I’m reading J. I. Packer’s book The Thirty-Nine Articles. In it, Packer says that the Articles are not ambiguous, as some aver. Rather, they are 1) minimalistic, in that they don’t deal with the secondary issues of topics covered, and 2) eclectic. containing elements of the ecumenical creeds from the first centuries, Swiss reformed elements, Lutheran, and Reformed or Calvinistic elements.
An example of how the Articles do expressly take a stand on issues is what we find in Articles 28 & 29 on the Lord’s Supper. – p. 608 in the 1928.
Article 28:
parag. 1 – this is against Zwinglian ideas – not a partaking of the body and blood
parag. 2 – against
parag. 3 – against the Lutheran view of consubstantiation – Calvin’s language is used instead
parag. 4 – against Romanist practices
Article 29: this is against Lutheran consubstantiation; it was opposed by one or two pro-Lutheran bishops.
On the Lord’s Supper, the Ang. Ch. definitely stood with the Reformed or Calvinistic view – called Real or Spiritual Presence. This was not just Cranmer’s idea; when it came to ratification, all the bishops of the Church of England, save 2 that were more Lutheran, agreed to the Articles.
My point: Anglicanism does have an ethos of willingness to learn together and discuss issues, but we must shun the idea that the Ang. Ch. does not have definite positions on theology. Packer, p. 35: "…indeed the whole history of the post-Reformation Church of England till this century, will tell us, if we let them speak, Historic Anglicanism is not just a style of worship; it is also, and fundamentally, a confessional stance.”
Many refer to Lewis’ Mere Christianity and his image of the hall with many doors. They read this as if he taught we need to hang around in the hall, seeking the least common denominator among ourselves. There is nothing wrong with meeting in the hall now and then, but Lewis actually says to chose a door and be at home there. Anglicanism, in the Articles, has chosen a door, solidly with the first generation of Protestant Reformers.
Comments
By "hard-core predestinationist," I gather that you refer to "hyper-Calvinism," which, of course, was not Calvin.
God bless!