7 Reasons To Become Anglican (Episcopalian)

    So I have some reasons I obviously would have for wanting to shift from attending a Southern Baptist church to participating in an Episcopal Church now. Some ask what they are and I would to at least a few. Some have made videos from Michael Bird's 5 reasons to Young Anglican's 6 reasons. I wanted to aim for 7 just to see if I can help make it persuasive to some. I will give the reasons and then expound on each one. Plus the reasons will include some relating to Episcopalianism in addition as opposed to Anglicanism as a vague whole.

1. Traditional & Apostolic In Origins

    When we touch on this subject, we must consider the history of the church. The history is that Augustine of Canterbury was sent by Pope Gregory The Great to Britain on a mission to evangelize and establish the church there. So he became the first Archbishop of Canterbury there as an extension of the church of Rome. While it would eventually be affected by the Protestant Reformation, we can still say it has a historical tradition of going to churches that can be traced back to the apostles. While I do not affirm Apostolic Succession as a concept I would debate or put much confidence in fully, I do think Anglicans can put a pretty big case to affirm their church as being one rooted in historicity and apostolic tradition.

2. Real Presence in the Eucharist

    So in this, we affirm what is called the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Meaning that we believe that Christ is truly present in what we would call the "body and blood" of our Lord, but we do not affirm that the elements cease to be bread and wine. We are always affirming that the bread is bread and the wine is wine, but that there is something that comes about it which brings about the presence of Christ in these "divine mysteries." While the debate about the meaning can become a very divisive one (if one thinks too hard about it), the true beauty is in the celebration of this sacrament.

    I attended my first eucharist at my Episcopal Church home where I was hesitant at first, but it was something I sought for considering it was something done every Sunday in the early church period. Once I got up to the altar to participate in the sacrament, I found it very edifying as it was bringing about a reminder of the Gospel message. It is more than just a memorial of the gospel, but a participation in unity with the gospel.

3. Diversity Among Unity

    Many Christians exist out in the world with different beliefs. While the Via Media will probably be included in this view, there is much more that this extends to. The idea of certain beliefs being varied among the members of the church is an idea not just found in the early church, but is also found today with how many unique believers exist in the church today. Some denominations will be very much against certain ideas being permitted for agreement or mutual respect such as praying with a rosary, continuation of spiritual gifts, various creationism doctrines (Young Earth, Old Earth or Theistic Evolution), differing soteriology (Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism & Provisionism), etc..

    The diversity among unity is there to help show we can disagree on several issues, some of which are controversial, yet still come to an agreement on the fundamental essentials of Christian fellowship, worship and prayer. This is because we can find unity in affirming the Apostle's, Nicene and Athanasian Creed while still disagreeing with respect towards other doctrines not covered or discussed in our early creedal statements. It allows us to display the idea of 2 Corinthians 13:11regarding full restoration and unity.

4. More Scriptural Readings on Sundays

    So I am somebody who has really been invested into the concept of making sure scripture is the primary focus of the Christian Faith as well as the subject of the sermon, I was incredibly shocked to learn about the liturgical practice of scripture readings. We normally read from the Old Testament, New Testament Epistles and from one of the Gospels. It's not just those three readings though, but it's also in utilizing the Psalms as the songs of singing and worship as well as our prayers coming from the Psalms. It is literally the source of the time where we read the scriptures as a strict routine of our service.

    Furthermore, it is even the sharing of the reading of scripture with those in the community as some will be called to read from the Old and New Testament while the deacon or priest will be then in charge of reading from the Gospel for the church to hear and listen. To me, this was such a big blessing to find something like this in the church.

5. The Daily Office

    The Daily Office, according to the Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, "is at the heart of Anglican spirituality. It is the proper form of daily public worship in the church." When we participate in the Daily Office for morning and evening prayer, what we are engaging in private prayer and corporate worship as this can be done with family at home or whenever we pray, we are likely as well praying that day with other Christians who follow in the same tradition of reading from the prayer book to show a sense of unity in the worship of our God.

