Anglican and Reformation Theology: A Comparative Study

Introduction: Two Branches of Reformation Christianity

Among the many varieties of Christian theology, the Reformation and Anglican traditions have exerted an immense influence through the centuries. Both arose around the same time in the sixteenth century as responses to dominant Roman Catholicism, and both deviated in significant ways from the mother church. Anglican theology grew partially out of, and was heavily influenced by, developments on the continent. Avis (2007) writes, "When the English reformers disclaimed any intention of promulgating new doctrines this did not mean that they did not have an argument over doctrine with the Church of Rome" (p. 42). After noting that Anglicans hardly revised the Christological and Trinitarian dogmas, he continues: "Issues concerning salvation, the sacraments, the ministry and authority were the storm centres of Reformation controversy" (Avis, 2007, p. 42). The same was true of the continental Reformation, which began with Luther's Ninety-five Theses (1517) posted to the Wittenberg church door. Out of these theses flowed a whole series of Reformed theological adjustments to tradition, causing a radical transformation in church life.

Anglicanism, on the other hand, proposed something closer to a middle way between Reformation and Catholic theologies. The beginnings of Anglicanism are often traced to the work of Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1532 to 1556. Influenced by continental Reformers, he gave the English Reformation its own unique character. According to R. T. Beckwith, it was Cranmer who obtained authorization for the English translation of the Bible, created the unique English liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer (1552), and authored the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (completed in 1571) that constitute the Anglican confession of faith (1988, p. 21). Beginning with these texts, the Church of England developed its own brand of religious reflection and practice. The liturgical Book of Common Prayer was taken to be the fundamental expression of Anglican doctrine. Its authority for Anglicans rests on the principle of lex orandi lex credenda — "the law of prayer is the law of belief."

This essay compares these two branches of the Christian theological tradition, focusing on their early formulations in the sixteenth century. It highlights some of the biblical grounding for each position by drawing attention to the key ways in which scripture was understood in support of their respective stances. By formulating this comparison, it should become clear how purely Reformed theology and Anglican theology tackled the issues of scripture, salvation, sacraments, and the Trinity. This approach provides a general overview of the biblical sources of authority, forms of worship, and belief structures that were used to found the two positions.

Scripture: Authority, Vernacular, and Interpretation

For the Reformers — Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, and others — the Bible alone was authoritative. This is the important doctrine of sola scriptura. The status of the churchman as historically continuous with a tradition was not as relevant for them. The church was founded on the gospel. Luther uses Hebrews 11:1 to argue that the church cannot be identified by its outward characteristics since it is invisible. Furthermore, it is founded on preaching and proclamation. Luther based his view of preaching on Romans 10:17. As George (1988) says, "Luther did not invent preaching, but he did elevate it to a new status in Christian worship" (p. 91). This was crucial in the turn toward the vernacular and toward the spoken and heard, rather than the read, text.

Both Reformers and Anglicans shared a scriptural perspective that allowed the vernacular to take hold. In the first place, God commands all to read the Scriptures (Dt. 31:11ff., 17:19ff.; Jer. 36:6ff.; Jn. 5:39, 20:31; Rom. 15:4). Furthermore, the word of God is a spiritual sword for the believer's protection (Eph. 6:17). First Corinthians 14:6ff. implies that church language should be in the common tongue. Moreover, these theologians point to texts asserting that people should be instructed and wise, which was interpreted as a need for them to be able to read (Col. 3:16; 2 Cor. 8:7; 1 Cor. 14:5; Phil. 1:9; 2 Pet. 1:5). Finally, they noted that Christ taught in his own mother tongue. As a result, both the Reformers and the Anglicans believed firmly in changing the language to the vernacular and making the biblical text accessible to the masses.

