Hello, I'm a new member on this forum.

I noted that John Richardson stated:

"As to the perseverance of the saints, however, I know a number of clergy who are heavily influenced by Article XVII: 'Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God [...]. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God ... at length ... attain to everlasting felicity.' ;-)"

This is an interesting issue. The Anglican doctrine contained in the Articles/BCP/Homilies is "reformed Augustinian" or "moderate Calvinist."

Here are a couple of posts I wrote previously on this issue (sorry for the length of this post).  

The 39 Articles are actually "reformed Augustinian" in their doctrine rather than "Calvinistic" (ie in the unmoderated TULIP sense*)--(which is especially clear from the Homilies**).

**Will continue on next post

*Although the firm Augustinian doctrine of the 39 Articles (as seen in the 17th Article, for example) recognizes what might be called a moderate TULIP:

1. The "T" in the sense that we are utterly reliant on God's grace for our Salvation.

2. The "U" in that it is God that first chooses us (and not because of any foreseen "merits" or "goodness" in us-which would ultimately make us the "first cause" rather than God).

3. The "L" in that Christ went to the Cross knowing that there was a certain Elect number (also referred to as the Vessels of Mercy or Elect to Glory) who by His grace would persevere to the End and thus benefit eternally from His Atonement [but unlike the un-Scriptural and un-Creedal doctrine of complete Calvinism, the truth is acknowledged that all who enter into Christ (normally through Baptism) receive the forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Spirit, regardless of whether they persevere to the end or ultimately reject their Lord and Savior--Thus, the Historic and Scriptural doctrine of the Church (or, "the faith delivered once to the saints") is upheld on the reality that many ultimately apostasize/fall away and are therefore cut off after partaking in the saving mercies of Christ for a time)].

4. The "I" is held, not in the sense that God "saves us" against our will or free choice, but rather that God's grace is effectual in causing us both to will and to do His good pleasure (and thus in causing us to have a living faith which does not resist His Will).

5. The "P" (as mentioned in #3 "L") is affirmed inasmuch as those who are the "Vessels of Mercy"/"Elect to Glory" persevere to the end [whereas the "Vessels of Wrath" are:
(A.) those who are justly allowed by God to resist His grace and never believe (thus they are allowed to follow their own sinful will) and
(B.)those who are justly allowed by God to ultimately resist His grace and follow their own sinful will to their destruction after having enjoyed for a time the blessings of Salvation in Christ].

In summary, the 'reformed Augustinian' doctrine (in contrast with normal, TULIP Calvinism) understands that:
Just as the Vessels of Mercy* may be under wrath for a time (outside of the Body and Blood of Christ) so the Vessels of Wrath** may be under mercy for a time (in the Body and Blood of Christ).

*Those Elect to Final Glory because of God's Sovereign Will and grace alone.

**Those who are ultimately condemned for their sin

Second Post:
To follow up on the "reformed Augustinian" doctrine of the 39 Articles it is helpful to note the Articles doctrine of Justification as it relates both to Bapism and perseverance:

XI. Of the Justification of Man.
WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html#11

Homily of Justification:
"[The efficacy of Christ's passion and oblation.] In so much that infants, being baptized and dying in their infancy, are by this sacrifice washed from their sins, brought to God's favor, and made his children and inheritors of his kingdom of heaven. And they which in act or deed sin after their baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this sacrifice from their sins, in such sort, that there remains not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation."

"...we must trust only in God's mercy, and that sacrifice which our high priest and Savior Christ Jesus, the son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby God's grace, and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again."

"Our office is not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly after we are baptized or justified, not caring how few good works we do to the glory of God and profit of our neighbors. Much less is it our office, after that we be once made Christ's members, to live contrary to the same, making our selves members of the devil, walking after his incitements, and after the suggestions of the world and the flesh, whereby we know that we do serve the world and the devil, and not God."

http://www.geocities.com/curtis_caldwell/bk1hom03_mod.htm

Thus, We receive our forgiveness/justification before God in Baptism and it is continually renewed in us
by a living/repentant faith (and when we cease from a living/repentant faith we cease to be the members of Christ and instead make ourselves members of the devil--which is sadly the clear state of a large number in the ECUSA and CofE).

