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. 
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. 
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 
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. 
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! We’ve got Spirit fever!
Amen sister!
Pilgrim,
Oh, so I’m an evil traditionalist and your a loving universalist? 
Although it could also be that we’ve simply annoyed at each other, hopefully time will tell. 
Jason,
No, the Athanasian Creed is still part of the Articles (well, as part of article 8), and it was when I was ordained but maybe they’ve changed things and I’ll find out at Synod next month.
Yes we have been over this ground before; the creed is a coherent unit, not a statement that can be broken down into compulsory and non-compulsory parts.
Tom,
The Anglican church is a massive ecclesiological tent, with a big difference between the original ‘Cranmeresque’ version, and all it’s geographic and historical manifestations. Some Dioceses will set strict theological requirements others will be more relaxed. Some Dioceses are very particular about various topics for example infant Baptism was so, with my Diocese, Tasmania, didn’t believe you couldn’t be ordained.
Again, interesting that your mind should think in those terms. Chocolate.
Nothing I’ve said implies that my conduct is any better than yours, quite the reverse. What I actually said is that I think we are very similar and share many faults.
Most undoubtedly true and I think that such exchanges are, at times, warranted and though painful, can produce good fruit if we allow.
My opinion is that there is very little correlation between what people espouse to believe and how they act. I’ve met some atheists whose moral walk I can only admire. Pray God if I think hard enough I might even be able to recall some Calvinists. 
Please feel free to have the last word, I’ll leave this thread to the scholars now that its back on course. May God bless your investigations and may the party continue.
Or, maybe it has been reinstated into Article 8 again since 1801? (RevDrew seems to think not…?)
So you are saying it is compulsory to believe that, in order to be saved, the most important thing is to consistently hold that wide set of doctrines without deviating from it?
Because I see less than no evidence for that notion (of salvation being primarily earned or achieved by doctrinal assent) in the Articles, or in any other Anglican and/or Calvinistic creedal statement, so far; and plenty of things against it.
If on the other hand you say you (absolutely? somewhat? hesitantly?) do not believe that the most important factor in salvation is to hold a doctrinal set correctly (much moreso a numerously detailed one), or at least acknolwedge that it is not compulsory to believe in salvation by doctrinal assent, then I am hardly the only one between us breaking down the text of the Creed into compulsory and non-compulsory parts (much moreso outright disagreeing with an important and blatant content of the text).
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in this case. If you insist on holding to all the text of the Creed, then I will also insist you hold to all the text of the Creed. But is that true?–do you actually believe first and foremost in salvation by doctrinal assent?
If so, then you have some ground for complaining that I am picking some doctrines from the Creed to believe (such as the two large halves on trinitarian and Incarnational doctrine) and not picking (for various reasons I have spelled out in detail elsewhere) some others (such as the salvific priority of holding doctrines in order to attain my salvation.)
If not–if you actually agree with me that salvation does not depend first and foremost on our assenting and holding to a set of doctrine–then you cannot coherently complain merely that I am rejecting the material (even if you don’t want to call it wrapping statements, although their topical unity with each other compared to the rest of the material is excessively clear) before and between the two main halves: since that is what that material is definitely and decisively about.
(And also about non-universalism, as it happens. But a non-universalist could reject those wrapping statements on the same ground I do–because they’re the gnostic heresy imported into and around two statements of orthodox theology!–while still remaining non-universalistic.)
Hello Rev. Drew
(This is my first time on this forum). I’ve had a look your posts in this thread and they jogged my memory. Your thought that universalism was left an open question for Anglicans when the 42nd article was not restored in The Elizabethan Prayer Book are corroborated by M.A. Screech, the very eminent scholar of the Renaissance, in his *Laughter at the Foot of the Cross *( Penguin Books, London, 1997 p.p. 313-14). The footnotes to his discussion reference Evan Daniel, * The Prayer-Book: It’s History, Language and Contents , twenty first edition, 1905, pp. 552-3; Frederick Farrar, * Eternal Hope. Five Sermons preached in Westminster Abbey, November and December, 1877, London, 1878; 1892, p. 85; and D.P. Walker, * The Decline of Hell *, London, 1964, p.38.
