Why Anglican?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Senior
In general, what makes the Anglican Church more biblical than the Presbyterian, according to some? For those of you who are Anglican, why so? Thanks!
 
I would not be so presumptuous to say that the Anglican Church is more biblical than the Presbyterian Kirk. For me it was a matter of alternatives. I had come to the point I could not remain in the OPC; because of her commitment to the apologetics of VanTil and the free well meant offer. The other good local Presbyterian/Reformed alternatives were still connected with denominations; that I believed to be apostate.

I was comfortable subscribing to the 39 Articles, and was comfortable with the liturgy found in the Book of Common Prayer. During my time in the Army, I frequently was assigned to bases where the Protestant chaplains were liberals. As a result, I had worshiped in Anglican Churches when I was overseas.

Most Anglican parishes still use the common cup. I believe that to be scriptural. No local Presbyterian/Reformed Church uses the common cup.

As I travel in Asia, I can usually find a faithful Anglican parish where I can worship. Sadly that is no longer true in Singapore, where Anglicanism is badly infected with Pentecostalism.

I have appreciated the indulgence of the Presbyterian and Reformed brethren in allowing me to participate here on Puritan Board
 
Despite my own theological views, I have never been happier church-wise since I started attending an evangelical Reformed Anglican congregation (though the denomination, as a whole, is a train-wreck). That is weird in many ways, but it is a fact of experience. Strictly speaking, the Irish Articles of Religion were never legally repealed as the doctrinal standards of the Reformed Church of Ireland and they are closer to the Westminster Confession than the 39 Articles. Even the worship of the CofI was more Puritanical in the 17th century than other Anglican communions (in fact, uninspired hymns were not widely accepted until the 19th century), so there is some precedent for my views in my current denomination's history.
 
Despite my own theological views, I have never been happier church-wise since I started attending an evangelical Reformed Anglican congregation (though the denomination, as a whole, is a train-wreck). That is weird in many ways, but it is a fact of experience. Strictly speaking, the Irish Articles of Religion were never legally repealed as the doctrinal standards of the Reformed Church of Ireland and they are closer to the Westminster Confession than the 39 Articles. Even the worship of the CofI was more Puritanical in the 17th century than other Anglican communions (in fact, uninspired hymns were not widely accepted until the 19th century), so there is some precedent for my views in my current denomination's history.
Here in the United States, I know a number of fellows who are attend an Anglican parish despite their own theological views. Some have been heavily influenced by Gerstner or Sproul but have never found their way to a Presbyterian Church, or Reformed Baptist Church that is tolerant of their perspective on apologetics. Some are uncomfortable with the lack of dignity that they have found in local Presbyterian or Baptist worship services and have found an Anglican parish that uses the Book of Common Prayer to structure their worship services, in a way in which they appreciate
 
Last edited:
I would not be so presumptuous to say that the Anglican Church is more biblical than the Presbyterian Kirk. For me it was a matter of alternatives. I had come to the point I could not remain in the OPC; because of her commitment to the apologetics of VanTil and the free well meant offer. The other good local Presbyterian/Reformed alternatives were still connected with denominations; that I believed to be apostate.

I was comfortable subscribing to the 39 Articles, and was comfortable with the liturgy found in the Book of Common Prayer. During my time in the Army, I frequently was assigned to bases where the Protestant chaplains were liberals. As a result, I had worshiped in Anglican Churches when I was overseas.

Most Anglican parishes still use the common cup. I believe that to be scriptural. No local Presbyterian/Reformed Church uses the common cup.

As I travel in Asia, I can usually find a faithful Anglican parish where I can worship. Sadly that is no longer true in Singapore, where Anglicanism is badly infected with Pentecostalism.

I have appreciated the indulgence of the Presbyterian and Reformed brethren in allowing me to participate here on Puritan Board
Many of the Anglicans groups have also turned away from the Lord though, as they have seemed to adopt the gay stances that plagued some other church groups. Also, doesn't the Anglican church teach infant regeneration? I am asking that, as might be misunderstanding their view on this issue, and hope to have it clarified.
 
I would not be so presumptuous to say that the Anglican Church is more biblical than the Presbyterian Kirk. For me it was a matter of alternatives. I had come to the point I could not remain in the OPC; because of her commitment to the apologetics of VanTil and the free well meant offer. The other good local Presbyterian/Reformed alternatives were still connected with denominations; that I believed to be apostate.

I was comfortable subscribing to the 39 Articles, and was comfortable with the liturgy found in the Book of Common Prayer. During my time in the Army, I frequently was assigned to bases where the Protestant chaplains were liberals. As a result, I had worshiped in Anglican Churches when I was overseas.

Most Anglican parishes still use the common cup. I believe that to be scriptural. No local Presbyterian/Reformed Church uses the common cup.

