The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Church of England Articles allowed Universalism in 1563

Must of struck a nerve. :sunglasses:

Let’s go over this carefully. Dodhi’s said:.

Which is perfectly correct! You cannot say the Anglican Church intended to affirm Universalism by taking out that article.

You say “Strawman”, so I’ll call you the ‘artful dodger’. I said:

Why, did the Anglican Church suddenly adopt Universalism without anyone noticing, what useful historical information can bring to bear on this situation to suggest otherwise?

And while we’re on the artful dodging, no comment about Article 8?

Lastly, “desperate”, speculation? Does the adjective strengthen your argument? You can only offer ad hominem attack in lieu of an actual argument showing that the absence of this article proves the Anglican Church adopted Universalism. All this missing article situation shows, and it’s certainly very interesting, (love to know the backstory) is that this article was removed for some specific historical reason not a wholesale change in theology!

Hi Luke, Thanks for raising some interesting points!

I’m certainly not suggesting that Cranmer or the author of the homily or the Ath Creed were universalists. It is fair to point out that those are also foundational documents, but on this thread I’m just interested in the dropping of Article 42.

I think you know me better than that Luke! I’m certainly NOT suggesting that “anything goes” unless the Articles specifically exclude it.

Like Pilgrim says, I think you are speculating here Luke. It is an interesting theory, that Parker wanted to keep in Article 42, condemning universalism, but a mystery universalist, more powerful than Parker, forced him to keep it in. But who would the Archbishop of Canterbury bow to ?(My tongue in cheek suggestion in support of your theory = the Holy Spirit! :sunglasses: ). Seriously Luke, do you have any evidence for this theory?

The only other person I am aware of who could influence Parker in the way you suggest is Queen Elizabeth herself. And we do know that she exercised some editorial influence over the Articles, mainly to show mercy tolerance to those of her subjects who had Catholic sympathies. I’m not sure if she had a personal view about universalism; perhaps a historian can help us out. Intriguing though! She was certainly a devout Christian woman.

That aside, I think the most likely answer is that Parker himself chose to exclude Article 42, not because he was a universalist but because, like his friend Martin Bucer, he was more tolerant of other viewpoints than people like Augustine and Calvin were. Parker would still firmly stamp out views he saw as dangerous, but unless someone shows me evidence to the contrary it seems universalism was not one of these.

Pilgrim, Luke, let’s keep it friendly please. No fighting boys!

A gracious response Andrew, and yes I admit the mystery Universalist pressuring Parker is pure speculation.

(Although just to be clear the title of this thread is misleading because it suggests the Church of England adopted Unviersalism in 1563, which it plainly did not.)

Thanks Luke - I don’t know if we can change the thread title. I meant accepted in the sense of “allowed” not “adopted”…

Well said.

And perhaps here is the first point of any merit although I see an important distinction between ‘adoption’ (which to me implies promulgation) and ‘acceptance’ (which to me implies toleration).

Pointing out that someone is using a ‘strawman’ technique in debate is quite valid and not ad-hominem.
Personal name calling is quite a different matter and it behoves us all not to stoop that low.

A simple polite request and I would be happy to explain.
I am not particularly familiar with the three creeds and I so I cannot say whether this particular point has merit or not. Perhaps you make a valid point. I am ignorant and therefor it is sensible to remain silent. For this you resort to name-calling. However, revdrew has kindly quoted:

…and I read nothing here that would exclude universalism.

.

I think that is the general definition of the word.

Pilgrim, that was Luke quoting Cranmer’s homilies, not me. I agree that nothing in those words strictly exclude evangelical universalism, but I don’t think we could argue that the author of this homily or the dubiously named “Athanasian” creed were really sympathetic to universalism. And Luke is correct that Article 8 requires acceptance of the Ath creed…

BUT, it seems clear that the dropping of Article 42 by Archbishop Matthew Parker was a deliberate allowance of universalism. What I am seeking help with now is trying to discover whether it was Parker himself or a higher power (Queen Elizabeth I or the Holy Spirit or whoever!) who forced him to do this. Rather than speculating, I’m hoping a historian might be able to help us out here.

Thanks for the clarification - and for the thread itself. I wish you well in your investigation.

That’s very interesting, and I believe Andrew Jukes pointed that out in his book on UR (I forget the name,)

But I don’t think it’s quite right to say the Queen Elizabeth I “again split the Church from.”

I think she was still in communion with Rome when the Pope (under pressure from Spain) excommunicated her (and the English Church.)

Look Pilgrim, your picture says “No Hate”, yet you post rude comments and you’re critical of my arguments against the Anglican Church accepting Unviersalism in 1563 but fail to offer a single shred of evidence of anything remotely resembling a cogent argument in the contrary.

By rude comment I mean your snide asides and your delightful comments about someone else’s blog, by lack of arguments I mean that you make the charge of “strawman” when I observe there is nothing in Parker dropping the anti-unviersalism article that suggests the Anglicans suddenly decided to accept Universalism, but don’t explain why this is a ‘strawman fallacy’. Then at first you ignore but then plead ignorance of Article 8, suggesting this is some nobler path of “staying silent.”