Tradition, however, was not wholly rejected. Luther wanted independence from the Catholic Church, but he did not despise previous tradition. Speaking of the creeds — which were neither supplements to scripture nor authoritative texts in themselves — George (1988) says, "Rather they protected the true intention of Scripture against heretical deviations" (p. 82). Thus Luther was able to affirm creeds, conciliar decisions, and the sayings of the Church Fathers if they were judged to be scriptural. At the same time, Luther maintained his own canon within the canon. Reardon (1981) writes, "Of supreme value, he judges, are St. John's gospel and the same writer's first epistle, the epistles of St. Paul, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and the First Epistle of Peter" (p. 69). The Epistle of James was viewed with suspicion, as it seemed to contain more law than gospel.

The radical reformers went further in rejecting traditional interpretations of scripture on this basis. McGrath (1999) argues that the magisterial reformers — non-radicals like Luther and Calvin — did not elevate private judgment above corporate judgment in matters of scriptural interpretation (p. 156). That would have led to chaos. Rather, they inconsistently allowed the influence of the Church Fathers, whom they regarded as developing a scripture-based theology. McGrath sees this as resulting in doctrinal conservatism. Nonetheless, there was a renewed emphasis on returning to the very words of the text, with greater or lesser reliance on traditions depending on the reformer.

The actual interpretive methods used to approach scripture were less significant than the idea that everyone had the right to interpret its teachings. Luther's interpretation of Joshua 6:1–20, for example, prophetically summons the Christian reader to engage the text. Later, however, the variance of interpretations led to disputes and political revolts. Most reformers came to believe that one could only interpret scripture correctly with fluency in the original languages. McGrath (1999) states, "It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid such stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny its less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it" (p. 165).

Despite its creedal tradition, Anglicanism likewise stressed the fundamental authority of scripture, aligning it with the Reformation principle. Hughes (1965) writes, "This is evident not only everywhere in the writings of the Reformers and in the Book of Common Prayer, but also in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, in which the comprehensive character of the scriptural principle is amply illustrated" (p. 19). Hughes cites statements showing how the English reformers — including Cranmer, Jewel, and Ridley — believed that God is the author of scripture. While mediated through human language, scripture can be taken as the immediate voice of God. This view is based on Hebrews 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:21, which "declare respectively that it was God who spoke to the fathers by the prophets and that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (Hughes, 1965, p. 27). To support the notion that the scriptures are the testimony of the Holy Spirit to Christ, texts from John (5:39; 14:26; 15:26) were utilized. As to the practical profitability of scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16 was employed.

According to Cranmer's Article 20, scripture constrains ecclesiastical authority, subordinating it to the written word of God. It declares that "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another" (Thomas, 1976). In effect, this article declares that the church cannot abuse scripture, and that its primary power concerns the rituals and controversies of faith, which it is to negotiate by reference to the scriptures. Scripture governs individual faith, while the church governs the administration of ceremonies.

With respect to interpretation, the Anglicans advocated the literal sense, which was also taken to be the spiritual sense. Allegory was rejected. Scripture was held to be sufficient, inspired, and authoritative, as shown by 2 Timothy 3:16–17, 2 Peter 1:21, and 1 Corinthians 14:37. Cranmer's Article 7 considers the Old and New Testaments a single, non-conflicting unity in which the old law and promises are applied and given new expression in the new (Thomas, 1976). Anglicanism also asserted reason as an aid to interpretation, which contrasts slightly with the Reformers. The Anglican theologian Richard Hooker thought that reason was the human faculty needed to understand scripture's secrets and benefits. Eppley (2002) states, "In this manner Hooker claimed that in all but the most extraordinary circumstances reason, empowered by the Holy Spirit, was the highest standard to which Christians should turn when interpreting the Bible" (p. 262). To combat subjectivity, he called for interpretation to be subject to church authority, which he viewed as the voice of reason. Reardon (1981) echoes this: "Hooker sets out to refute the puritan contention that in religion holy scripture affords the sole and absolute authority and rule" (p. 280). Hooker shows that the narrow principle of sola scriptura "disregards the larger context of the divine law in creation within which even the scriptural revelation must be placed if we are to understand its proper scope and purpose" (Reardon, 1981, p. 280). Not far from the Reformers, Anglicans upheld the idea that the directly inspired written word contains supernatural revelation, though they placed perhaps less emphasis on preaching and proclamation.

