What do Anabaptists and Anglicans share in common?

[barnhart]

(minor correction above)

Wright and Piper have written several books each arguing against the other on Pauline perspectives. Wright is wittier and, in my estimation, more [w]right.

Funny you should make this pun. At the Bible study where the teacher went on a tangent to warn us about the teaching of N.T., another brother chimed in with "sounds more like N.T. Wrong!"

What was the critique about?

[Ernie]

A couple things I learned from the Anglican priest in a follow up meeting...

1. In order to be a priest, you need to first be a deacon. In order to be a bishop, you must first have been a deacon and a priest. At each successive ordination it is emphasized that your previous ordination(s) are still in effect. A priest must continue being a servant. A bishop must continue being a servant and a priest (or presbyter). A person never gets away from those earlier charges. I find this concept interesting and perhaps a bit attractive.

2. To be baptized as a believer is a sin because it discounts the grace that one received as an infant. As my brother and I were discussing this with the Anglican, we were both amazed at how similar the beliefs today mirror that of the arguments in 1525. The only difference is that we are no longer forced to be part of the dominant church in the area, nor persecuted if we refuse to join or stay part of the dominant church.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

(minor correction above)

Wright and Piper have written several books each arguing against the other on Pauline perspectives. Wright is wittier and, in my estimation, more [w]right.

Funny you should make this pun. At the Bible study where the teacher went on a tangent to warn us about the teaching of N.T., another brother chimed in with "sounds more like N.T. Wrong!"

What was the critique about?

Sorry barnhart.
The Bible study teacher critiqued NT Wright on the basis of his explanation of Paul; Wright examined that Paul warned people against relying on the Jewish Law, which had not power to save. The Bible study teacher was outraged that Wright was going against "what the reformers had discovered, that faith was 'a resting' and that 'law's referred to any sort of thing that asked for our obedience to it or asked for us to work to follow it." In his argument, "faith" was something utterly opposed to "works", and the fact that Wright called himself an "evangelical" and would even suggest that Paul wasn't putting forth the argument that the reformers developed was unheard of.

It's a bit complicated to explain. I understood it at the time because I spent 30 years of my life in a setting where "Roman's Road" was the gospel and works were basically sin or legalism and obedience was slavery and we didn't need to put our faith in Jesus, but in "the finished work of" Jesus. From an evangelical perspective, his argument made sense to me even if, at the time, I no longer bought it.

Wright is definitely an evangelical and a profoundly knowledgeable Bible scholar, but the fact that his theology is more "biblical" and less "systematically reformed" ruffled the feathers of this Bible study leader.

[barnhart]

Got it. Thanks.

So maybe Anglicans and Anabaptists share some perspectives around the nature of faith and salvation.

[JayP]

Ok, this thread was a bit out of date but when I saw it I was stupefied. What could Anabaptists possibly have ibpn common with Anglicans ?

I do not agree with Protestant thinking, especially if you hold to the view (which I do] that Anabaptism, while there are some Prod influences, is a distinctive third branch and NOT a form of Protestantism.

Anglicans have NO religious theory and basis for separation from Rome. I might not AGREE with the basis for say, the Lutherans splitting from Rome, but they have a theory. A reason, Anglicanism is purely a political movement. The Anglican mass, approach to the sacraments, etc. etc. etc. IS Roman Catholicism that substitutes the King of England for the Pope!

Of all the Protestant movements, is there a more useless, headed to oblivion (if not already there) religion?
Heck, the only good thing ever coming out of the Anglican Church is movements BACK to Rome! LOL
Such as Newman and the Oxford movement. (I am always amazed by Protestants and Anabaptist who tell me how much they Like Lead Kindly Light. Then I ask them if they know what it is about. For that matter, another favorite like that is Faith of our Fathers. When folks sing it in Anabaptist circles do they know which Fathers were chained in prisons dark and by whom? LOL )

Sheesh…..in common? Aside from rejecting the Pope someone tell me what they have in common!

[Ernie]

How do you expect us to take your faith perspectives seriously when you constantly mock, disparage, and belittle others and used minced oaths?

You should have read this Forum rule when you posted.

Discussion in this section is to be informative not combative. Ask questions and accept answers. No challenging of others faith or beliefs will be tolerated.

[Ernie]

Here are some things I have found in commons so far with traditional Anglicans since I asked the question.

1. A common appreciation for liturgy
2. A sense that chastity is something to be appreciated and nurtured, not something to be shrugged off as "Victorian" and that there are no significant consequences for those who fail to be chaste.
3. If a deacon is ordained a priest, he is still a deacon. He is not exempted from service. If a priest is ordained a bishop, he is still a priest. He is not exempted from being a minister to the congregation. This concept is alive within traditional Anabaptism as well. However, I like that in in Anglicanism, a person must be a deacon before becoming a priest, and person must be a priest before being a bishop.
4. It matters who a person is ordained by.

[JayP]

I am completely puzzled by this “question”. What do they have in common…….is there anything?
Anglicanism is, at its best, a faux Roman Catholicism. At worst, the definition of how bad Protestant thinking leads a denomination into utter nothingingness.

By definition it is founded solely by a King needed a divorce the Pope wouldn’t give him. There is ZERO evidence this denomination would exist except for that. It’s finest members are closer, or eventual, RCC members in the end, highlighted by the Oxford Movement .

The establishment church of being Anglican is best summed up by the funny episode of Yes, Prime Minister when the Pm has to pick a new Bishop and is asked to choose between the liberal candidate (defined as not believing in God at all) or the conservative one (defined as doubting there is a God)

I may not agree with the reasoning of why there should be a Lutheran, or Calvinistic church, or evangelical church but I can believe FHEY think their reasoning sound. Anglicans stand for nothing.

Quite different than an anabaptist

[Ernie]

Here are some things I have found in commons so far with traditional Anglicans since I asked the question.

1. A common appreciation for liturgy
2. A sense that chastity is something to be appreciated and nurtured, not something to be shrugged off as "Victorian" and that there are no significant consequences for those who fail to be chaste.
3. If a deacon is ordained a priest, he is still a deacon. He is not exempted from service. If a priest is ordained a bishop, he is still a priest. He is not exempted from being a minister to the congregation. This concept is alive within traditional Anabaptism as well. However, I like that in in Anglicanism, a person must be a deacon before becoming a priest, and person must be a priest before being a bishop.
4. It matters who a person is ordained by.

[Ernie]

Anglicans stand for nothing.

Quite different than an anabaptist

It all depends on which Anglicans you are talking about and which Anabaptists. There are Anabaptists who stand for barely anything and there are Anglicans who stand for lots of good things.