Yes, it’d be good to know Andrew, what prompted Parker to do this.

Perhaps a small speculation because I doubt there is any link between devotion and Universalism.

Calm down. I do not hate you. I have read your posts on this site and others and your desire for Universalism to be untrue is as evident as the chocolate on the face of a child who denies eating the cake. As part of the body of Christ it is essential to stand for truth and integrity. If you think that universalists are to be trampled on by double talk on different sites with no reply, then you are mistaken.
I could waste time by replying to every single one of the above falsehoods, accusations and personal attacks but to no avail.
A gentle squeeze on a ripe fruit is all that is necessary to tell if the essence is wholesome or poisonous. We are all very good at putting on a face and feigning ‘the Spirit of Christ’ but with some of us the veneer is extremely thin. It is important for readers to see what are our motivations and who is our source. This thread has been very revealing and extremely worthwhile in ways not envisioned at the outset.
You and I are very similar in many ways, and for all of us it is true that at times our desire to be right may supersede our desire for truth. We share many faults and if you can, at least, see that then we could have many profitable exchanges. My Avatar is a reminder TO ME, not to others but you saw it as an opportunity to throw stones. We are both works in progress just as God is working in the lives of all His creatures.
May God continue to work in both our lives and continue to reform us into His image, my brother in Christ. :smiley:

Hi Michael, thanks for correcting my history which was never my strong point! Whilst it was of course Elizabeth’s Protestant sympathies which led to her excommunication, but yes, technically you are right, it was the excommunication which actually split the English Church from Rome.

OK Luke! There are devoted Christians who are Universalists and there are devoted Christians who are not. My point is that Elizabeth, compared to some other monarchs, was somebody who had a serious Christian faith and had opinions on theological and pastoral issues. That makes it more likely that she would have intervened on a religious matter than would a king or queen who was less interested in or committed to a faith.

It may be worth noting, perhaps, that in the 1801 revision of the 39 articles, one main revision was to drop reference to the Athanasian Creed in Article 8. Be that as it may.

While it is abundantly clear that the author of the (so-called) AthCreed was a non-universalist and intended to promote one or another kind of non-universalistic doctrine (and also that the historical use of that Creed by the Roman Catholic Church was aimed at least partially against universalistic tendencies in the East, in much the same way as the affirmation of the filioque in the Creed was aimed against Eastern denial that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father); it is just as blatantly clear that the non-universalistic statements of the AthCreed are (1) reserved for the introductions and epilogues to the two main halves of the Creed; and (2) are in all cases explicitly tied to the notion that in order to be saved the most important thing is to rightly believe the material in the two main halves.

These are evident facts that are not really disputable. Which Luke and I have been over the ground of before. :wink:

The practical point is that if the wrapping statements (as I call them) are insisted upon as being part of the Creed themselves (instead of only referring to the material of the Creed, as the statements themselves actually say in effect!), then acceptance of the Creed necessarily involves acceptance of the idea that in order to be saved from hopeless damnation the first and foremost thing is that a person must believe the content of at least the two main halves (if not also of the wrapping statements).

At the time I asked for any evidence of any other (effectively) creedal statement by a main body of trinitarian Christians, Protestant or otherwise, that also affirmed what the wrapping statements actually teach, namely that to avoid hopeless damnation a person saves themselves by consistently asserting to the doctrinal content of the AthCreed (whatever the extent of that content might be). I myself couldn’t recall any such creedal statement myself in use by trinitarian Church bodies today; and such statements are demonstrably absent (as well as overt statements of hopeless damnation at all) from the two prior Great Creeds (Apostles and Nicene).

I gave a couple of examples from various Calvinistic creedal positions–no such statement (of course) could be found. Hopeless damnation, yes (sometimes); saving oneself by holding doctrinal knowledge, no.

Now we come to the Anglican 39 articles; and unless there have been more revisions than mentioned in the 1801 draft, once again there is (of course!) nothing remotely about a person having to hold various doctrines in order to be saved, much less that the most important thing first and foremost to be saved is to hold various doctrines.

So. What does the inclusion of reference to the AthCreed in the first editions of the Articles involve? I can see two options, not themselves mutually exclusive, for consideration.

(1) The drafters intended it as a reference to the trinitarian doctrinal set, and to the Incarnational doctrinal set, and (broadly) to the doctrine of judgment–all of which are represented elsewhere in the Articles, and all of which are represented (in less precise forms) in the other two of the Big Three Creeds mentioned in Article 8.

(2) The drafters intended it as a reference to the doctrine of salvation by persistently holding doctrine (which doctrines being listed in the Creed), but then not only forgot to mention this anywhere else in the Articles but wrote several articles which implicitly countervail this concept (even if not explicitly so).

To me, (1) looks infinitely plausible, while (2) looks infinitely implausible (if not exactly impossible perhaps). A problem with (2) could even explain, perhaps, the removal of reference to the AthCreed in the 1801 version of the draft. I would be curious to see records of official discussion among Anglican scholars at the time on why the reference to the AthCreed was eventually removed.