As for the status of creeds and traditions, Anglicanism stressed the Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostles' Creeds as true because they were taken to concur with biblical truth (Article 8). Had they been found to contradict scripture, they would have been questioned rather than affirmed. Creeds function as guides for personal development and exist in harmony with biblical texts regarding trust and belief, such as 1 John 5:1, John 4:21, and John 3:36. Anglicanism incorporates a substantial dose of the teachings of the Church Fathers; tradition supplements scripture. In essence, Anglicanism acknowledges that one's approach to scripture is, to a greater or lesser extent, already shaped by reason and tradition, and that the biblical text itself presupposes their utilization. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888) later endorsed the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as sufficient statements of faith. Beckwith (1988) summarizes its points: "1. The supremacy and sufficiency of the Scriptures; 2. The Apostles' Creed, as the baptismal symbol in many places, and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith; 3. The two dominical sacraments; 4. The historic episcopate" (p. 22). This position was reaffirmed as a later statement of Anglican identity and unity.

Salvation: Grace, Justification, and the Rejection of Works

In his Ninety-five Theses, Luther criticizes the all-embracing claim of the Pope to grant plenary remission of sins through indulgences. In thesis two, repentance does not refer to the sacrament of penance as administered by the clergy, but to inner repentance that produces outward mortification (Aland, 2004, p. 55). The entire series of statements can be read as a condemnation of the papal practice of selling indulgences. This practice, Luther believed, was corrupt. Thesis fifty-two states: "It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security" (Aland, 2004, p. 59). In other words, indulgences cannot remove sin or guilt (thesis seventy-six).

According to McGrath, it is impossible to understand the Reformers' view on salvation without grasping the network of biblical thought related to redemption through Christ (1999, pp. 101–02). This network includes many kinds of biblical images: images of Christ's victory over sin and death that can be shared through faith, images of changed legal status, images of changed personal status, images of liberation, and images of restoration to wholeness. In this context, Reformers such as Luther and Calvin stressed grace and justification by faith, not by works. McGrath (1999) says, "The doctrine of justification by faith alone is an affirmation that God does everything necessary for salvation" (p. 113). This view emerged from deep reflection on Paul's Epistle to the Romans and his concept of God's justice. Realizing that God gives grace (Matt. 7:7–8), true repentance became the result, not the precondition, of grace. Righteousness is God's work imputed to the person. This revised Luther's understanding of texts such as Romans 1:17 and 4:7 that speak of God's justice. This view of justification by faith is rooted in presuppositions of bondage to sin and human depravity that Luther drew from Romans and John 8:34–44.

Likewise, Anglicanism saw the need for salvation as the need to regenerate from a sinful nature. Sin is a condition (Rom. 7:18, 8:7; Eph. 2:1). The Anglicans, like the Reformers, upheld an Augustinian view by which original sin is passed on naturally and exists as a fundamental characteristic of all humans (Article 9). Opposing Catholicism, Anglicanism held that baptism cannot eliminate this sinful nature, even after faith. This basic fallen condition means that humans cannot turn to God by their own strength and will (Article 10). In other words, there is no genuine human initiative in the matter of grace. Hughes (1965) characterizes the Anglican view this way: "The necessity of faith is not a necessity of human initiative, but a necessity of response to the divine initiative" (p. 54). No one can choose to be good in God's sight. Salvation cannot be won through works, but only through the grace of God. This view is based on Philippians 2:13 and, in Cranmer, a reformed understanding of Romans 3 (Brooks, 2002, p. 248). It is an affirmation of justification by faith alone and, as such, a refutation of the Roman doctrine of the Mass.

