Thoughts on my situation

[Anglicanorthodoxy]

I'll be headed to Annapolis for college in less than a month, and I've spent several months doing a lot of research to try and find a good church in the Baltimore/DC area. I found an Anglican church in Fairfax that is almost exactly what I'm looking for. The priest there has a fairly high view of the sacraments ( pretty much identical to my own) On Baptism, he holds a very similar view to that of Cornelius Burges.( Baptism grafts one into the visible church. For Elect infants, regeneration begins at Baptism. The water itself does NOT regenerate) On the Lords Supper, he holds a view similar to Calvin and Nevin( while the bread and wine remain bread and wine, believers who take the Sacrament rise up to Heaven and are fed Christs flesh and blood supernaturally) The liturgy is also quite high, which is obviusky secondary, but is something I'm looking for. There is one issue. When I asked him where he and his parish stand on the 5 Points of Calvinism, he said that he himself is a 4 Point Calvinist( he denies Limited Atonement) He made it very clear that he believes that humans are totally depraved, that God has absolute sovereignty and elects people unconditionally, that those who God calls can not deny/resist his grace, and that those who are Elect will not fall away. However, he believes that Scripture teaches that Christs sacrifice was ( in some sense) for the whole world, even though it's not applied to the whole world. That's why he denies Limited Atonement. However, he said that there are a good number of people in the parish who affirm Limited Atonement, and that he doesn't have a problem with that. Ultimately, I think it's the best I'm going to get as far as Anglican churches go( most Anglicans these days are either Liberal, Anglo-Catholic, low-church( with a low view of the sacraments) or charismatic. So I'm pretty surprised to find a parish that has a reasonably high view of the Sacraments and is pretty close to Reformed.) This is where I'll most likely end up going to church. My views on the Sacraments and liturgy would make me too "high-church" for the Presbyterian churches I've looked into. I'm certainly no Baptist. I wanted y'all's thoughts. Here's the churches website
http://www.holytrinityfairfax.org/

 

[arapahoepark]

If it is REC, it is both a good place but unfortunately one to be wary of as time goes on (the denomination as a whole is starting to lean Anglo Catholic, I think). It is no surprise then that your conversations with priest (presbyter) were fruitful. I would go for it. I pray all goes well!

 

[yeutter]

May God be pleased to bless you as you worship at Holy Trinity Church in Fairfax. Weigh everything you see and hear against the clear teachings of the Word of God.

 

[Edm]

Here is my take...my parents attended a REC. when my mom was in her last days I spent a lot of time at here bedside and her priest was there. He attended RTS, and was very conservative. Great guy. He preached her funeral, and it was the most Christ centered funeral I have ever attended. Their previous priest was a RTS grad also. While I don't agree with everything they believe, I would worship with them. I followed the link you posted. My question is why do they have a picture of a crucifix on the main page? I am not familiar with REC enough to know if that is common.

 

[Anglicanorthodoxy]

Here is my take...my parents attended a REC. when my mom was in her last days I spent a lot of time at here bedside and her priest was there. He attended RTS, and was very conservative. Great guy. He preached her funeral, and it was the most Christ centered funeral I have ever attended. Their previous priest was a RTS grad also. While I don't agree with everything they believe, I would worship with them. I followed the link you posted. My question is why do they have a picture of a crucifix on the main page? I am not familiar with REC enough to know if that is common.

Oddly enough, the priest of this parish that I spoke to grew up a Reformed Baptist. I know most on the PB have an issue with crucifixs in church,and I understand why. As I said, this church is very "high" (sacramentally, liturgically, etc) Traditional Lutherans also have crosses in their churches, and we consider them brothers in Christ. It's not a huge issue for me.( I certainly wouldn't cross a church off my list just because they have a crucifix)

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Khater:

I'm not really sure what you expect in asking for our thoughts about the church to which you give a link (above).