God Bless.

William

p.s. And it should be clear from the quotes above that with "justificatication by faith only" it is understood that we are forgiven and thus "stand justified" before God by a "living faith" (ie "that works by love") normatively in the context of the cleansing of the Sacrament of the Great Commission (and, although not mentioned here, in the context of the renewal and strengthening of our Salvation in Holy Communion). And I should add to this that the view of Baptism and Holy Communion seen here is also that of Luther and thus certainly not oppossed to the Traditional understanding of Justification by faith alone (the Sacraments themselves being the Saving Word/Gospel of God bestowed on us in material form and also petitions/prayers to God which have the absolute promise of God annexed to them). Again, this is fully in line with the reality that Christ alone has earned/merited Salvation with Baptism, prayer, and Holy Communion, etc simply being the means by which Christ gives and faith alone receives the Salvation which Christ has earned. 

p.p.s. Finally, I would note that the Anglican Formularies naturally represent a strong convergence of the Evangelical and Sacramental streams in the Anglican faith (and the Charismatic stream, in proper balance, is certainly not oppossed by the Formularies either) 

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Christians seem to be named by others rather than choosing thier own name as in Merthodist or God Squad. The early christians seem to have been called "followers of the Way"  Acts 24:13. Acts 11:26 suggests that the name Christian was given by the people of Antioch. I have had several goes at definitions on this thread and "What is an Evangelical Anglican?" I think that a definition should be short, enable identification and indicate rh substance of the matter. Evangelical is used in Europe to mean Protestant. It has been used and abused in naming sects. So my definations are:

Anglican refering to the Anglican Communion as growing out of the Chuch of England. This gives us a tradition in church order, worship and theology.

Evangelical is an emphasis on Good News as recorded in the gospels and preached by the apostles.

Conservative is the definition of Christianity as all and only what is found in the Bible.

Charismatic refers to an expectation of what God will do now in changing us, blessing us and enpowering us.

Open is a willingness to listen to the wider church and the world in positive rather than defensive way.

Centre I understand as refering to the vast majority of evangelicals in the Church of England who want to work together on the basis of mutual respect and understanding.

A further problem is how we understand the gospel. Evangelicals naormaly interpret is as a reply to "What must I do to be saved?" +Tom Wright however points out that the New Testament meaning is the proclamation that Jesus is the earth's true Lord. This Lordship can only be fullyaccepted in the context of his people and church. Justification is incorpoarion into the people who will be shown to be on the right side at the end of time. How central is +Tom's vision to a Fulcrumesque understanding.

Oh and Fulcumesque, the dynamic of balance under tension?

Hi

A couple of months ago I went to a conference run by Renovare.  Renovare was founded by Roy Searle (previous president of Baptist Union) and Richard Foster (Celebration of Discipline, Streams of Living Water)

Renovare encourages people to draw on the different streams of Christian tradition.  The idea is that all these streams have things to affirm, good things which we would all benefit from and would help us maintain spiritual balance and refreshment.  I have to say that I have found it very beneficial to be stimulated in this way.  The traditions are:

Contemplative: the prayer filled life focuses upon intimacy with God and depth of spirituality.  This dimension addresses the longing for a deeper, more vital Christian experience. (Ps 42:1-2b)

Holiness: the virtuous life focuses upon personal moral tranformation and the power to develop 'holy habits'.  This spiritual dimension addresses the erosion of moral fibre in personal and social life. (1 Tim 4: 7b-8)

Charismatic: the spirit empowered life focuses upon the charisms of the Spirit and worship.  this spiritual dimension addresses the yearning for the immediacy of God's presense among his people. (Eph 5: 18b-19)