As I travel in Asia, I can usually find a faithful Anglican parish where I can worship. Sadly that is no longer true in Singapore, where Anglicanism is badly infected with Pentecostalism.

I have appreciated the indulgence of the Presbyterian and Reformed brethren in allowing me to participate here on Puritan Board
Are the 39 Articles held in the same light as the Confessions then?
 
Many of the Anglicans groups have also turned away from the Lord though, as they have seemed to adopt the gay stances that plagued some other church groups. Also, doesn't the Anglican church teach infant regeneration? I am asking that, as might be misunderstanding their view on this issue, and hope to have it clarified.
I know of Presbyterian churches with the same issues.

The major differences between classical Anglicanism and classical Presbyterianism are in their respective worship forms and forms of government. At the root of these differences is a difference in conviction on how Christ rules his Church.
 
So it seems that most would be Presbyterian if the circumstances were right?
Yes, if the Presbyterian or Reformed congregation was not committed to well meant offer of the Gospel, and was not committed to VanTillian apologetics, and had an orderly worship service, and properly fenced the table.

Many of the Anglicans groups have also turned away from the Lord though, as they have seemed to adopt the gay stances that plagued some other church groups. Also, doesn't the Anglican church teach infant regeneration? I am asking that, as might be misunderstanding their view on this issue, and hope to have it clarified.
Yes, many Anglican groups are apostate. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are apostate. Many Anglican bodies are also badly infected with Pentecostalism. Many Anglican groups ordain women. Many Anglican groups are sodomite tolerant.
Some Anglicans believe the Thirty-nine Articles teach baptismal regeneration in the same sense that Luther taught it, other believe it teaches presumptive regeneration. Read Article XXVII and decide if it of necessity teaches baptismal regeneration.

Are the 39 Articles held in the same light as the Confessions then?
Historically the Thirty-nine Articles have been held to be binding on the clergy but do not rise to being a form of subscription.
 
Well, that was the problem: people in the Anglican church were concerned about its purity and practice. Some wanted to purify the church from within (hence the term puritan) and others separated themselves and immigrated to Holland and or the Americas.
 
I know of Presbyterian churches with the same issues.

The major differences between classical Anglicanism and classical Presbyterianism are in their respective worship forms and forms of government. At the root of these differences is a difference in conviction on how Christ rules his Church.
What is the Anglican worship and the government style?
 
Yes, if the Presbyterian or Reformed congregation was not committed to well meant offer of the Gospel, and was not committed to VanTillian apologetics, and had an orderly worship service, and properly fenced the table.


Yes, many Anglican groups are apostate. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are apostate. Many Anglican bodies are also badly infected with Pentecostalism. Many Anglican groups ordain women. Many Anglican groups are sodomite tolerant.
Some Anglicans believe the Thirty-nine Articles teach baptismal regeneration in the same sense that Luther taught it, other believe it teaches presumptive regeneration. Read Article XXVII and decide if it of necessity teaches baptismal regeneration.

Historically the Thirty-nine Articles have been held to be binding on the clergy but do not rise to being a form of subscription.
The Anglican church does seem to support baptism as regenerating the infant into salvation, as those such as NT Wright sees it as being the gateway into the Kingdom of God.
 
We affirm the doctrine of reprobation. Having affirmed this doctrine, is it proper to say that God desires the salvation of all men? The Gospel should be preached indiscriminately. The Gospel message includes the command to repent and believe and repent and be baptized. A promise is attached to this command that who ever believes in Christ crucified, and resurrected, shall not perish but have everlasting life. We know that those who respond to the general call of the Gospel do so only because the Holy Ghost draws them.
Would you mind elaborating more on this?
I think Rev. Matthew Winzer elaborated on this point when he examined Professor John Murray's treatment of the Free Offer.
 
Most of the Anglican Church is best represented by the Global South (in Africa). The Africans delivered a powerful rebuke to Canterbury a few years ago.
Jacob is correct, with the exception of the Province of South Africa, the Anglican Churches in Africa are generally orthodox. All Anglican bodies in Africa, with the exception of South Africa, oppose the liberal apostate tendencies of the Church of England. Some of the Anglican provinces in East Africa are badly infected by Pentecostalism. Some East African provinces are ordaining women. On the other hand, the Anglican Provinces of Nigeria are conservative and confessional. It is numerically the largest Anglican body in the world. Most dioceses in Nigeria are led by bishops who are reformed though a few may be Amyrauldian.
 
I can't speak to all the ins and outs of Anglicanism, but I can say that I've learned a lot from the writings of John Newton, J. C. Ryle, John R. W. Stott, and J. I. Packer - Anglicans all!
 
