitals, universities, schools, etc...)
Click to expand...
How many Presbyterian denominations like that are there? Two?
My whole point is that having a "functioning mainline denomination" is not a relevant measurement.
 
Sam Jer said:
How many Presbyterian denominations like that are there? Two?
Click to expand...
Just the one (that I can think of). Mainliners are typically better at unity, partly because of their negligence of theology and doctrine. (for example the mainline Southern and Northern Presbyterians merged, but not so with the theologically conservative equivalents (PCA and OPC).
 
So let me get it straight
- Presbyterians are just as bad as Anglicans because they don't have a functioning mainline (despite Anglicans being behind several church-splits and compromises in the history of the Church of Scotland)
- A mainline is defines by attributes that are unlikely to be held by faithful people (retaining institutions and their'e respectability in our current age, being big due to not being concerned about doctrine)
You see why this makes little sense?
 
Sam Jer said:
Presbyterians are just as bad as Anglicans because they don't have a functioning mainline
Click to expand...
Who are you arguing against?? The only point I was making was that Anglicans could push back if we claim that having a broad confession (39 Articles) was the sole responsible factor in their church splits, since we too have had similar problems with our much more detailed Reformed confessions.
Sam Jer said:
- A mainline is defines by attributes that are unlikely to be held by faithful people (retaining institutions and their'e respectability in our current age, being big due to not being concerned about doctrine)
Click to expand...
It depends on how you define Mainline. The term has become so associated with Liberalism that it has negative connotations colloquially, but like I said, if you define it as merely historic, established Protestant churches, then faithful churches could be considered.
 
Reformed Catholic said:
Who are you arguing against?? The only point I was making was that Anglicans could push back if we claim that having a broad confession (39 Articles) was the sole responsible factor in their church splits, since we too have had similar problems with our much more detailed Reformed confessions.
Click to expand...
Did @Semper Fidelis say it is the sole reason?
He actually used an actual historical example of where he thinks the broadness of the confession was at play
 
Reformed Catholic said:
Who are you arguing against?? The only point I was making was that Anglicans could push back if we claim that having a broad confession (39 Articles) was the sole responsible factor in their church splits, since we too have had similar problems with our much more detailed Reformed confessions.
Click to expand...
That's actually not the point I was making.

The point I was making was that the 39 Articles came very early in the historic Reformation, and the Articles set down some very basic doctrinal statements. In fact, it's so set in an early Confessional context that it has the feature of being very strong in pushing back against Roman Catholicism at the time, that it says very little about things that were pretty much "agreed upon" by not only Protestants but the Church catholic.

Many theological movements ensued in the century and a half, from the Reformation's beginnings to the formation of the Westminster Standards. Among Lutheran and Continental Reformed standards it factors in all the controversies that ensued. It has the benefit of theological reflection and the development of catholic dogmas along exegetical lines. It speaks in light of Anabaptist and Socinian movements. It wrestles with Arminianism. It reacts to Erastianism and the issue of liberty of conscience. It has a developed Covenant Theology that is seeded from early on but has flowered at the time of its writing. It even has debates over Biblical languages and how the Scriptures are to be understood.

The thread started asking whether the Puritans were over-reacting to "ancient practices" in the Church. Nobody asks that about the 39 Articles because it is so thin of a confession that it not only doesn't speak to those issues of forms and practices but also doesn't speak to issues that orthodox Christians will have to recapitulate in order to keep even heretics out of the Church. The theological context, many years later, is much different and the Confession reflects the depth of those issues. Ancient creeds are recapitulated in the Westminster Standards that the Anglican Church did not formally adopt but stuck with a thin Confession. Anglicanism has been much more of an institutional banner than a Church that is theologically united. It's not just recent decades where profound theological disagreement existed (including being unable to remove those who propagated ancient heresies).

When one asks then, whether someone is "over-reacting" against ancient practices then the whole of the Confession and what produced it regarding religious worship, liberty of conscience, and how doctrines are established by Scripture and not ancient practice. Someone who thus styles themselves as a Reformed catholic will have to account for what is actually being preserved and what common confession he is resting upon to determine that an ancient practice might still in a Church that otherwise denise basic catholic doctrines.

Presbyterians are not free of theological compromise but, confessionally, there is a standard that is very thick against which that compromise can be measured. Presbyterians who want such compromise have historically and self-consciously sought to distance themselves from the Westminster Standards or decided they will loosely decide which they agree with. Those with a thin confession have very little they need to ignore because there are so many theological openings in the confession to adopt catholic heresies and the document was never written to address them.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
The point I was making was that the 39 Articles came very early in the historic Reformation, and the Articles set down some very basic doctrinal statements. In fact, it's so set in an early Confessional context that it has the feature of being very strong in pushing back against Roman Catholicism at the time, that it says very little about things that were pretty much "agreed upon" by not only Protestants but the Church catholic.
Click to expand...

The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion reached close to their final form in 1571. The Belgic Confession was penned in 1561. The Second Helvetic Confession was published in 1536. The Augsburg Confession was adopted in 1530. The Heidelberg Catechism was released in 1563. The Scots Confession was originally published in 1560.
Yes the Thirty Nine Articles were an early confession. Yes the Thirty Nine Articles set the Church of England apart from the Church of Rome. Why then were the Thirty Nine Articles the least detailed of the confessions I have listed?
Confessions and Creeds serve three purposes.
1. To define what the Church believes, and what Church officers are expected to teach.
2. To define the limits of unbelief, and to be inclusive of those who believe.
3. To serve as a polemic against error
The Church of England was an Erastian Church, whose hierarchy wanted to keep everyone in the fold. Therefore a confessional statement that was ambiguous enough that Calvinists, followers of Wycliffe, moderate Lutherans, and followers of Bullinger could all sign on to was desirable. The Thirty nine Articles accomplished that objective.
 
Sam Jer said:
Wouldn't the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Churches and Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America both be historic and established Protestant churches? Unless you are using established to refer to established by the state, which the ones you listed aren't either.
Click to expand...
They're sideline but long-established churches, so they were never mainstream churches but they have a very long history equal in scope to groups like the PCUSA, United Methodists, and the like.

The two mainline denominations that are still conservative and confessional (in one case) are the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
 
yeutter said:
The Church of England was an Erastian Church, whose hierarchy wanted to keep everyone in the fold. Therefore a confessional statement that was ambiguous enough that Calvinists, followers of Wycliffe, moderate Lutherans, and followers of Bullinger could all sign on to was desirable. The Thirty nine Articles accomplished that objective.
Click to expand...
And, later, Arminians and Trnitarian heretics could stay within the fold as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top