Someone can certainly be an annihilationist and still be a Christian. I think that universalism can be a "hopeful" type and still be within the realm of orthodoxy. I think a sort of assertive universalist position would be much more problematic.

I will give a simple answer, but there's more that certainly can be said: No, we are not Calvinists, nor are we required to be Calvinists. However, we are Reformed (Arminius himself was Reformed). One of the best terms for us would be "Reformed Catholic". We do not confess any of the following in our Confessional Standards: Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Double Predestination, Perseverance of the Saints, Supralapsarianism, the Regulative Principle, etc. (the list could go on).

Thank you so much for your reply! After reading the articles, I didn't really get that impression, but Article 17 did mention election and God choosing in the general sense, so I wasn't certain. There are a lot of Calvinist groups within Anglicanism , which makes it confusing as well.

@@wonderingpilgrim As an outsider interested in history: Study the history of Anglicanism and you will understand. Read about Thomas Cramner, Elizabeth Settlement, the 39 Articles, the Homilies, John Jewel, William Perkins, Richard Hooker, Matthew Parker, and the Lambeth Articles. Watch some lectures on the English Reformation. King James I sent people to the Synod of Dodrt, the Reformed Synod. On the other hand you had Queen Elizabeth who seemed to privately and publicly not be supportive of the Reformed churchmen of the time. You have the first Prayer book, then the second Prayer book which is more Reformed. But you have different prayer books over time. Under Charles I and William Laud there are a strong reaction to Reformed views, and Arminian views became popular and official And some ritual changes went along with that as beliefs about the Lord's Supper changed. Then you have the English civil war. Then the Restoration. And the prayer book of 1662. During the 1700s, you have the fight against Deism and against anti-Trinity skeptics, as well as Whitefield and Wesley. Then you have the fierce debates in the 1800s between the Broad Church, the Evangelical Anglican, and the Tractarian or Anglo-Catholic movement. Then after 1860s you have Liberalism/modernism. Ritualism developed as well. James can correct me if he thinks I'm being unfair or leaving a lot out. As a Reformed guy, I would be a lot closer to those Anglicans like Cramner who had connections with those like Peter Vergimli the Reformed theologian, while less after Charles I (who is celebrated as a martyr by the church of England) and William Laud, then after the Restoration. In the 1800s, evangelical Anglicans like William Goode or JC Ryle have been helpful to me, and continue to have an influence among the broader Reformed world. In the other hand, there are many Anglicans that are anti-Reformed in their theology and practice.

@@wonderingpilgrim There are different views of predestination in Rome as well, between Molinism and Thomism.

the anti anglo catholic stuff is reasonable. anglo caths go cray cray when left unchecked. But my issue with "evangelical" anglicanism, in the modern sense, is that i dont know whether you're an anglican or an evangelical who jut happens to be within the church structure. Like, being traditionally anglican means order in the liturgy, following the prayerbook, having simple but dignified vestments etc. Seems to me, in my context, that the prayerbook tradition is under attack from both sides; the anglo caths want to use liturgies that follow the papists while the evangelicals dont want liturgies at all

The Anglican Dioces of Sydney forbids a chasuble. If I was Anglo-Catholic there, I would form a breakaway Anglican Group there just to wear the Chasuble if I were an Anglican Priest.

@@internetenjoyer1044 The anti-Anglo-Catholic stuff is not reasonable at all. It is insane and crazy.

Your Diocese does not allow chasubles for Anglo-Catholics which should be permitted.

@@johnpolitis9060 is a chasuble more important than the authority of bishops over rites and ceremonies though? Like the Puritans rebelled over thr sane issue back in the day

No woman can "ordain" or be "ordained", so I could not call the Eucharist valid.

@@barelyprotestant5365 But surely if the principal consecrator in an episcopal ordination was found to be invalid then the consecration could still be valid due to the presence of valid co-consecrators. In the same way even though the bishop in my scenario is invalid it would just become ordination by the remaining body of assisting male presbyters, making it equivalent to the Lutheran or Presbyterian situation, which you said made his eucharistic celebration valid but not licit.

@@mitchmclean5435 I did not argue that male presbyters can validly ordain.

I think the fundamental difference between Lutherans and Anglicans is what precedes what: procedure or theory. Lutherans start with the theory (doctrine) that bishops are merely elevated presbyters and builds procedure (practice) from that -- presbyteral ordination is valid in a pinch. Anglicans begin with the procedure in the Anglican Ordinal that bishops alone may ordain and so to some extent the question of Lutheran theory is ultimately irrelevant. Lutherans may be right doctrinally, but the Prayerbook dictates Anglican practice and that's that.