I dunno - there may be some useful leads here for your research.
I also remember reading somewhere that the Comfortable Words of the Burial Service in The Book Of Common Prayer were included at the express command of Queen Elizabeth who found the Calvinist Doctrine of reprobation loathsome. This certainly suggests she subscribed to ’ a wideness in God’s mercy’ if not to Universal Reconciliation.
good wishes and blessings
Hi Sobornost and welcome to the forum! I thought I just might be onto something significant here and it is good to have some corroboration from the academic world. I will try to buy or borrow a copy of the Screech book you mention. I am interested in learning more about QE1’s influence over the prayer book and her relationship with Matthew Parker; very intriguing…
Funnily enough I bought a copy of Dean Farrar’s “Eternal Hope” sermons just recently, prompted by a conversation with one of our Bible study leaders here who had been shocked to learn of his hero Farrar’s universalist convictions (this was one of many “own-goals” scored by the writers of “Hell under Fire” eds CW Morgan and RA Peterson).
I look forward to getting to know you and enjoying further conversations! Will you be introducing yourself over in the “Introductions” section?
Cheers, Drew
i’ve sent a message on facebook to a vicar i know asking about this, in particular the removal of the Athanasian Creed in 1801…
it’d be a bit odd if the UK and Europe CoE recognised its removal, but the Tasmanian CoE didn’t…
Previously Luke noted that though article 42 was left out, UR would have been assumed excluded based on Article 8’s endorsement of the Athanasian Creed. The following is what the Athanasian Creed affirms concerning judgment:
“For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
1st, note that it affirms that salvation is based on Works, which most of Christendom rejects today and instead affirms that salvation is by grace.
2nd note that it affirms “everlasting fire”, it doesn’t affirm ECT, though many would read such into that. Most UR’s affirm “everlasting fire” and recognize that evil works will be burnt up.
Oops, reviewing it again I noticed that at the first he states that “without doubt he shall perish everlastingly”. But the context is affirming the Trinity. He is saying that if one does not believe in the Trinity then one shall surely perish everlatingly; the point being that the Trinity is for him the doctrinal dividing line between those he accepts as brothers and those he does not accept as brothers. So though someone loves God and loves people, has faith in Jesus and is a follower of Him, that is not enough, but one must understand the Trinity the way he does else he shall “perish everlastingly”.
Frankly, I don’t believe that, nor do I see such affirmed in scripture. A person’s trust can certainly be in Jesus without assuming to understand clearly Jesus’ relationship to the Father. And from an experiential perspective, I know men and women in whom I recognize the Spirit of God, people who passionately love God and love people, people who are devoted followers of Jesus, people from all ends of the spectrum concerning Trinity, Oneness, Binitarians, etc. And I figure, if God accepts them, who am I to reject them and to not call them my brother.
In fact, considering I believe in the brotherhood of humanity and the Fatherhood of God as being Father of everyone whether we realize it or not, I see people and value them as my brothers and sisters though they do not yet know OUR Father! When I pray OUR Father, I mean see that as including all humanity, not just some.
Anyhow, back on point, I don’t see the Athanasian Creed as affirming belief in ECT as being necessary for salvation, much less for fellowship. And I disagree with his affirmation that understanding the nature of God as being Trinity is necessary either!
Hi Drew – I’ve done an introduction for myself as you suggested, inspired by your warm welcome. Yes I really do think you are on to something here and I too will try to find out something about Matthew Parker when I can. An old friend who I hope to see over Christmas may have some useful ideas.
The book by Screech – who is/was also an Anglican Priest – is primarily about different views of laughter in the Christian tradition, focussing on the Renaissance. It has a general relevance – but the only bits that are specifically relevant are the couple of pages I cited in my first post. Would you like me to type them up for you and place them on the board? (Might save you the trouble of getting the book, and might be of general interest)
Hi Dick,
Thanks for the offer, that would be very kind and helpful. It would also save me from being told off by my lovely wife for buying yet another theology/church history book.
Cheers, Drew