The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Church of England Articles allowed Universalism in 1563

Theology Ecclesiology
#21

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

#22

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.

#23

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!

#24

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.

#25

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

#26

Amen sister! :smiley:

#27

Pilgrim,

Oh, so I’m an evil traditionalist and your a loving universalist? :unamused: Although it could also be that we’ve simply annoyed at each other, hopefully time will tell. :mrgreen:

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.

#28

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. :wink:
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.

#29

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.)

#30

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

#31

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

#32

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…

#33

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!

#34

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)

#35

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

#36

Hi Drew -

Well I have a renewed pupose in life now, in preventing the ire of your lovely wife! :slight_smile: Will type it up over the weekend.

All the best

Dick

#37

Yes, Rev Drew, you can change the title. Just go to your original post in this thread and click on “edit”. Your first post plus the thread title show up in a form which allows editing.

#38

Hi Drew –

I post this quotation from Screech’s books to show that ‘great minds think alike’ and that you have support for your hypothesis about the suppression of the 42nd article from an eminent authority. If anyone wants to check the academic credentials of The Rev Prof Michael Andrew Screech here is the link (he is very distinguished in his field) -
debretts.com/people/biograph … ndrew.aspx

Here is the quotation -

‘Some think of the Christian revelation as above all a deposit dutifully guarded by an infallible man, institution, or church. Others see the revelation of the fullness of Christ’s truth as primarily a winding road, leading members of a fallible church – however fitfully – towards a deepening understanding of divine truth, justice and mercy. Christian truth may be at any time revealed – in his own way and in his own choosing – by the risen Christ. Christ is the Logos, the Living Word, the very idea of right-reason. He approaches man and addresses him in ways he can understand. It may all seem very mundane. The Logos does not smother the personality of those whom he chooses to address, but he does expect to elicit a response. One response has been a quiet rejection – despite Fathers and Councils and encyclicals and synods – of the notion of a celestial Belsen where wretches suffer infinite and everlasting torment, partly in order to add to the joy of the elect. When in 1553 the church under Edward VI drew up the Forty-two Articles, the forty second read: All men shall not be saved at length. Edward died almost at once and those articles were immediately abrogated under Queen Mary. The forty second was never restored under Elizabeth. So the church left the universalism of Origen an open question. Origen (the favourite theologian of Erasmus) held that, in the end, all rational creatures will be saved: all mankind, and even all devils. The Church, by never restoring Edward’s forty second article, leaves the door of God’s redeeming power wide open: all of us may be eventually saved. If so there will be no human beings left in hell to laugh at…’ (Laughter at the foot of the Cross – p.313)

Drew –in the light of this I reckon that along with the Bucer connection, an Erasmus connection is also well worth considering – I’ve had a number of thoughts about this. I will post later so as not to overload things now.

Finally –( to all) I have no intention of giving offence to anyone by reproducing this passage from Screech. Aware that a broad Church of Christians uses this site I think I should make a couple of points about background context -

  1. However it may seem, Screech’s point about the ‘celestial Belsen’ and the joy and the laughter felt by the elect at the torments of the damned is not a low jibe aimed at believers in ETC (especially not at those who see ECT as the tragic but necessary outcome, for some, of the gift of freewill). Rather Screech is referring to the tradition of righteous gloating that one of the supreme joys of the elect in Paradise will be the privilege of a sort of ringside view of the torture of damned whom they can laugh to scorn as Elijah did the Priests of Baal. (This is first found - I think - in the writings of Tertullian and repeated by many of the medieval Doctors of the Church and the Reformers. I note in mitigation of Tertullian that he suffered cruelly under Pagan persecution and lost loved ones – then, so did Origen who was Tertullian’s near contemporary; but Origen had a merciful imagination).

  2. I’m not sure how much Screech’s view of ‘continuous revelation’ will appeal to some people on this site, although I have no problem with it. For example I do think that belief in ECT today means something very different than it did for Tertullian and his successors. I would argue that the Christian Revelation can be seen – at least in one important sense – as being clarified by the historical process. At the time when the prospects of scoffing at the damned seemed unexceptional, people were used to watching punishments meted out to condemned criminals. Heretics and traitors/rebels against the sovereign majesty of Christian princes were punished in symbolic spectacle with exceptional cruelty (as the Roman pagans had done before in the arena). These punishments were designed to be a first instalment of damnation to dispirit the condemned. However, one of the fruits of the Christian tradition at its best has been that some Christians have seen in the faces of the condemned –whether guilty or innocent – the face of their Lord, cruelly tortured in front of a baying mob. A good example is Father Friedrich von Spee of Wurzburg who spoke out against the witch hunts for this reason when they were at their height. He was very influential in changing hearts and minds about the persecution. The Christian dynamic of which Spee is representative has been a major factor in the gradual – but far from complete – rejection of torture and cruel and unusual punishments, at least in principle (principle tragically lags behind fact ). This, I think, has changed forever the imaginative scope for picturing ECT in good conscience; hence those that believe in ECT these days often think in terms of separation from God and isolation in self will instead of in terms of torture – which is all to the good in my view.

Peace to All –

Dick

#39

Dick, Thanks for your post which is extremely helpful and encouraging. Perhaps some of the voices from church history which have been tragically neglected will be heard afresh as a result of this present move of the Holy Spirit.I look forward to your next instalment with great anticipation! Drew

#40

Thanks Drew - so glad the post was helpful. I’ll do the next post a.s.a.p. (but I’ve got hard boiled eyes at the moment - have done quite a lot on the computer recently). What I’ll do is I’ll write something about what I see as the scope of the issues relevant to this enquiry. Then you can tell me what you’d like to hear more about and about your own ideas. I’ll have to flesh out details in later posts to make everything comprehensible to anybody following the thread (I mustn’t assume specialist knowledge). We can do this gradually; it should be both useful and good fun.

On a light note – in researches on Matthew Parker done since our first correspondence I have heard that the origin of the phrase ‘nosey Parker’ has been linked to the great man. For instance -

*The most usual origin of the phrase suggested is the late (the very late) Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Elizabeth I in the sixteenth century. He was a reforming cleric, noted for sending out detailed enquiries and instructions relating to the conduct of his diocese. Like many reformers, he was regarded as a busybody - (alternatively others suggest that since he was regarded as an assiduous scholar of the History of the English Church – the nosy referred to a sort of academic inquisitiveness).

However, the huge flaw in this suggestion is that the term nosey Parker isn’t recorded until 1907. The term ‘nosey’ for someone inquisitive, figuratively always sticking their nose into other people’s affairs, is a little older, but even that only dates back to the 1880s. Before then, anyone called nosey was just somebody with a big nose, like the Duke of Wellington, who had the nickname Old Nosey.*

Shame it doesn’t appear to be true – I rather tickled by the suggestion.

All good wishes

Dick