tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14237465.post112112902565909840..comments2024-03-22T19:12:22.089+11:00Comments on One Salient Oversight: All good Evangelical Anglicans end up becoming PresbyteriansNeil Cameron (One Salient Oversight)http://www.blogger.com/profile/03143948543305522865noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14237465.post-42518107003802667232014-10-21T07:14:39.882+11:002014-10-21T07:14:39.882+11:00Reformed theology, as a system, is frankly too nov...Reformed theology, as a system, is frankly too novel for an Anglican to be dogmatic about. Too, the NT does not in the least argue for a full correspondence view of baptism as new circumcision. In fact the covental sign is explicitly Eucharist just as circumcision was in the OT. In the NT, baptism is about cleansing, new birth, and union with Christ. And the early Fathers tow the same line. Moreover, it's clear that Augustinian predestination was a late arrival and was, in any case, obviously softer than Calvin's. Finally, the Early Church universally condemned dogma around non-essentials, which clearly negates your critcisms for Anglicans, as it should for Presbyterians if they would be catholic.Rev. Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193789094569388591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14237465.post-68908311632826558472007-09-11T09:58:00.000+10:002007-09-11T09:58:00.000+10:00Thanks for this post, it's a bit old, but pretty m...Thanks for this post, it's a bit old, but pretty much sums up where I am at the moment as well. I am attending SMBC next year :)Vaughan Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610619275761564164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14237465.post-1121311419148605872005-07-14T13:23:00.000+10:002005-07-14T13:23:00.000+10:00Thanks very much for your comments. I concur with ...Thanks very much for your comments. I concur with your analysis that Sydney Anglicans are becoming more "Generic Evangelicals" and are in danger of losing their Reformed roots.<BR/><BR/>I'm only half-joking about the Presbyterians - at the moment it is a reasonably good evangelical denomination in Australia but I feel no compulsion at all to parade around, waving Presbyterian flags and saying "we're the best". So the title of this post is a little tongue in cheek.Neil Cameron (One Salient Oversight)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03143948543305522865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14237465.post-1121282923284090762005-07-14T05:28:00.000+10:002005-07-14T05:28:00.000+10:00So what does that make me - a BCP-loving choral-ev...So what does that make me - a BCP-loving choral-evensong-singing episcopal ... presbyterian?<BR/><BR/>I used to attend an (evangelical) Anglican church in the diocese of Sydney. One day I might go back there if I ever return to that part of the world.<BR/><BR/>"Sydney Anglicans" are known for their "evangelicalism". I praise God for the fact that they embrace and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. They are also known for their "Biblical theology". For this too I praise God.<BR/><BR/>I would say my Biblical knowledge is fairly average for someone of my age from a Sydney Anglican church. Yet among Christians in the part of the world in which I am presently residing (no longer the Anglican Diocese of Sydney) I have earned the nickname of the "Bible Encylcopaedia". So Sydney Anglicans are doing some things right.<BR/><BR/>I think that if you took a cross-section of average church-goers across denominations and across the world, Sydney Anglicans would rate fairly highly in Biblical knowledge. Now in saying that I don't doubt that many Christians of other times and places could put us all to shame. But my point is that by today's standards the average Sydney Anglican would rate highly for Biblical knowledge.<BR/><BR/>But their strength is also their weakness. Sydney Anglicans know their Bibles fairly well but know very little about theology.<BR/><BR/>I think that if you were to undertake a similar exercise in theological knowledge Sydney Anglicans would fare considerably worse. In all the years I attended Sydney Anglican churches I got very little theological explanation or support. Very few people (no-one I knew!) had any desire to think "outside" of the Sydney-Anglican-Biblical-Theology box. No-one wanted to (or was in a position to) discuss what I thought were important theological issues. Whenever I had a theological query I was simply "encouraged" to go away and "read a book". Well that I did time and again. So compared with my fellow Sydney Anglicans I would say that my theological knowledge is above average. But with God's help I would still like to learn some more.<BR/><BR/>Many of the issues facing the church cannot be (adequately) answered within a simple "Biblical Theology" framework. Don't get me wrong. The church is all the poorer for having theologians who don't know the Bible and the plot-line of redemptive history. But the church is also all the poorer for having people (pastors?) who know their Bibles fairly well but then can't think theologically. I have often heard the criticism that a Sydney Anglican expository sermon is little more than a re-hash of what one could read in a Bible commentary. I think that may be expressing it a little harshly but there is at least a grain of salt there.<BR/><BR/>Your point about the confusion surrounding the sacraments is telling. My experience was similar and I have tried talking to pastors but to no avail. I've also been on their case about the theology of what we do (or don't do any more!) in church: Liturgy, creeds, corporate prayer, music etc etc. I must have been a real nuisance and I suspect some people might have been relieved when the Lord called me elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>How many lay Sydney Anglicans (OK I accept that "lay" is not a word belonging to the Sydney-Anglican vocabulary!) could say what "the Bible teaches" about the Lord's Supper or infant baptism? How many could tell you why it is acceptable (or why the Baptists down the road think it unacceptable) to baptise babies? These are all questions on which most Sydney Anglicans wouldn't have a clue and despite their above average Bible-knowledge wouldn't know how to even begin thinking through the problems.<BR/><BR/>Sydney Anglicans are throwing away their Reformed heritage and opting for no-name generic evangelicalism. I think that's a great shame. There are already plenty of bland purpose-drivenĀ® churches out there. If I wanted one of those I would have been there long ago. But it's also a shame because I think that historic Reformed theology is basically right and purpose-drivenĀ® non-theology basically wrong.<BR/><BR/>I might end up attending a Presbyterian church at some stage. But attending a presbyterian church doesn't make one a presbyterian just as much as attending an Anglican church doesn't make one an Anglican. (Sydney's Anglican churches are full of non-Anglicans!)<BR/><BR/>In short I don't think I will become a presbyterian. There are too many things I like about being Anglican. And as an Anglican I can already claim the things that you only discovered after you jumped ship.<BR/><BR/>The WCF is -- in a very real sense -- an Anglican confession. It was written by Anglicans after all and I think it should along with the 39 Articles and a couple of catechisms be requred reading for all confirmees (or adult baptismal candidates). But that's wishful thinking in this day and age when most Sydney Anglicans have never seen a prayer book in their life or could even tell you what a catechism is.<BR/><BR/>I can already study Reformed (and other) theology. You don't need to become a presbyterian to do that.<BR/><BR/>So because I don't plan on becoming a presbyterian any time soon does that make me a bad evangelical Anglican?<BR/><BR/>My the Lord prevent [i.e. 'go before' for all the non-Anglicans out there] you in all your doings with his most gracious favour, and further you with his continual help; that in all your prayer and works begun, continued and ended in him, you may glorify his Holy Name, and finally by his mercy obtain everlasting life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com