Social Justice: the compassionate life focuses upon justice and shalom in all human relationships and social structures.  This spiritual dimension addresses the gospel imperative for equity and compassion among all peoples. (Amos 5:24)

Evangelical: the word-centred life focuses upon the proclamation of the evangel, the good news of the gospel.  This spiritual dimenion addresses the need for people to see the good news lived and hear the good news proclaimed. (John 11:25-27)

Incarnational: the sacramental life focuses upon making present and visible the realm of the invisible Spirit.  This spiritual dimension addresses the crying need to experience God as truly manifest and notoriously active in daily life. (2 Cor:4-7)

I have found using these streams to pray about particular aspects of spiritual and secular life very helpful.  I have also found that I have embraced the contemplative stream in a way that I would never have thought of before and it has also reinforced my identity and warmth for the 'evangelical' way.  Being an evangelical is being part of the Christian tradition.  It is good.  Where we might become 'unbalanced' is where we do not recognise the rest of the 'family', those other streams that refresh us, whilst still recognising our 'home'.

Jody

I'm kind of wondering...it's late.......why Christians or should I say Disciples of Jesus, call themselves Evangelicals at all? is it just a convenience so we all know where we stand and who we can be mates with...or not?

I'm an evangelical? Aren't I primarily disciple? Was I saved to be His follower in all things or was I saved to be an evangelist? It's late........

Hi all: I think David's definition would only work if we undertsood evangelical (as in 'evangelical centre) in its original sense, without the modern overtones of "evangelical" as in church party (I'd like to reclaim it more generally but guess it's not worth the semantic effort!) In the old sense there might be a centre in the gospel (or gospels) that respected other people's spirituality. But I suspect their spirituality hasn't much been at issue, though something quite close has: isn't the kind of old fashioned thing about "evangelicals" that we have defined Christian faith in terms of a pretty specific conversion process and experience -- andif you hadn't gone through the particular psychological (I would now say) process, you were somehow thought not to be a "proper" Christian. Whereas -- and this relates to one of the other threads -- the "catholics" at the other end of the spectrum would see the defining factor as the sacraments. We are Christians in vitue of our baptism... Dunno if it helps. Tony

Respecting and affirming each others spirituality - yes I want to do just that. In each strand there may be extremists who seem to thrive on actual and perceived opposition to them. I think I have been and am still sometimes extreme (Can we have a fulcrumesque extremist?). But I want to live with the tension that Anglicanism brings to us all because I think it is quite good for me as a christian. Too often I've looked for and have accepted all encompassing ideas only to have the rug pulled from under me. Having had a look around the Pentecostal milieu where there is quite a bit of absolutism floating about, I'm no longer sure that what I heard was all biblical but rather a way of viewing God and the bible within a certain set of criteria, yet at the time it all 'felt'real. I suppose this has effected how I see Anglican Conservative Evangelicals even though I am aware of major differences between them and Pentecostals. It was the problems I saw in in Pentecostalism which inturn showed me very similar problems in Anglican CE - Anglican CE as it is being promoted by certain people. The issues common to Anglican CE and Pentecostalism are in my view these - deification of the Scriptures; controlling pastorates; creation of worldview; love of money; subjugation of women. Quite a list but now you can see more of what is going on in my mind, whooooo!

May be this tension within Anglicanism is where we are meant by God to be; it creates a place of more reliance on God and less on us; when we left Eden the only certainty in our lives was God, He even clothed us before we left. Is seeking a 'certainty' - religious or otherwise - part of our carnal man as opposed to our spiritual man. I've been thinking along those lines for some time now.

Karen

So Conservatives think they are right? well don't we all think the same about ourselves. Other sorts of evangelical may be just as dogmatic in saying for example that dipensationalism is a gross distortion of the Bible or that there is something seriously wrong with your christian life if you do not speak in tongues.

