Anglicans, a reformation church or not?

I was attending an All Saint's Day service in a Methodist church and the pastor was explaining that the Methodist church grew out of the Anglican church just as the Anglican church grew out of the Protestant Reformation. Although I was baptized in the Protestant Episcopal Church, my gut reaction was no the Anglican church is not a reformation church. I am curious what do you on the church think?
«13

Comments

  • Of course it’s a reformation church.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    The Church of England and the Scottish Episcopalian Church both claim institutional continuity with the ancient churches of Britain. So if by 'Reformation Church' you mean church founded in the Reformation in that sense they're not.

    If you mean doctrinally they're clearly part of the Reformation (which is not to exclude a catholic identity).
  • Graven ImageGraven Image Shipmate
    edited November 4
    So Dafyd, it sounds like the answer is yes and no, and someplace in the middle. Sounds very Anglican. The pastor seemed to be saying founded in the Reformation.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    We're the Via Media, both protestant and Catholic. It's a nice mix.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited November 4
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    We're the Via Media, both protestant and Catholic. It's a nice mix.

    And at the same time as being both, neither protestant or catholic. Just Christian.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    And at the same time as being both, neither protestant or catholic. Just Christian.
    No denomination should ever claim to be "just Christian". Paul is if anything even more disapproving of the Corinthians who claim to belong to Christ than of those who belong to Paul or Apollos.

  • I think Sir P. is right. The claim to apostolic succession is sophistry. The Archbishop of Westminster is the heir of Thomas Beckett.

    I have indigestion, by the way.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Anglican is has retained the Catholic threefold order of bishops, priests, and deacons. It has an episcopal form of government with provinces, dioceses and parishes. And a sacramental system.

    C16th Protestant ideas are, expressed in BCP and the 39 Articles. But doctrinally Anglicanism is quite woolly. It is defined by its liturgy rather than a confession or a magisterium.

    So you have a choice. Or you can have both. Or you can travel around and explore being Anglo-Catholic, evangelical, liberal or charismatic. Or just traditional MOR Anglican.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited November 4
    Half-reformed?

    Based on my 50 years in nonconformism, I've moved pretty much into the Rowan Williams understanding that 'keeping the questions alive' is a lot more important than believing we have to have the answers. Anglicanism is pretty good at that.

    I think reformation at its best is an ongoing process, not to be defined in terms of the aims of the historical reformers. People worry about that of course. Or at least some people do.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The Church of England and the Scottish Episcopalian Church both claim institutional continuity with the ancient churches of Britain. So if by 'Reformation Church' you mean church founded in the Reformation in that sense they're not.

    Although presumably on that definition most European Lutheran churches aren't Reformation churches either ...

    (Not even sure about the Church of Scotland for that matter.)
  • In the newly discovered third letter to the Corinthians, Paul gives clear instructions about the wearing of stoles, and the readings for Sundays after Trinity. Clearly the CoE is the only New Testament church around today!
  • Look up the meaning of Reformation. I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church came out of the Reformation and tend to use Western Church for the church prior to that. I would see the Western Church as branching out at that point. By far the largest point is Roman Catholicism and it has largely remained a single branch whereas if you look at the Reformed Church you will find endless branching and fusions afterwards.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Look up the meaning of Reformation. I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church came out of the Reformation and tend to use Western Church for the church prior to that. I would see the Western Church as branching out at that point. By far the largest point is Roman Catholicism and it has largely remained a single branch whereas if you look at the Reformed Church you will find endless branching and fusions afterwards.

    Have you been reading the Tractarians, Jengie Jon?
  • No just listening to my father.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    And at the same time as being both, neither protestant or catholic. Just Christian.
    No denomination should ever claim to be "just Christian". Paul is if anything even more disapproving of the Corinthians who claim to belong to Christ than of those who belong to Paul or Apollos.