Hooker's Anglican ideas of justification followed a typically Calvinist trajectory. He rejected all notions that humans could earn salvation. Eppley (2002) states, "While nothing a human being could do was meritorious or efficacious toward salvation, Hooker recognized sanctifying righteousness and its fruit, good works, as a necessary accompaniment to justifying righteousness" (p. 254). According to Eppley, participation in the Word of God was the first of Hooker's prerequisites for salvation (2002, p. 256). Salvation must be conceived through what the scriptures teach. Cranmer's Article 6 states, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" (Thomas, 1976). Here the Bible, and no other text, teaching, or tradition, is necessary for grasping the message. At the same time, this position appears to discount any form of salvation that would come outside the text — as, for example, through the Holy Spirit in some strands of Reformed theology, or through sacrament and tradition in Catholic theology.

However, unlike the Reformers, the Anglicans placed greater value on the sacraments in relation to salvation. Eppley notes that "the sacraments were also central in bringing Christians to salvation" (2002, p. 256). In other words, salvation comes through the scriptures, but this is also mediated through the sacraments. The sacraments were necessary not because they bestow grace by themselves, but because they place the believer within the assembled community of faith. The sacraments dispense grace, sanctification, and salvation.

In terms of justification, Article 11 states, "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works and deservings" (Thomas, 1979). In this way, justification is not linked with sanctification, which is impossible since the sin nature remains. It is clearly based on the substitutionary death of Christ applied to the human believer, as found in biblical texts that speak of Christ's purifying blood (Matt. 11:19, 12:37; Luke 7:35; Acts 13:38–39; John 13:10; 1 John 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:24; Rev. 13:8). Article 18 states that a person can be saved only through the name of Christ (Thomas, 1976), not through any affiliation with law or sect. As Article 31 declares, "The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone" (Thomas, 1976).

Conclusion

In comparing the Reformed and Anglican positions, great overlap is evident. The Anglicans took much from the Reformers while adapting it to their own liturgical style, placing somewhat less emphasis on preaching. Scripture was the defining principle for both positions: all correct doctrine and practice had to be grounded in the literal interpretation of the Bible. The formative texts — Luther's Ninety-five Theses and Cranmer's Thirty-nine Articles — demonstrate this as clearly as the biblical interpretations of Reformed and Anglican scholars in the sixteenth century. This essay has outlined their respective views on scripture, salvation, sacraments, and the Trinity, presenting them alongside many of the biblical texts used to support those views. While the two traditions share a common commitment to the authority of scripture and justification by faith, Anglicanism's distinctive incorporation of reason, tradition, and sacramental practice marks it as a genuinely middle way between the continental Reformation and Roman Catholicism.

Works Cited

Aland, K. (Ed.). (2004). Martin Luther's 95 theses. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Avis, P. (2007). The identity of Anglicanism: essentials of Anglican ecclesiology. London and New York: T & T Clark.

Bayer, Oswald. (2008). Martin Luther's theology: a contemporary interpretation (Trans. T. H. Trapp). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Beckwith, R. T. (1988). "Anglicanism." In New dictionary of theology (S. B. Ferguson & D. F. Wright, Eds.), pp. 21–23. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Brooks, P. N. (2002). "Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556)." In The Reformation theologians: an introduction to theology in the early modern period (C. Lindberg, Ed.), pp. 239–252. Oxford: Blackwell.

Brauer, J. C. (Ed.). (1971). "England, Church of." In The Westminster dictionary of church history, pp. 297–99. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Eppley, D. F. (2002). "Richard Hooker (1554–1600)." In The Reformation theologians: an introduction to theology in the early modern period (C. Lindberg, Ed.), pp. 253–266. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hughes, P. E. (1965). Theology of the English Reformers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

McGrath, Alister. (1999). Reformation thought: an introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Reardon, B. M. G. (1981). Religious thought in the Reformation. London: Longman.

Thomas, W. H. G. (1979). The principles of theology: an introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.