Should the evangelical center be defined as the fellowship of those who hold a range of views but repspect and affirm each others spirituality. In a minute I will be making it the same os the CofE - perhaps that is the idea.

Hi the word Centre may be not one used by CEs about themselves. I was thinking of it in line with the idea or belief that CEs can have about themselves as Orthodox ( the Orthodox Reformed Anglican tradition ) with other evangelicals and perhaps liberals and charismatics being in a movement away from them.

Hi Karen,

I don't want to be too picky about laguage but I think it may help the discussion. "At " implies a point and there is always a separetist tendancy in concervative evangelical thought - to seek the whole council of God and in some confidence of having found it to condemn others. The Center as the term is being use by Fulcrum is a large circle in which constructive dialogue take place. Conservative evangelicals such as John Stott I believe see evangelicalism as one movement both within and outside Anglicanism. The CEEC and sucessive NEACs allow I suppose members of the Church to identify themselves as evangelicals. I think you will find that even the more combative elements in Reform have a very different attitude to other evangelicals who they seek to pursuade on the basis of scripture and liberals who excercise and authority they find difficult to accept.

I expect that most conservative evangelicals are not familiar iwth the concept of the evnagelical center and the same goes for charismatics.

I hope I am not confusing the issue by using this thread to discuss both Open Evangelicalism and the Evangelical Center.

I would lke to begin by asking what are the ACC Five Marks of Mission referred to in "What is the evangelical center?"

Do open evanglicals see themselves as the sucessors to the liberal evangelicals of earlier in the last century? Is it correct to include in this stream such writers as Leslie Weatherhead, William Barclay and E Stanley Jones. I understood that they were criticised by conservative evangelicals on specific doctrinal issues such as the virgin birth and atonement rather than moral or church issues?

Would it be an exageration to say that as late as 1960 all Evangelical Anglicans were Conservative Evangelicals or at least used that label. I find this significant from my point of view because the senior evangelical leaders when I became a Christian would have been ordained in the 1950s and are still on the scene although semi-retired. I see Open Evangelicalism as the reaction of the next two generations against this heritage. The Charismatic movement arrived in England in the mid 1960s. The Open evangelicals seem to be an outworking of the rejection of separatism at the National Evanagelical Assembly in 1966 the NEAC in Keele in 1967. The open stream I think was dominant in NEAC 2 and 3.

The picture Graham paints of Evangelical Anglicans gives me the impression that the CE and OE are natural partners. The rapids exist on the river. The OE accepts the validity of the CE experience and enters into it to varing degrees. They go to the same conferences, read the same magazine and are trained in the same colleges.

The Conservative Evangelical is left behind. I just wonder what has been lost in the process. Is the quiet time compatible with modern life. Does conviction of sin play the same part in todays conversions or is it just a matter of worldview? of is the emphasis on personal salvation and heaven misplaced as I think +Tom Wright has suggested?

Dear Roger, Thanks for your comment. The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) is indeed the central coordinating body for Evangelicals in the Church of England. We have the CEEC basis of faith on the Fulcrum site www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/ceec.cfm?menuopt=1 and Andrew Goddard is speaking to CEEC today about Anglican Communion matters.

In my Mercedes analogy in my earlier posting on this subject (3 April 2006), I suggested that CEEC's role was the outer circle, including  all three 'pointers in direction' of Evangelical Anglicanism. I still prefer the phrase I used, 'pointers in direction', over 'spokes'.

In answer to your question, there may be a difference between being a central coordinating body (CEEC) and 'representing the Evangelical Centre', for which see our page www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=4  and my earlier discussion about the circle being further in.

   Some in Fulcrum are 'open' and 'charismatic', and some are both 'open' on some issues and 'conservative' on others. My metaphor of watercourses in 'Canal, River and Rapids',  www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=2, is more fluid than the Mercedes logo analogy and I am happy to use both.