    Not at all sure of that, but would "just a Christian church" deal with your point?
  • The historic 'reformed' national churches which were and are a product of the Reformation, all claimed and still claim to be the Catholic church reformed.
    The fact that the Anglican church ,as indeed also the Church of Scotland until 1689, retained the historic episcopate, neither advances nor diminishes the claims of these bodies to be the continuation of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. The Scandinavian Lutheran churches would claim the same, however the German Lutheran churches were later affected by Calvinism and changed the words of the historic Apostles' creed to 'one,holy,Christian church' instead of 'Eine,heilige katholische Kirche to 'Eine,heilige,christliche Kirche,

    Of course the Church which most people still simply call the 'Catholic Church' reformed itself in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, but the Catholic Church has done that on several occasions both before and after the 16th century Protestant Reformation. The Second Vatican Council is a continuation and 'aggiornamento' of the work of the Council of Trent.By chance,today,4th November, in the Catholic liturgy is the commemoration of San Carlo Borromeo,one of the leading figures in the Catholic Reform.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    The historic 'reformed' national churches which were and are a product of the Reformation, all claimed and still claim to be the Catholic church reformed.
    The fact that the Anglican church ,as indeed also the Church of Scotland until 1689, retained the historic episcopate, neither advances nor diminishes the claims of these bodies to be the continuation of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. The Scandinavian Lutheran churches would claim the same, however the German Lutheran churches were later affected by Calvinism and changed the words of the historic Apostles' creed to 'one,holy,Christian church' instead of 'Eine,heilige katholische Kirche to 'Eine,heilige,christliche Kirche,

    Of course the Church which most people still simply call the 'Catholic Church' reformed itself in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, but the Catholic Church has done that on several occasions both before and after the 16th century Protestant Reformation. The Second Vatican Council is a continuation and 'aggiornamento' of the work of the Council of Trent.By chance,today,4th November, in the Catholic liturgy is the commemoration of San Carlo Borromeo,one of the leading figures in the Catholic Reform.

    Well said.

  • Gee D wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    And at the same time as being both, neither protestant or catholic. Just Christian.
    No denomination should ever claim to be "just Christian". Paul is if anything even more disapproving of the Corinthians who claim to belong to Christ than of those who belong to Paul or Apollos.

    Not at all sure of that, but would "just a Christian church" deal with your point?
    Years ago I knew someone who believed that it was wrong to have denomination. He would only meet together with other Christians who held the same belief. In vain did I try to explain that they were, of course, starting up a new denomination ...

  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    edited November 4
    As the Anglican Church was the only church people were allowed to attend, it took the middle road - the via media - so nobody was happy. Over the centuries other denominations and Roman Catholics were allowed to practice openly too, but the Book of Common Prayer remained the prescribed liturgy for the C of E until the end of the 20th century.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    No denomination should ever claim to be "just Christian". Paul is if anything even more disapproving of the Corinthians who claim to belong to Christ than of those who belong to Paul or Apollos.
    Not at all sure of that, but would "just a Christian church" deal with your point?
    I'm still not able to parse that in a way that isn't arrogant or sanctimonious. (I suppose I could parse it as pejorative, bland, no identity of its own; but I can't parse it as neutral). See Baptist Trainfan's post.

    One of Richard Hooker's central claims AIUI is that the New Testament and the creeds do not prescribe a full church order or denominational structure. (He would I think have said that they prescribe, bishop, priest, and deacon, and a little bit beyond that.) So any denomination, including the C of E, has to go beyond what is merely or just Christian.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Look up the meaning of Reformation. I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church came out of the Reformation and tend to use Western Church for the church prior to that. I would see the Western Church as branching out at that point. By far the largest point is Roman Catholicism and it has largely remained a single branch whereas if you look at the Reformed Church you will find endless branching and fusions afterwards.