If the main reason for referring to the AthCreed originally, however, was (1) and not (2), then that would very easily explain why the Archbishop did not think it strange or contradictive to delete an Article denying universalism while keeping an Article referring to something that definitely teaches (one or another kind of) non-universalism: because that portion of the Creed wasn’t what they were interested in affirming in regard to Article 8 in the first place.

Which in turn would also explain why they inadvertently thereby included reference to another doctrine, linked inextricably with non-universalism in the AthCreed, which they not only don’t affirm elsewhere but practically deny: they weren’t even thinking about the “wrapping statement” material when including reference to the AthCreed in Article 8.

Very interesting Drew (what do you prefer? Drew? Andrew? Andi? Andrawas? Reverandi?)…

There has to be reason why THIS particular article was deliberately excluded, right? If in fact those who excluded the Article were as committed to a non-universalist eschatology as that reflected in the excluded Article, and if their belief in the Athanasian Creed meant viewing ECT as part of the Creed (and not part of the theology of the curse [which doesn’t itself make much sense to me]) and condemning it with equal vigor, then why exclude it? If that’s an argument from silence, it’s not an entirely bad one. But at best it’s only an argument that Anglicans did not want to condemn all manner of universalism, not that they wanted to officially adopt it. But if they believed the Athanasian Creed makes ECT a required belief for good standing, then that’s hardly different from the excluded Article (both curse those who deny ECT, right?). Why require with the right hand what the left hand drops? Maybe they were confused. It happens. I don’t know. Maybe they’re looking at the heart of the Athanasian Creed and not the theology inherent in the curse upon those who don’t embrace that Creed.

Hasn’t Rowan Williams questioned ECT? A person who is otherwise qualified for ordination with the Anglicans but who openly advocates UR either disqualifies himself on account of UR or not. That should be an easy thing to establish, no? Luke?

With Andrew, I wanna say, “Let’s play nice!”

Tom

Hi Tom
Yes. That’s the strawman I referred to earlier. No-one is saying that the CofE is “adopting” UR, just that they may find it acceptable.

I am familiar with one ordained Anglican minister who openly preaches UR from his pulpit in a London Parish, so at least in one case, in practical terms, it is found acceptable.

Hi Tom - usually Andrew but experimenting with Drew :sunglasses:

As Jason pointed out, the Ath Creed fell out of favour by 1801. Anyway I’d rather keep this thread off the Ath Creed and the catchall Article 8, if we can. Perhaps that can be moved to another thread if people want to discuss it.

The dropping of Article 42 does seem to be a clear move to allow universalism and to take away the threat of condemnation of universalists, heresy trials etc. This was in the days when they used to execute heretics, rather than just assasinate their character, as happens today. As far as I am aware, this allowance has remained the case ever since. No other statute, law or article has taken away the fact that universalism is an allowed view within the Church of England (I don’t know about other Churches within the Anglican Communion). I have no fear of not finding work as an Anglican priest holding a belief in UR. My problem might be finding work as an evangelical Anglican priest. We have a spectrum of churchmanship in the C of E with some of us more reformed than the Reformed, some more Catholic than the Pope and some more liberal than an extremely liberal person. :laughing:

I could give up any claim to be evangelical and go work in a liberal parish, under a liberal bishop. Maybe that is how it will pan out for me, but at the moment I believe I am more evangelical than ever: more true to the gospel and the scriptures and more passionate about evangelism and discipleship than before because of my recent discovery of universalism. So I’m not going to give up the “evangelical” label without a fight (unless it becomes so tainted that it becomes simply a synonym for “intolerant”). I share Robin Parry’s stated goals of gaining acceptance that evangelical universalism (a) is not a heretical point of view and (b) should be considered an acceptable belief within evangelicalism.

What Church history seems to demonstrate time after time is that tolerant leaders like Matthew Parker and Martin Bucer, who are prepared to accommodate people who see things differently, usually get eclipsed by the hardliners. But it doesn’t have to be that way and this is a nonviolent battle worth fighting. I believe we’ve got the wind behind us!

The following quote from Martin Bucer is telling:

If you immediately condemn anyone who doesn’t quite believe the same as you do as forsaken by Christ’s Spirit, and consider anyone to be the enemy of truth who holds something false to be true, who, pray tell, can you still consider a brother? I for one have never met two people who believed exactly the same thing. This holds true in theology as well.

Bucer wrote this in 1530, after trying in vain to mediate between Luther and Zwingli over various differences.

(Source: Greschat, Martin (2004), Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, ISBN 0-664-22690-6 . Translation from the original Martin Bucer: Ein Reformator und seine Zeit, Verlag C. H. Beck, Munich, 1990.)

Matthew Parker met Bucer at Cambridge University, was influenced by the older man and they became firm friends. Parker preached at Bucer’s funeral in 1551.

The link between Parker and Queen Elizabeth I is also interesting. He was chaplain to her mother, Anne Boleyn, who entrusted him with Elizabeth’s spiritual care.

We’ve got the Spirit wind around us, behind us, and in us! :smiley: We’ve got Spirit fever!

Amen sister! :smiley: