What is Calvinism and is it "still around"?

[EvangelCatholic]

True Calvinists believe in infant baptism. “Sovereign grace” Baptists might agree with TULIP but they are not really Reformed. The C of E has a Reformed confession (Thirty Nine Articles) and Reformed liturgy (Book of Common Prayer).

As a “Calvinist Reformed” do you believe in the Real Presence?

 

[andrewstx]

True Calvinists believe in infant baptism. “Sovereign grace” Baptists might agree with TULIP but they are not really Reformed. The C of E has a Reformed confession (Thirty Nine Articles) and Reformed liturgy (Book of Common Prayer).

I beg to differ, both on the Articles (to which no-one must subscribe) and the BCP especially the Scots and American versions. If I thought the American church was Calvinist I would have never been an Anglican.

Evangel Catholic, if some of the CofE is truly Calvinist they would believe in Calvin’s spiritual presence idea if not Zwingli’s symbol only idea. :sad_yes:

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, the reason the mainline churches are in the state they are in today is because they bought into “Universal Salvation” and relativism.

Those two beliefs are actually opposed to Calvinism, and many conservative Calvinists would actually say that the mainline churches have faltered because they no longer adhere to the Calvinist confessions.

Belief in predestination historically inspired people to live the best lives they could and constantly search for “clues” that they were of the elect, such as conversion experiences and even financial success.

I disagree. Universal salvation, though opposed to Calvin’s original beliefs is a logical outgrowth from them when you deal with the issues of a predestined elect. Simply put if some are predestined to salvation, and God loves his creation, then certainly God would have predestined his entire creation. Universalism, especially coupled with antinomianism (what you do has no impact on your salvation) then relativism is quite easy.

To be frank, Calvinism is the greatest perversion of God ever unleashed on the world. Whether from the horrific doctrines of Calvinism itself, or from the intellectually dead theological outgrowths.

 

[Nine_Two]

I beg to differ, both on the Articles (to which no-one must subscribe) and the BCP especially the Scots and American versions. If I thought the American church was Calvinist I would have never been an Anglican.

Evangel Catholic, if some of the CofE is truly Calvinist they would believe in Calvin’s spiritual presence idea if not Zwingli’s symbol only idea. :sad_yes:

The 39 Articles have never had a very vocal following, and have never been required belief, but they are Calvinist in composition.

 

[ltwin]

I beg to differ, both on the Articles (to which no-one must subscribe) and the BCP especially the Scots and American versions. If I thought the American church was Calvinist I would have never been an Anglican.

Evangel Catholic, if some of the CofE is truly Calvinist they would believe in Calvin’s spiritual presence idea if not Zwingli’s symbol only idea. :sad_yes:

Not exactly. Calvinism has a long history in the Church of England. Before the Oxford Movement, which tried to make the Church of England more Catholic, Anglicanism was essentially a halfway point between Lutheranism and Presbyterianism.

That is what “via media” originally meant. Anglicanism was a “middle way” between Lutheranism and Calvinism. It was only after the Oxford Movement gained traction that Anglicanism was redefined as a middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism.

 

[Indifferently]

As a “Calvinist Reformed” do you believe in the Real Presence?

Yes. We believe that by the Holy Spirit’s action in the Lord’s Supper, God uses bread and wine as instruments of communicating to us the very Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Indifferently]

Not exactly. Calvinism has a long history in the Church of England. Before the Oxford Movement, which tried to make the Church of England more Catholic, Anglicanism was essentially a halfway point between Lutheranism and Presbyterianism.

That is what “via media” originally meant. Anglicanism was a “middle way” between Lutheranism and Calvinism. It was only after the Oxford Movement gained traction that Anglicanism was redefined as a middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism.

I once considered myself an Anglo-Catholic. I now consider that view to be an essentially revisionist one. Arminianism has been rife in the clergy since the 17th century, and so of course the Oxford Movement was free to embrace full-on semipelagianism.

The Articles are still binding on C of E clergy. They are broadly Augustinian rather than narrowly Calvinist.

