Talk:Anglican doctrine

message: Redlinks are on purpose, as I think there should be articles with those titles eventually. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinks

message: I am not convinced by the comment that the Methodist schism resulted from Arminian/Calvinist conflict. As far as I understand it, although there were (and still are) Calvinist Methodists, they do not represent the direct tradition of Wesley, whose views were as Arminian as those of the mainstream Anglicans. Wesley was himself an Anglican, and the schism was over quite different matters, such as the church's authority to appoint preachers and ordain ministers, and the bishops' deep suspicion of "enthusiasm". Myopic Bookworm 10:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - deleted that bit.  I had read it somewhere, but I can't remember where, and I thought it was uncontroversial.  Like I said on the project talk page, this article is in desperate need of some good sources.  By the way, I am puzzled by your phrase ... Arminian as those of the mainstream Anglicans.  Had Arminianism become mainstream by the 18th century?  I certainly don't hear much of it from Anglicans nowadays - though Predestination and Election don't seem to get talked about much anyway. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what Anglicans you talk to. In the UK, in my experience, explicit Calvinist doctrine is restricted to the Evangelical wing of the Anglican church, and is not universal among Anglican Evangelicals. I think other Anglicans (whether liberal, middle-of-the-road, or high church) are broadly Arminian in theology, but frequently have not come across the term "Arminian" (because they think of the doctrine as simply "Anglican", and associate Calvinism with Scottish Presbyterians). Myopic Bookworm 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have mostly spoken with Evangelical Anglicans.  Problem solved!  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodist schism 

message: Contributions to Women as theological figures and Religion and politics welcome (or add to Christianity and politics if more appropriate). Jackiespeel 21:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info for other articles

message: I did some substantial revisions, and only now have just noticed the "to do" list....which is a daunting list, indeed! Fishhead64 07:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions

message: I am quick-failing this article because it lacks the appropriate inline citations. See WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE. See WP:GA? for the GA criteria. Awadewit | talk 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking the time to GA review Anglican doctrine. The point you made will help in copy editing the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA quick fail

message: Apart from the fact that large swathes of this article are unreferenced, it often presents the Anglo-Catholic as the main or only position, noteably that the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral is universally agreed upon, and that Anglicanism "retained some Catholic teachings which were rejected by true Protestants, such as the three orders of ministry and the apostolic succession of bishops." There seems to be a political motivation behind distancing the English Reformers from 'true Protestants' that is wholly unwarranted.Sbmackay (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: It is true that certain anti-Trinitarian teachings are popular in TEC.  However, outside of TEC, they tend to be utterly rejected, and not even discussed.  In actuality, the doctrine of the Communion is roundly Trinitarian.  E.g., the uniqueness of Christ tends to be rejected by top TEC leaders, and has been for at least five years, though in Lambeth 2008 Rowan Williams countered GAFCON by saying that the doctrine of the uniqueness of Christ is not questionable in the Communion - or some very, very strong statement to that effect.
If the editors here wish to say that interpreting the resurrection of Christ as simply "metaphorical" is "acceptable doctrine" in the Communion, they need to stipulate WHERE, and also make very, very clear that this is anathema in other parts of the Communion.  Jenkins was more or less quietly ignored by most, and lambasted by many in the Church of England.  The situation in the Church of England is nothing like that of TEC.  You will find that there are some "errant priests" in many provinces, but one thing which matters is the degree of reception - i.e., do they tend to be isolated, if not disciplined, as in the case of Jenkins?  It is also utterly important that the view of Anglicans regarding the rejection of the bodily resurrection (i.e., stipulating that it may be taught that this is merely a metaphor, and thereby rejecting the bodily resurrection of Christ) - that this does amount to a bringing of another gospel into the church, and subject to Paul's condemnation "let them be eternally condemned."
I realize that this is delicate territory, dear editors.  I would suggest however that if you wish to tread on this delicate territory, that you also do so honestly.  Otherwise we are in danger of making a mockery of "liberal theology" and all that is "liberal" within the Communion.  "Liberal" theology does not have to entail denial of Christ's resurrection - and it's important that readers know about the Communion that such is practiced in the non-dogmatic manner of the way it is sometimes practiced in TEC.
All you gay activists, please also understand: you can engage in gay activism without trying to teach people that the Communion teaches that it's okay to teach people in church that Christ didn't rise from the dead.  I am sorry I bring this up in this particular manner but the two are so frequently coupled in TEC.  It is possible to do the one without the other.  Trying to do both at the same time is ridiculous.  You should also have a good look at Galatians 1:6-9.  If you want to succeed with gay activism in the church, you need to stop trying to push this "Christ didn't rise from the dead, it's all a lovely metaphor for social activism and transformation" etc. etc..  Don't look to TEC for guidance, it will just screw you up.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.85.189 (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly Misleading 

message: Substituted at 07:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: <quote>There is a bit of a grand irony in what Haller is trying to argue here. He asserts that Anglicanism has no unique doctrine but that we do have a unique polity and that this polity is worth conserving because it is patterned on the ministry of Christ Himself. Yet Haller’s belief about Anglican polity is itself a doctrine which is only commendable to the wider Christian world in so much as it is both unique to Anglicanism (meaning that if Anglicanism disappeared the world would not have access to this teaching) and founded on Christ’s own design (meaning that if this polity disappears than gone with it is something essential about Christian truth). https://conciliaranglican.com/2011/07/01/anglicanisms-unique-doctrine/</quote>
I don't know what Tobias Haller had intended to express, but it seems that the church governance in Anglicanism is a very unique feature. Komitsuki (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique feature of Anglican doctrine by Tobias Haller