Kevin
Puritan Board Doctor
Max, I can certainly identify with you brother. But then I'm a huge C S Lewis fan.
Grace and Peace brother.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Max, I can certainly identify with you brother. But then I'm a huge C S Lewis fan.
Grace and Peace brother.
Whitgift and Hooker, in their debate with the Puritans, limited the scope of Scripture to what is salvific. Hence, no, traditional Anglicanism does not deny sola Scriptura with reference to what is necessary for salvation.
Their purpose for limiting the scope of Scripture in this way was to allow room for tradition and consensus to speak over and above Scripture in matters pertaining to the church.
Actually, neither Whitgift nor Hooker speak as regulative figures for Anglicanism. To claim so is just like saying Richard Baxter speaks for Presbyterians.
Richard Hooker's sacramentalism, for example, contradicts the 39 Articles on justification by faith alone, just like Baxter's neonomism contradicts the WCF.
Moreover, to say that Whitgift and Hooker argued against the "Puritans" needs nuancing. They argued against the new school Puritans that arose through Cartwright, with its concomitant new ideas on church polity which the older Elizabethan Puritans did not hold.
This is simply not true. Whitgift and Hooker had different ecclesiologies and can't be lumped together. Whitgift believed that the NT didn't actually prescribe a set form of church polity, hence there is a freedom in the area of polity (as long as it doesn't contravene Scripture).
Hooker's position is a little more subtle, and I can't be bothered going into it here because it requires a clear understanding of his take on "Law".
However, neither of them ever argued that "tradition and consensus to speak over and above Scripture in matters pertaining to the church".
... so long as you distance yourself from Whitgift and Hooker's defence of the Elizabethan settlement, ...
Cartwright was an Elizabethan Puritan. Not sure where you are getting your facts from, but they are not founded in history. ...
I find it strange that you distance Anglicanism from Hooker and then run to his defence.
This sounds a tad authoritarian?
Yes, of course, Cartwright was an Elizabethan Puritan. Read any standard book on Elizabethan Puritanism (from Knappen to Collinson) and they show (as the primary sources do) that Cartwright ushered in a new approach to church polity that was not among the older Puritans (like Grindal, Greenham and co.). And, the Marprelate Tracts that came a little later horrified the older Puritans.
Interesting comment--again you're quick to accuse me of error. We need to separate two issues here: [1] Understanding Hooker aright; and [2] Agreeing with Hooker. I was merely going for [1]. You read me as doing [2]. Perhaps you could even ask before assuming? It makes for more lubricated interaction.
A few years ago I wrote an M.Th. thesis on Richard Hooker and Elizabethan Puritanism. What struck me is how misunderstood Hooker is. Every party claims him for their own, and yet he appears to fit into none.
Wires might be getting crossed here.
To say that Cartwright represented a new movement within "Puritanism" which challenged the establishment is unhistorical, since historical Puritanism in and of itself made this challenge.
A good account of it all is in Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (OUP, 1967), Part Three (pp. 101-155). It is entitled "The First Presbyterians". And Part I is entitled "A New Dogma". You can can get the drift of newness that the younger Puritans injected from these chapter and section titles.
A very good work, but I think you are turning a secondary issue into a primary one by highlighting church government at this point. This thread pertained to Anglicanism's commitment to sola Scriptura in the light of the 39 articles.
Anglicanism received its "bent" from Whitgift and Hooker's replies to the Puritans over ceremonies.
Dear ArmourBearer,
Many thanks for your reply. Although we seem to be going around in circles here.
You kept confidently telling us the claim of Cartwright's newness was "unhistorical". Then when the evidence questions it, you say it's not germane to the thread?
From the Cartwrightian Puritans, not all the Puritans. That's the point.
On any account of Anglicanism your statement is incorrect. What do you mean by Anglicanism? If we go by the BCP, 39 articles, and homilies (which the articles include) then Whitgift and Hooker have as much to do with Anglicanism as Baxter does to Presbyterianism.
Cheers,
Marty.
But you don't need s scriptural warrant if you are not solo scriptura, right?
Whitgift and Hooker, in their debate with the Puritans, limited the scope of Scripture to what is salvific. Hence, no, traditional Anglicanism does not deny sola Scriptura with reference to what is necessary for salvation. Their purpose for limiting the scope of Scripture in this way was to allow room for tradition and consensus to speak over and above Scripture in matters pertaining to the church. Hence, yes, they deny sola Scriptura with reference to anything that is non salvific, whereas the Puritans taught Scripture is a perfect rule of faith and life both for the individual and the church. (And yes, I have read Whitgift and Hooker.)
Thanks for pointing that out.
j
You kept confidently telling us the claim of Cartwright's newness was "unhistorical". Then when the evidence questions it, you say it's not germane to the thread?
From the Cartwrightian Puritans, not all the Puritans. That's the point.
When we include the homilies it is very clear that Anglicanism upholds sola scriptura from their teaching.
Take church govt. out of the equation and you are still left with a Puritan commitment to Scripture which conflicts with the roots of Anglicanism as found in Whitgift and Hooker.
Dear ArmourBearer,
Have you listened to anything I've said? Anglicanism does not have its "roots" in Whitgift and Hooker anymore than Presbyterianism has its roots in Richard Baxter. Anglicanism is defined by the BCP, 39 articles and the Homilies. Whitgift and Hooker did not write these anymore than Baxter did the WCF. If there is a particular figure in which the "roots" of Anglicanism is found, it's Thomas Cranmer.
The Anglican symbols uphold the classic reformation formulation of sola scriptura. Read any of the classic commentaries on the 39 articles from Griffith-Thomas to Oliver O'Donovan. Try also reading Packer's chapter 15 of A Quest for Godliness.
Every blessing,
Marty.
In what sense? Define uphold.Does the Anglican Church uphold the 39 Articles?
Have you listened to anything I've said? Anglicanism does not have its "roots" in Whitgift and Hooker anymore than Presbyterianism has its roots in Richard Baxter. Anglicanism is defined by the BCP, 39 articles and the Homilies. Whitgift and Hooker did not write these anymore than Baxter did the WCF. If there is a particular figure in which the "roots" of Anglicanism is found, it's Thomas Cranmer.
What you are saying is wrong, fictitious.
So it is very plain (and even Packer has eyes to see it) that the Puritan commitment to a biblically regulated Christian worship led them to find fault with the Anglican imposition of human authority, and subsequently to deny that the Elizabethan settlement was properly "reformed" according to the Word of God.
And, my low-Anglican friends, with whom I have much in common doctrinally, to come onto a *Puritan* board, and to suggest that the Anglican approach to worship follows the principle of sola scriptura, is just not going to meet with a sympathetic ear.
As for Whitgift and Hooker, fine, as I said before, distance yourself from their defence of the Elizabethan settlement;
but history is a stubborn thing, and Anglicanism has a long pedigree of defending the imposition of human ceremonies on the basis of these divines' methodology against Puritanism.
Does the Anglican Church uphold the 39 Articles?
If there is a particular figure in which the "roots" of Anglicanism is found, it's Thomas Cranmer.
I'm bowing out of this thread because it's getting out of control.
I am bowing out since anyone who reads the Articles in context, with a focus on Aricle#6 will see beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anglican embrace Sola Scritura. Grace and Peace.