@@vngelicath1580 Historically, I’ve been under the impression that Lutherans in the Reformation began with the need to ordain presbyters with presbyters when Rome withdrew that vast majority of the bishops, and found in scripture a basis for doing so that was also spotted by the fathers (e.g. Jerome). The theory developed to fit the needs of the situation; I do lean toward Luther’s exegesis being correct as regards the origins of the episcopacy, and likewise lean toward the position that he acted in an acceptable manner in ordaining presbyters to fill that immediate need, but would need to study the matter in much greater detail to take a firmer stance (plus in addition to the requisite tertiary sources, for the requisite secondary source reception history and traces it would take a significant amount of digging through Schaff’s Patristic series and Patrologia Graece and Latina; while my Greek is up to it, my Latin is pretty decrepit at this point, so I’d need to rejuvenate it a fair amount). What I question is whether early Lutherans were justified in continuing to disregard episcopal succession when the means of restoring it became available. That tradition, if it doesn’t trace back to the apostles themselves (in some areas like Asia Minor it very well might), began in the early 2nd century at the latest (and dating it that late requires the sort of historical critical reading of Ignatius that led to critical scholars arguing that Paul didn’t write the Pastoral Epistles, largely for the same reasons). If it doesn’t trace back to the apostles, then either the generations immediately following them departed from a superior polity or embraced the superior polity that emerged and gained dominance precisely because it was a (generally) superior polity. Casting episcopal succession aside because it is not explicitly clear from the pages of scripture when the means of restoring it are at hand is questionable at best, and reminiscent of the Reformed’s regulative principle. I see this same attitude at work in Lutheran circles that abandon liturgical worship (at least in some Sunday services) because they see it as purely optional because it isn’t commanded in scripture. While true to an extent, much of the liturgy is (almost) as ancient episcopal succession. There is wisdom in retaining such ancient things and folly in abandoning them. (That said, contemporary music (a la Stuart Townend and others of that quality) can and really should be integrated into liturgical worship where appropriate (aka not in a congregation of octogenarians) so long as it is balanced with hymnody that has stood the test of time. N.T. Wright’s principle of having no two songs/hymns written within 15 years of each other in a service is a pretty good guiding principle, I think.) As a lifelong LCMS Lutheran (Lutheran schools pre-K through 12, Christ Academy at CTSFW for my latter high school years, plus a triple major at CUW; it’s Scott Baker speaking here in the event we know each other-unlikely but possible since Lutheranism is a small world), it’s my impression that the Lutheran approach generates a need for theological questions to receive rapid, almost immediate resolution. There is little room in its approach for the ambiguity and uncertainty inherent to life. One is compelled to elevate one’s interpretation of scripture and reasoning to a place of near certainty, regardless of that interpretation and reasoning’s clarity to others, leaving little room for disagreement, which in turn tends to lead to division. On the other side of things, the breadth of the Lutheran Confessions compels exegetes to nervously look to scripture to confirm what’s taught in the confessions rather than searching the scriptures for truth. When the possibility that Biblical studies has uncovered something unavailable to the reformers comes up, e.g. the new perspective on Paul, Confessional Lutheran exegetes aren’t free to evaluate the exegesis as something which might be true but are forced to see how it might conform to the confessions or must otherwise reject it if they wish to remain in the Confessional Lutheran community, to which their career and livelihood are often tied. In the LCMS, even matters which aren’t in the Confessions but are deeply ingrained in the laity and backed up by CTCR documents create yet another level at which biblical studies and exegetical theology are under the thumb of systematic theology. Yet hermeneutics is a ridiculously tricky business which demands a thorough epistemological basis, and the distinction between belief, knowledge, and certainty must always be kept in view throughout a hermeneutical venture as a result of the limited perspicuity of scripture and the limitations we face as biased, perspectively-locked interpreters. I can confess with the theologians of Lutheran Orthodoxy that the scriptures are perspicuous on those things necessary for salvation, and along with those same theologians I admit the obscurity of scripture in other matters due to the inherent biases and limitations of each person’s perspective. Yet the tendency in Lutheran circles has always been to claim a greater degree of perspicuity than defensible to bolster favored interpretations. To a huge degree this is just human nature, and Anglicans do it too. The much more limited scope of the Anglican formularies hasn’t led to the same cap on exegetical study that I find among Lutherans, though. This is among the primary reasons I’m drifting toward Anglicanism the deeper I get into contemporary New Testament studies, as the focus on praxis fosters the Christian tradition and perspective within the exegete that one ought to bring with them to the text without compelling the exegete to come to a one from a very limited set of possible pre-determined interpretations of a text. That is my impression, at any rate.