 

[rinnie]

Yes. We believe that by the Holy Spirit’s action in the Lord’s Supper, God uses bread and wine as instruments of communicating to us the very Body and Blood of Christ.

Then why did Jesus tell us differently? Where did Jesus said this is an Instrument of my Body?

 

[Indifferently]

Then why did Jesus tell us differently? Where did Jesus said this is an Instrument of my Body?

Where did Jesus say “the whole substance of this bread changes into the whole substance of my body”?

Jesus was using covenant language, not the categories of pagan Greek philosophy. Paul makes it clear that the bread is the “communion” or participation in the body of Christ. After consecration, Jesus calls the wine “fruit of the vine”.

Transubstantiation is based on Aristotlean science, not the Bible. Hence, although we Calvinists treat the consecrated elements with reverence, as they have been solemnly set aside for communicating Christ’s Body and Blood, we do not worship them.

 

[andrewstx]

The 39 Articles have never had a very vocal following, and have never been required belief, but they are Calvinist in composition.

Cardinal Newman made short work of that in tract 90.

I think at the time they were trying to balance Luther and Calvin which left people unhappy.

 

[Indifferently]

Cardinal Newman made short work of that in tract 90.

I think at the time they were trying to balance Luther and Calvin which left people unhappy.

Newman’s tract is an absurd work. He later realized as much himself and he and his boyfriend went to Rome.

The Articles are not followed because Anglo Catholics have an entirely manufactured view of history. Many of them have at last now taken the steps to Rome or the East. Sadly they have left us Reformed to deal with the liberal tendency.

 

[Indifferently]

I disagree. Universal salvation, though opposed to Calvin’s original beliefs is a logical outgrowth from them when you deal with the issues of a predestined elect. Simply put if some are predestined to salvation, and God loves his creation, then certainly God would have predestined his entire creation. Universalism, especially coupled with antinomianism (what you do has no impact on your salvation) then relativism is quite easy.

To be frank, Calvinism is the greatest perversion of God ever unleashed on the world. Whether from the horrific doctrines of Calvinism itself, or from the intellectually dead theological outgrowths.

St Paul tells us that we should expect to be accused of antinomianism (although we are not guilty of it) in Rom. 6. I can’t imagine this arising from the semipelagianism of Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome. In Rom. 9 we read that God will show mercy to some and others justice - the elect and the reprobate - and hence no one will receive injustice.

 

[andrewstx]

Newman’s tract is an absurd work. He later realized as much himself and he and his boyfriend went to Rome.

The Articles are not followed because Anglo Catholics have an entirely manufactured view of history. Many of them have at last now taken the steps to Rome or the East. Sadly they have left us Reformed to deal with the liberal tendency.

As did I. First to Rome and then Moscow. The Anglican compromise never sat easily with me. I will say this however, the diocese that I was raised in and particularly the parishes I was in are all High-Church. This is the first time in my 58 years I have ever ran into an Anglican Calvinist . Americans are for the most part Liberal Catholics.

Where is GKC when needed, and why the rude jab at the Cardinal?

 

[pablope]

I’ve definitely heard of this thing that came from John Calvin and it’s always had this air of being more like in intellectual trend in (early) Protestant thought than a denomination in a way sort analogous to how Scholasticism was a big intellectual trend in medieval Western Europe.As much as this seems like a typical question to ask on this site could someone define it and/or care to compare it to something else?.

calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/

 

[Indifferently]

As did I. First to Rome and then Moscow. The Anglican compromise never sat easily with me. I will say this however, the diocese that I was raised in and particularly the parishes I was in are all High-Church. This is the first time in my 58 years I have ever ran into an Anglican Calvinist . Americans are for the most part Liberal Catholics.

Where is GKC when needed, and why the rude jab at the Cardinal?

Yes I know about liberal catholicism, which is basically the default religion of the C of E now. But Oak Hill College is increasingly popular for conservative Reformed ordinands.

 

[Nine_Two]

St Paul tells us that we should expect to be accused of antinomianism (although we are not guilty of it) in Rom. 6. I can’t imagine this arising from the semipelagianism of Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome. In Rom. 9 we read that God will show mercy to some and others justice - the elect and the reprobate - and hence no one will receive injustice.