What are your thoughts on Anglican church government, Mr. Yeutter?

Good point. Where does the office of bishop appear in the Bible? I know they didn't just make it up - they must get it from someplace.

Wyatt, and Ryan ask about the polity of Anglican Churches.

First to Ryan's question about where do Anglican's find the office of Bishop in the Bible. The word episkopos is distinguished from the word presbyter in Anglican. Thus Anglicans hold that there are office three offices named in the Bible to serve the Church by providing for her orderly government: diakonos/deacon, presbyter/elder, episkopos/bishop. We get this from Acts 1:20 where we find the apostolic office referred to as a bishoprick. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 1:1 refers to Bishops plural and Deacons plural. I note that no mention of Elder is made in that passage, from which it might be inferred that the office of Bishop and Elder are the same. St. Paul tells Timothy about the office and the qualifications for that office in his First Epistle to Timothy 3:1-2. Likewise in St. Paul's Epistle to Titus 1:7 the office and its qualifications are again addressed. From this we can infer this was an important issue to be properly dealt with as the Church expanded. In the First Epistle General of St. Peter 2:25 our Lord is referred to: "For ye were sheep going away, but are now returned unto the Shepard and Bishop of your souls.

Wyatt asks about my thoughts on Anglican polity. The early Church [circa 100 - 250 AD] seemed to designate the Senior Pastor as the Episkopos. Other clergymen who were allowed to preside at the celebration of the Lord's Supper were designated Presbyters. Thus on most Sundays, an ordinary Christian would have contact with his Bishop on a weekly basis. Bishops are sometimes compared to a monarch governing his principality. I think a more apt comparison would be a General looking at his marching orders and trying to discern how he should proceed.

The understanding of the Bishop as an overseer of a group of Churches seems to have evolved:
1. As the Church expanded and more congregations were added.
2. As the Church suffered from repeated, coordinated waves of persecution.
3. As the Church repeatedly battled heresy.
4. As the Church greatly expanded after it was legalized, and after it was made the state religion.

In practice today, Anglican Bishops usually function as:
1. a Pastor to Pastors,
2. as the first person to appeal to if a parish has difficulties which can not be resolved between the Rector and the congregation.
3. as the presiding officer at regional gatherings of the Church,
4. as the officer who makes final determination on who is qualified to serve as an ordained clergyman.
5. as the point person to whom regional boards and committees of the Church report.

The Anglican Bishop is, to use Presbyterian speak, the senior pastor of the largest and most prestigious congregation in the diocese, the Moderator of the diocese, the chairman of the committee on ministerial relations, and the Stated Clerk rolled into one.

Are there problems defending Anglican polity as it has evolved from the Bible? yes
Are there administrative problems with the Anglican model of polity? yes

Having said that I would also say there are both serious scriptural and practical problems with the Presbyterian model of polity as it has evolved.




I can't speak to all the ins and outs of Anglicanism, but I can say that I've learned a lot from the writings of John Newton, J. C. Ryle, John R. W. Stott, and J. I. Packer - Anglicans all!
I would delete Stott, and add Peter Toon, Philip Edgcombe Hughes, Augustus Toplady, and Alec Moyter
 
Good point. Where does the office of bishop appear in the Bible? I know they didn't just make it up - they must get it from someplace.
Bishop is also called overseers, and basically, the terms overseers/Bishops/Pastors are used interchangeable fashion.
 
Stott became a believer in annihilation in his later years though.

Actually, after having been rather severely criticized for holding that position, Stott backed off and declared himself to be "agnostic" on the question. That's still not acceptable, of course but, aside from that, I wouldn't want to be without many of his other writings, such as his commentary on Romans (one of the better ones) or his book The Cross of Christ. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
 
Actually, after having been rather severely criticized for holding that position, Stott backed off and declared himself to be "agnostic" on the question. That's still not acceptable, of course but, aside from that, I wouldn't want to be without many of his other writings, such as his commentary on Romans (one of the better ones) or his book The Cross of Christ. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
I agree with you about him, as read his the Cross of Christ many times when recently saved, was just pointing out his one big flaw in his theology.
 
Yes, if the Presbyterian or Reformed congregation was not committed to well meant offer of the Gospel, and was not committed to VanTillian apologetics, and had an orderly worship service, and properly fenced the table.
Not Van Tillian nor Gordon Clarkian as he has been interpreted by some now days. Both have good things and bad. We fence the table in the RPCNA in a proper manner I believe. Our Elders interview those who partake of Communion concerning 1 Corinthians 11 to protect all. We are Psalm singers believing it to be a great thing.

Concerning Church Government you could read the Great Debate or Jus Divinum. Great Westminster stuff. The Westminster Standards were done by both Anglicans and Presbyterians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top