    That may be technically correct(I don't know), but in everyday conversation, I think it would be pretty misleading to tell people that the Roman Catholic Church came out of the Reformation, without clarifying that your using the terminology in a somewhat different way than usual.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    The Church of England claims to be, and is, both Catholick and Reformed. For the first 300 years after the Reformation, nobody in it would have argued that it wasn't 'Reformed'. It's a fairly recent fad by some Anglo-Catholics to try to deny the Protestant part of their heritage.

    If there are Anglican provinces that would prefer collectively to deny this, there are others that would not.

    The phrase 'Via Media' to which @Rossweisse refers is often cited these days, and assumed to mean, a middle path between the Protestant and Catholic sides of the Reformation, was originally coined to mean a middle path between Luther and Calvin.

    The Methodists seceded from the CofE at the eighteenth century. So your Methodist pastor, @Graven Image is correct.

    @Simon Toad Church of England and Church in Wales take it for granted, without anyone really questioning it, that they are the lineal descendants of their predecessors going back to the original conversion in the late Roman and Anglo Saxon era.
  • That has to mean that the CofE is a lineal descendant of the earlier Holy(Roman)Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is little doubt but that the major churches of the time of the Protestant Reformation are lineal descendants of the earlier church but they are no longer in full communion with that earlier church and so not full members of that earlier Holy Catholic Church.

    Fortunately the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church sees all baptised Christians as members of that one Body of Christ, even if they are not in perfect communion with the parent body.
  • At the time of the Protestant Reformation there would not have been any idea of 'denominations' The Reformers would have seen their reforms as purifying that one Body of Christ. Only later when the various reformed churches began to split into smaller and 'purer' bodies did the idea of 'denominations' come in.
    With the 'purer' forms of Christianity (Puritans in England) one began to see taking shape smaller groups and groupings who sometimes saw themselves (and sometimes themselves alone) as those who had the full purity of the Gospel of Christ. They also started to see themselves as 'the Church' rather than the whole body of Christians as the Church.
  • The Church of England (and therefore most of the Anglican churches to which it gave rise) is a fudge born of the wish of Henry VIII to have back the church of his youth, but without giving back the lands and monies that had been appropriated, and without having to lose face and accept that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was a true marriage. Add into that the wild swings of the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I and the pragmatism of Elizabeth and you get ... the Church of England: Protestant, Catholick, semi-reformed, and Apostolic.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    Of course the Church which most people still simply call the 'Catholic Church' reformed itself in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, but the Catholic Church has done that on several occasions both before and after the 16th century Protestant Reformation. The Second Vatican Council is a continuation and 'aggiornamento' of the work of the Council of Trent.By chance,today,4th November, in the Catholic liturgy is the commemoration of San Carlo Borromeo,one of the leading figures in the Catholic Reform.

    Indeed, there is a strong argument that Luther in fact achieved the reformation of the Roman church - that reform being led by Rome in direct answer to many of the points Luther had raised. It was a reform of governance and behaviour and not of belief, but a real reform none-the-less. How many bad popes were there in the couple of centuries before the Council of Trent (think of Julius II, doubtful of the divinity of Christ amongst other faults) and how many since? The only one I can think of off-hand is Julius III.
  • If anyone is going to claim to be "the One True, Holy and Apostolic Church" surely it should be the Orthodox? After all, Rome split from the others in the Great Schism as the Pope wanted supremacy unwarranted by Scripture or Tradition.
  • Of course the Orthodox are an important part of the One,True,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church. (Why did Robert Armin leave out the word 'Catholic' ?) It is only after the Great Schism that the words 'Orthodox' and 'Catholic' began to have meanings which they didn't necessarily have before.
    There may have been some good reason as to why Rome split from all the others.
    Using the expression 'the others' would seem to suggest that the 'Protestants' by virtue of the fact that there are literally thousands of groupings of Protestants are superior to the 'Catholics' who are only one group.

    As in all these matters it depends on how one defines the meanings of words and events.
  • If anyone is going to claim to be "the One True, Holy and Apostolic Church" surely it should be the Orthodox? After all, Rome split from the others in the Great Schism as the Pope wanted supremacy unwarranted by Scripture or Tradition.