​@augustinian2018 I completely agree with you. On the chances you're still LCMS at this point, I think it's really important that we (in the vein of A.C. Piepkorn) stress a hierarchy of authority within the Confessions such that we don't fall victim of a massive dogmatic superstructure, unable to bear its own weight let alone us bear it. The LCMS, in particular, is awful due to the plethora of CTCR and semi-canonical Synodical authorities to sift through. It is also eerily reminiscent of a papal magisterium, generating new teachings in a seemingly binding way for every subsequent generation -- far from sola scriptura, or even basic confessional Lutheranism, let's be fair.

We need to be able to say that while the Reformation caused necessary changes to orthopraxis, emergencies don't go on indefinitely. And while we may be able to continue justifying bad practices on biblical precedent, validity isn't the whole picture, there's also licitness and appropriateness (all is lawful, not all beneficial). I've made this fight not only over liturgy but specifically on the question of 'eucharistic prayer' -- just because we needed to remove the abomination of the Roman canon, doesn't mean we can just omit the central piece of the thanksgiving liturgy, breaking continuity with the previous 1500 years of worship-praxis. We can restore our practices to align with catholic worship/governance, etc without compromising confessional theology (after all, they should ideally go hand-in-hand: lex orandi lex credendi). Anglicans do a much better job of emphasizing 'lex orandi', and we should laud them for it (and imitate wherever appropriate).

@@vngelicath1580 I did ultimately migrate to the ACNA, though much of my negative attitude toward the LCMS has largely rescinded as I’ve grown accustomed to the ACNA (and its own foibles/trade offs). I believe the ACNA and the LCMS both have significant strengths and weaknesses, as do all corporate entities. When it comes to the congregations in my locale, my analysis/best informed guess is that all things considered, the ACNA congregations come out ahead of those of the LCMS in the areas that will have the greatest impact on the development and maintenance of my family’s faith and character. Yet if my family and I ever relocate and we need to find a new parish, I definitely still see LCMS congregations as generally viable options depending on the ACNA parishes in the area (as well as the NALC); it would really depend on the strength of each in a particular locale. (That said, I don’t plan to hop around within a given locale; my wife and I’s jump to the ACNA was as a result of a cumulative level of discomfort with the LCMS’s dogmaticism (at least the congregations in our area) having been reached-dogmatism on issues we believe would quite negatively affect our children’s faith and worldview. I’ve drifted away from the Lutheran confessions a bit in some areas. More commonly, I hold some views which, while not strictly at odds with anything in the Lutheran confessions, are at odds with stances adopted by the CTCR and/or dominant among active churchgoers in the LCMS. To give an explicit example-the straw that broke the camel’s back/led to my wife and I’s decision to leave the LCMS: young earth creationism and (animal) death before the fall. I affirm a historical Adam and Eve and I strongly incline toward believing that there was no human death before the Fall (though even if there was, that wouldn’t have any impact on my belief that Jesus Christ died for my sins, rose on the third day, is the true Lord and Savior of this world, and will visibly return one day in power to bring about the eschatological fulfillment of the new creation inaugurated by his death and resurrection). But I side with Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas et al. on the question of natural animal mortality/animal death before the Fall, and I also more-or-less affirm evolutionary creationism. The messaging I always received in the LCMS was essentially that if there was any death at all before the Fall, then Christianity is false-Christ could not have risen from the dead. That messaging caused me to have extreme doubts about my faith when I studied the evidence for contemporary science (which is not entirely as airtight as some who subscribe to it proclaim, I will grant). I don’t want my children to have to face that same doubt. I was sitting on 39 credits of biblical languages and majors in philosophy and math when I faced those doubts (I was originally planning to go to CTSFW to become a pastor); my children might not have the same degree of training to bring to bear on the underlying theological, philosophical, and scientific questions if they were to be faced with the same incongruities in their worldviews. As a result, my wife and I’s reasoning on that issue was that it would be best for our children to be raised at a church where the doctrine of the manner of creation is treated as a 3rd rank doctrine (along with other considerations about other doctrines). I do still affirm everything in _The Small Catechism_ and I plan to start using it with my children when they’re old enough (my first child is only about 15 months old currently). Family prayer in my house involves an ESV Bible (with Apocrypha in the middle) for readings, _The Book of Common Prayer_ (2019), an Anglican chant psalter, and _Lutheran Service Book_ for hymns.

I would never sign up for Ordinariate. I just left the Roman Church for the Anglican Catholic Church, a Continuing Church province or jurisdiction.

@@johnpolitis9060 The ACC is less than 50 years old and doesn't trace back to the apostles. The Ordinariate is the only authentic representation of Anglican patrimony. The ACC is also NOT in union with Rome like the Ordinariate and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches.The ACC is only catholic in name,but not in reality.They have have no apostolic succession and invalid orders.They are just a Protestant sect that is 'high church' in liturgy and decided to add the word "catholic" to their name despite being less than 50 years old. “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

You're wrong: we Anglicans do, as do the Old Catholics, and the European Lutherans.