The Apostle was speaking in relation to Jewish Law. I can’t find the verse you are talking about, but Rom. 7 is all about leaving the law (Jewish law) for Christ.

I know it is fashionable among some Latins to accuse us of semipalagianism, but would you mind quantifying that? We certainly don’t teach that any can have a relationship with God without God willing it.

It would be helpful if you’d give verses (although a verse-off is almost always a waste of time), but as for your Rom. 9 example, the rest of the chapter would seem to contradict the idea that you are born saved, as The Apostle quotes Hosea, “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

 

[seanman611]

It is true that Calvinism has had influence in the Church of England, but not to the point to where one could label the CofE or Anglicanism Calvinist. The Articles, while not binding in TEC, seem to reject the idea of double pre-destination and affirm the more Lutheran understanding of single pre-destination. The Articles were written in a time of great political religious strife in England and were written to be very broad, if not confusing at times. A testament to the broad nature of the Articles cannot be any clearer than Newman’s Tract 90, which looks at the articles with a Catholic lense.

I can’t speak to the CofE today, but I have never met a Calvinist Episcopalian. Our liturgy and especially our BCP does not seem to fit with Calvinism at all. Furthermore, many/most Episcopal Churches have a tabernacle for the reservation of the sacrament, which is directly in conflict with Calvinist Eucharistic doctrine. Sure, you can find some reformed ideas in Episcopal Church, but not to the point of being Calvinist or even close to it.

The truth is, Anglicanism has been through many movements and changes over its history. Catholic Anglicans see the Anglican Church as it was under Henry VIII and prior, essentially Catholic minus some of the additions/abuses. They see the Oxford Movement as being a return to what Anglicanism really is/was. Others see Anglicanism as somewhere in between Protestantism and Catholicism and many of them cite the Caroline Divines to support their idea of Anglicanism as a middle way. The development and history of Anglicanism is really quite interesting.

 

[rinnie]

Where did Jesus say “the whole substance of this bread changes into the whole substance of my body”?

Jesus was using covenant language, not the categories of pagan Greek philosophy. Paul makes it clear that the bread is the “communion” or participation in the body of Christ. After consecration, Jesus calls the wine “fruit of the vine”.

Transubstantiation is based on Aristotlean science, not the Bible. Hence, although we Calvinists treat the consecrated elements with reverence, as they have been solemnly set aside for communicating Christ’s Body and Blood, we do not worship them.

If Jesus did not mean what he said why did he not stop people when they left him for saying you must eat the flesh of man and drink his blood or you have no eternal life in you?

Why did he say it is a hard saying and many cannot accept it.

Why is it when Christ mentioned it at the Last Supper it is then when Judas snapped and betrayed him.

If the Eucharist is not what Christ said it is, Which was this IS my Body and this IS my Blood why did he say it then?

And if it is not what he says it is, why does he tell us unless we drink and eat we have no life in us?

 

[rinnie]

Also why did he say my flesh is REAL food and REAL drink?

Why is it when the disciples started to walk away he said to Peter are you going to leave also? Why did the disciples walk away if they did not think Christ meant what he said?

Why did Christ ask Peter if he was going to bail to instead of saying hold on guys you misunderstood me?

But he did not did he? He said it, He meant it!

 

[ltwin]

I can’t speak to the CofE today, but I have never met a Calvinist Episcopalian. Our liturgy and especially our BCP does not seem to fit with Calvinism at all. Furthermore, many/most Episcopal Churches have a tabernacle for the reservation of the sacrament, which is directly in conflict with Calvinist Eucharistic doctrine. Sure, you can find some reformed ideas in Episcopal Church, but not to the point of being Calvinist or even close to it.

I would think J. I. Packer (English born but as of 2008 a member of the Anglican Church of Canada and now associated with the more conservative Anglican Church in North America) would be proof positive that it’s possible to be both a Calvinist and Anglican all while having enormous influence on non-Anglican Christians. In 2005, Time named him one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America. They labeled him Evangelicalism’s “theological traffic cop.”

Also, as I understand it, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney in Australia is basically a defacto Calvinist institution.