    Ah but then the Copts, Armenians, etc can pipe up and say, “all of you broke off when you embraced that semi-Nestorian stuff from Chalcedon.”


  • Enoch wrote: »
    The Church of England claims to be, and is, both Catholick and Reformed. For the first 300 years after the Reformation, nobody in it would have argued that it wasn't 'Reformed'. It's a fairly recent fad by some Anglo-Catholics to try to deny the Protestant part of their heritage.

    Quite. As Methodists went out of the Church of England before that fad became popular, no wonder we want no part of it and look askance at people who spread it.

    Or as I prefer to put it, such Anglican claims are akin to a person dancing on the table the night before, and then claiming no such thing happened when confronted with cell phone pictures.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The Church of England and the Scottish Episcopalian Church both claim institutional continuity with the ancient churches of Britain. So if by 'Reformation Church' you mean church founded in the Reformation in that sense they're not.
    Well as @Ricardus notes above, this would exclude a lot of churches from being 'Reformation churches.' The Church of Norway, the Church of Sweden, and the Church of Denmark all see themselves as the churches before the Reformation, though reformed. But what does 'reformed' mean here?
    Dafyd wrote: »
    If you mean doctrinally they're clearly part of the Reformation (which is not to exclude a catholic identity).
    And how does that work, exactly? Both Lutheran and Calvinist churches are considered Reformational churches, yet they have significant doctrinal differences, especially considering election, real presence, and Baptism. And what about the Anabaptist reformation which is condemned in both Lutheran and Calvinist confessions? What is the 'Reformational doctrine' of which you speak?
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    The Scandinavian Lutheran churches would claim the same, however the German Lutheran churches were later affected by Calvinism and changed the words of the historic Apostles' creed to 'one,holy,Christian church' instead of 'Eine,heilige katholische Kirche to 'Eine,heilige,christliche Kirche,
    That is not accurate. While the German liturgy was in Latin, and used catholicus, in German Roman Catholic devotionals, and in translations of the creed, the word was translated to christliche.
  • kmann wrote: »
    And how does that work, exactly? Both Lutheran and Calvinist churches are considered Reformational churches, yet they have significant doctrinal differences, especially considering election, real presence, and Baptism. And what about the Anabaptist reformation which is condemned in both Lutheran and Calvinist confessions? What is the 'Reformational doctrine' of which you speak?
    He didn't speak of "Reformational doctrine." He said "doctrinally they're clearly part of the Reformation." That seems consistent with the way that doctrinally the Lutherans, the Reformed and the Anabaptists are part of the Reformation, even if they didn't always agree on doctrine. They're all part of the Reformation, but different parts in certain ways.

    And there's no question so far as I know that, particularly in the Reformation era and the time following, Anglican theology was influenced by and drew from, yet remained distinct from, both Lutheran and Reformed theology.

  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    The 39 Articles are very Calvinistic in their theology, but nobody is going to revise them now. In the C19th they created crises of conscience for some Anglican clergy. It features in the plots of the novels North and South and Tess of the Durbervilles. Today Anglican clergy are only asked to say that they believe 'in line' with the 39 Articles, not with each one of them.
  • Yes the same way that many ministers in the CofS interpret their promise to uphold the Westminster Confession.
    The General Assembly has agreed that ministers, deacons and elders at ordination have to assent to the Confession and its role, but, at the same time, it is made clear that this is a 'subordinate' standard (to Holy Scripture) and therefore open to challenge on the basis of further study of Scripture.
  • kmann - I am sure that you are aware that in 1570 under the authority of pope Pius V a Missal was published for use in all Catholic churches of the Roman rite - a missal which remained mandatory until 1970 (with only a few tweaks !)

    As far as the Creed is concerned the words to describe the Church are as follows - (credo in) unam, sanctam ,catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam (I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church) These words in German are the ones which I quoted above.

