Fr Mike:

I read Gelzo's book, and I don't remember seeing anything in there that would have been incompatible w/a 5-point Calvinist.  I know that the REC was not formed as a 5-point communion, nor has it ever been one officially, but it certainly has been 5-point friendly for a long time.  Our flagship seminary in Pennsylvania used 5-point Calvinist texts for years as part of its systematic theology.  Even in Bishop Cummins' day, what he started was very Evangelical, if not Reformed (EG, Bishop Cummins states very clearly his requirement of Justification by Faith Alone).  If a 5-pointer demands all his fellow clergy be 5-point, then he would not join the REC, either then or now.  If, however, he sees the 39 Articles as compatible w/the 5-points, and that anyone bound by the 39 Articles as essentially his "kissing cousin", and that the 39 Articles are and always were (up to 1830s, at least) considered a Reformed confession, and if he believes in an episcopal form of government over presbyterian or congregational (as I do), then he can hardly do better than be in the REC.  Of course, I consider the "35 Articles" as sub-par and don't want to have anything to do w/them.  But large portions of the REC, then and now, are very 5-point friendly as far as I can tell.  Before I joined the REC, I was very clear of my theological convictions to my Bishop (Sutton).  I asked him what he would recommend, and he said I would be happiest in the REC.  I do not regret that decision.

mw


> Mark+
> 
> I guess I'm not sure I see ECUSA as either bad A/C or bad Evangelical or
> much of anything else other than simply confused and off the rails.
> 
> And as to your post about the REC and APA being somewhat like oil and water
> (that's my blanket statement, not yours), if the REC is the same as it was
> back in 1875 then you're probably right.  But then, as a 5 pt Calvinist, do
> you think that you yourself would have fit in very well?  If Guelzo's book
> is any indication, the "Reformed" in Reformed Episcopal Church meant
> anything but 5 point Calvinist.  This is especially evident in the 35
> Articles (whether officially adopted or not).
> 
> 
> MLW+
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mark.mary@... [mailto:mark.mary@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:58 PM
> To: faithandlife@...
> Subject: RE: [FaithandLife] Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals in the new
> Church RSVP 2
> 
> Fr Mike:
> 
> I'm not claiming that ECUSA is conservative-AC-friendly.  It seems to me
> that a conservative AC would be kicked out of ECUSA not because he is AC
> (altars, sacerdotal priesthood, justification by faith and works, etc), but
> because he is conservative (rejects women in the priesthood).  You seem to
> acknowledge this when you qualified your AC by saying that he is a
> consistant AC.  My claim is simply that most of ECUSA is AC, albiet liberal
> (or inconsistant) AC.  It certainly is not Evangelical, either conservative
> or liberal.
> 
> Consider Bishop Cummins, the founder of the REC.  He specifically left PECUS
> (what is now called ECUSA) not because it was too libreral, but bec it was
> too AC.  I don't know anyone who would claim that in the last 132 years
> ECUSA has become more Evangelical; thus it would seem that ECUSA is
> AC-friendly, just not conservative AC-friendly.
> 
> Am I still missing something?
> 
> mw
> 
> 
> > If I proved your point, then I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
> I
> > thought you said that the present day ECUSA is A/C friendly.  In my
> > experience it's just the opposite.  Most consistent A/Cs object to women's
> > ordination.  To make that plain is to be run-out of most ECUSA parishes.
> > 
> > MLW+
> > 
> > 
> > I'm confused because you seem to be proving my point, not yours.  EG, both
> > you and most of ECUSA call the table an altar, while we Evangelicals are
> > much more apt to call it, along w/Cranmer, a table.  We eat the sacrifice
> > meal, but it's not something we offer to the Father.  It is being offered
> to
> > us.  While ECUSA may buck tradition and install women priests, that seems
> to
> > me to simply prove that they are disobedient Anglo-Catholics, not
> > non-Anglo-Catholics.  They certainly are in no way Evangelicals, and they
> > seem to share many points of doctine w/my more conservative Anglo-Catholic
> > friends: sacerdotal priesthood, justification by faith and works,
> Tradition
> > and Scripture are equally authoritive, 39 Articles not binding upon
> > Anglicans, etc.  Yes, they differ on a few points, such as women in the
> > priesthood, but that just makes them bad Anglo-Catholics, not
> > non-Anglo-Catholics.  Ritually and doctinally they appear very close.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
> faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
> > 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
>