For example, a crucifix not only shows that one has no proper understanding of the second commandment but is not consonant with a Reformed Christology or soteriology. None of the 16th or 17th century Reformed doctrinal standards would permit us to be blase about such a thing (as your closing comment above appears to be).

This is the Puritan Board. I admit that "Puritan" was a label given to a rather wide group, including some who remained episcopal. But even then those who were Puritan and remained episcopal practiced, comparatively, a rather low sort of episcopacy that rejected vestments and other ceremonies. The church that you showed us is surely better than many other episcopal churches in general, but it is not something that coheres with Puritanism (as expressed, say, in the Westminster Standards, including the allied Directories).

Thus, what do you expect us to say? Why are you asking us to approve of, or comment on, something of which we can only be critical? The linked church, plainly and simply, does not cohere with many of the basic values of this Board. You asked what our thoughts are and those are mine, dear brother.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Anglicanorthodoxy]

Khater:

I'm not really sure what you expect in asking for our thoughts about the church to which you give a link (above).

For example, a crucifix not only shows that one has no proper understanding of the second commandment but is not consonant with a Reformed Christology or soteriology. None of the 16th or 17th century Reformed doctrinal standards would permit us to be blase about such a thing (as your closing comment above appears to be).

This is the Puritan Board. I admit that "Puritan" was a label given to a rather wide group, including some who remained episcopal. But even then those who were Puritan and remained episcopal practiced, comparatively, a rather low sort of episcopacy that rejected vestments and other ceremonies. The church that you showed us is surely better than many other episcopal churches in general, but it is not something that coheres with Puritanism (as expressed, say, in the Westminster Standards, including the allied Directories).

Thus, what do you expect us to say? Why are you asking us to approve of, or comment on, something of which we can only be critical? The linked church, plainly and simply, does not cohere with many of the basic values of this Board. You asked what our thoughts are and those are mine, dear brother.

Peace,
Alan

Dr. Strange
I get what you're saying, and I'm aware of what the Puritans thought on the issue of crucifixs in worship. I probably should've been more clear in what I wanted thoughts on. I guess the main question I'd have
Would the fact that the priest/pastor at this church denies Limited Atonement ( although he affirms Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints) keep you from worshipping at this church?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Circumstances may compel my attendance at a church that is other than Reformed and Presbyterian, but that does not mean that I would choose such, all things being equal.

You are now asking: could I attend the church to which you propose to go and worship the Lord? My answer is that if circumstances compelled me to attend as a guest a church that I understood to be deficiently Reformed, I could engage in worship nonetheless.

But that was not your original question. Your original question was to know our thoughts on a church that you proposed to make your own. And I've given my thoughts. I would not be a regular part of a church that did not adhere to the Reformed doctrinal standards, which I believe most aptly expressed at Westminster.

To put it another way, I have greater and prior concerns to his four-point Calvinism. Other matters respecting this particular church do not permit me to get to the four-point concern. If, however, you press me to know whether I would make a church my own that I otherwise approved but was Amyraldian, my answer is "no."

Peace,
Alan

 

[Anglicanorthodoxy]

Circumstances may compel my attendance at a church that is other than Reformed and Presbyterian, but that does not mean that I would choose such, all things being equal.

You are now asking: could I attend the church to which you propose to go and worship the Lord? My answer is that if circumstances compelled me to attend as a guest a church that I understood to be deficiently Reformed, I could engage in worship nonetheless.

But that was not your original question. Your original question was to know our thoughts on a church that you proposed to make your own. And I've given my thoughts. I would not be a regular part of a church that did not adhere to the Reformed doctrinal standards, which I believe most aptly expressed at Westminster.

To put it another way, I have greater and prior concerns to his four-point Calvinism. Other matters respecting this particular church do not permit me to get to the four-point concern. If, however, you press me to know whether I would make a church my own that I otherwise approved but was Amyraldian, my answer is "no."

Peace,
Alan

Thanks Dr. Strange.