    It is true that at the very least from the time of the Lutheran Reformation there were a number of texts written in German to accompany the Latin Mass. The well known ? German Mass with music by Schubert is only one of the many texts written to accompany with music and German words the celebration of the Mass in Latin by the priest.
    These devotional texts did not need to follow verbatim the Latin text and I give for you a sample text in German for the Creed with an English translation

    Wir glauben an den einen Gott,den Vater,der erschuf die Welt,
    den Sohn,der fuer uns litt den Tod,den heiligen Geist,der uns erhaelt.
    Wir glauben an die Kirch allein,die einig,heilig,allgemein
    und an des Fleisches Auferstehn und ewiges Leben in den Hoehn. Amen.

    We believe in the one God,the father who created the world
    the Son who suffered death for us,the Holy Spirit who keeps us going
    We believe in the Church alone which is one,holy and common( to all)
    In the resurrection of the body and everlasting life above. Amen

    These devotional texts are not the same as changing 'Eine heilige katholische Kirche (one holy catholic church) to Eine heilige christliche Kirche (one holy Christian church)

    There is, of course, absolutely nothing wrong ,well at least I would hope so, about designating the Church as a 'Christian ' church,but it is not the same as saying 'Catholic'

    I understand that at modern ecumenical events in German speaking lands the term
    Eine heilige allgemeine Kirche (one holy common/universal church) is sometimes used.
  • So Dafyd, it sounds like the answer is yes and no, and someplace in the middle.
    That is the only sensible conclusion. The main reason this is contended is the historical anti-RCC bias.

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited November 5
    Forthview wrote: »
    I understand that at modern ecumenical events in German speaking lands the term
    Eine heilige allgemeine Kirche (one holy common/universal church) is sometimes used.

    When I attended Mass in Catholic churches in the Czech Republic, this line of the Nicene Creed was translated 'Věřím v jednu, svatou, všeobecnou, apoštolskou církev', the key word meaning 'universal' or 'in all places' - even though Czech (like German) also has the word katolický, meaning, well, Catholic.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    And how does that work, exactly? Both Lutheran and Calvinist churches are considered Reformational churches, yet they have significant doctrinal differences, especially considering election, real presence, and Baptism. And what about the Anabaptist reformation which is condemned in both Lutheran and Calvinist confessions? What is the 'Reformational doctrine' of which you speak?
    He didn't speak of "Reformational doctrine." He said "doctrinally they're clearly part of the Reformation." That seems consistent with the way that doctrinally the Lutherans, the Reformed and the Anabaptists are part of the Reformation, even if they didn't always agree on doctrine.
    Yes, he spoke of 'Reformational doctrine.' He claimed that there is something doctrinal to the Reformation that is shared.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Umm--maybe it is semantics, but I would not say the Anglican Church is not so much a reformed church as much as I would say it is a reforming church.

    The action is not completed.
  • kmann wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    And how does that work, exactly? Both Lutheran and Calvinist churches are considered Reformational churches, yet they have significant doctrinal differences, especially considering election, real presence, and Baptism. And what about the Anabaptist reformation which is condemned in both Lutheran and Calvinist confessions? What is the 'Reformational doctrine' of which you speak?
    He didn't speak of "Reformational doctrine." He said "doctrinally they're clearly part of the Reformation." That seems consistent with the way that doctrinally the Lutherans, the Reformed and the Anabaptists are part of the Reformation, even if they didn't always agree on doctrine.
    Yes, he spoke of 'Reformational doctrine.' He claimed that there is something doctrinal to the Reformation that is shared.
    No, he did not speak of or use the term “Reformational doctrine”—which you put it in quotation marks and said “of which you speak.” He claimed that the doctrinally the Church of England was “clearly part of the Reformation.” There is a difference.

  • The word 'catholic' means 'universal'.It does not mean 'christian'.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited November 6
    From Chapter 25 vs 1 of the Westminster Confession
    The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

    Emphasis mine:- I would suggest that the use of 'catholic' in a creed or other subordinate standard should not be drawn as evidence that said body saw themselves as Catholic.

    By the way Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds are all subordinate standards in Reformed denominations and yes we do use 'catholic' when we use them.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    From Chapter 25 vs 1 of the Westminster Confession
    The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

    Emphasis mine:- I would suggest that the use of 'catholic' in a creed or other subordinate standard should not be drawn as evidence that said body saw themselves as Catholic.

    By the way Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds are all subordinate standards in Reformed denominations and yes we do use 'catholic' when we use them.

    Indeed. I recall at least one minister carefully explaining the meaning of "catholic" prior to liturgical use of the creed to avoid scaring the horses. Sectarianism is, alas, still going strong in the west of Scotland.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Umm--maybe it is semantics, but I would not say the Anglican Church is not so much a reformed church as much as I would say it is a reforming church.

    The action is not completed.
    So the Anglicans are the Trot church - continuous Reformation?
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Umm--maybe it is semantics, but I would not say the Anglican Church is not so much a reformed church as much as I would say it is a reforming church.

    The action is not completed.
    So the Anglicans are the Trot church - continuous Reformation?

    Ecclesia semper reformanda (the church must be continually reformed) is hardly news or specific to Anglicans.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    The fact that the Anglican church ,as indeed also the Church of Scotland until 1689, retained the historic episcopate, neither advances nor diminishes the claims of these bodies to be the continuation of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church.
    It would diminish the claim if they hadn't retained the historic episcopate.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The Church of England and the Scottish Episcopalian Church both claim institutional continuity with the ancient churches of Britain. So if by 'Reformation Church' you mean church founded in the Reformation in that sense they're not.
    Well as @Ricardus notes above, this would exclude a lot of churches from being 'Reformation churches.' The Church of Norway, the Church of Sweden, and the Church of Denmark all see themselves as the churches before the Reformation, though reformed. But what does 'reformed' mean here?
    The ambiguity of the phrase 'reformation church is exactly my point.
    I don't know much about the Scandinavian national churches, but I certainly don't see any reason to avoid the conclusion that they are continuations of the previous national churches.
    Dafyd wrote: »
    If you mean doctrinally they're clearly part of the Reformation (which is not to exclude a catholic identity).
    And how does that work, exactly? Both Lutheran and Calvinist churches are considered Reformational churches, yet they have significant doctrinal differences, especially considering election, real presence, and Baptism. And what about the Anabaptist reformation which is condemned in both Lutheran and Calvinist confessions? What is the 'Reformational doctrine' of which you speak?
    As Nick Tamen points out, at no point did I speak of or use the phrase 'Reformational doctrine'.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    And how does that work, exactly? Both Lutheran and Calvinist churches are considered Reformational churches, yet they have significant doctrinal differences, especially considering election, real presence, and Baptism. And what about the Anabaptist reformation which is condemned in both Lutheran and Calvinist confessions? What is the 'Reformational doctrine' of which you speak?

    Speaking as a Lutheran, I have never heard the term "reformational" to describe my church. Reforming is a better word. I think Luther would be surprised how we continue to reform (we did condemn is writing against the Jews).

    Luther's emphasis was to retain catholic practices which did not contradict the scripture. Thus, we are more likely to stay within the outlines of the catholic liturgy (but that is not hard and fast). Calvin, it seems wanted a more radical break.

    ISTM Luther approached theology through a pastor's heart. Calvin approached theology through a lawyer's mindset. Take their different approaches to predestination. Luther simply says God wants all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. Calvin thought if some are to be saved, it stands to reason some will be damned.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    edited November 7
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    No, he did not speak of or use the term “Reformational doctrine”—which you put it in quotation marks and said “of which you speak.” He claimed that the doctrinally the Church of England was “clearly part of the Reformation.” There is a difference.
    And what may that difference consist in?
Sign In or Register to comment.