    Prayer is done via the similar manners of the liturgical readings of scripture via the Daily Office Lectionary, while also being able to utilize one of my favorite parts of the Daily Office in using the Psalms. You can either choose to use the Psalms provided by the lectionary or you can do the plan laid out in the Psalter, where if you do morning and evening prayer everyday, you will have recited all 150 Psalms within a month. Even more of a benefit is being able to either read them or perform Anglican chant with the Psalms.

6. Anglican Rosaries & Increased Prayer Life

    While Lutherans and even Methodists might also use Protestant rosaries, Anglicans have their name attached to one of the more popular forms of the rosaries for the Protestants. Anglican rosaries aren't mandatory, but they are permitted and create a rich history. The Anglican Rosary was created by an Episcopalian study group in Texas during the 1980s who explored the various forms of prayer. Once it was created, it became popular among the Protestants. There are 33 beads on it in total which each set of the beads leading to several forms of symbolism in the rosary.

    The best benefit for us with the rosary is an increased prayer life that will enrich us with not just mere prayer, but it is also meditation prayer where we focus really hard on the words we pray as they bring us closer to God and grant us sanctification. There are online forms of prayers for this rosary that can be found online as well a couple of books with Anglican rosary prayers in them.

7. Via Media

    Finally, we come to the Via Media, which I have talked heavily about in the past. This is essentially the idea of the the mingling between that of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation. It is a recognition of the need for the Protestant Reformation while still appreciating the beauty and benefits of that which the Roman Catholic Church did practice. It isn't meaning that we affirm the dogmas of Mary or affirm Purgatory, but that we keep the liturgy and tradition found in Catholicism and affirm the five solas of the Protestant church. It is not meant to be a compromise of our beliefs, but to show the unity among all Christians in the center of worship.

Exposition of a Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

     This is going to by first attempt to lay out in writing a formal argument for the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) as proposed by the Christian faith in a Van Tillian manner. The problem and challenge for this is relating to the fact that Cornelius Van Til never viewed it as a formal or direct argument, but mores one of indirect proof. In Defense of the Faith [4th Ed.], Van Til stated that the "method of reasoning by presupposition may be said to be indirect rather than direct" (pg. 122). In this manner, Van Til establishes that the argument essentially doesn't rely on using a syllogism to present the argument, but it aims to refute that the non-Christian cannot account for their worldview without having to borrow from the Christian one in order to sustain their claims. This can be difficult to simply state this and yet prove it at the same time.

    Some have tried to negate they need to prove this claim for TAG, despite the one arguing for TAG having the burden of proof in the claim. I will aim to present a form of the argument that was once created by Chris of Doulos Theology, who deserves the proper credit for coming up with this particular formulation. I have also used this in my debates with Mohammed Abd Al-Razack on Christianity vs Islam as well as in my debate with SkepticNikki back then.

    While I aim to present a good case, I will do so with the original formulation in mind and expound upon each premise of the argument in the hopes that I can faithfully defend each point. We must get rid of an objection common to these points and we will eventually get to each one. However, we shall start with the premises themselves and the conclusion before the exposition. Let us begin with the formula:

P1: If intelligibility did not exist, we would not be able to argue that intelligibility does not exist

P2: Intelligibility exists

P3: Christianity exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility

P4: Any deviation whatsoever from Christianity no longer exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility

P5: If intelligibility is true, Christianity is true

Conclusion: Christianity is true

    We shall now explore the premises with the considerations. First however, we must deal with the accusation and charge of circular reasoning. I will address it by pointing out what Van Til says on this manner. In Christian Apologetics [2nd Ed.], we read the following quote in the syllabus of this theologian: "To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another" (p. 130). We must know that we are dealing with discussions of worldviews, which deals with certain presuppositions in mind for a position that ultimately begins our assessment of reality. If a presupposition leads to some form of a problematic or fallacious reasoning at it's core, then the presupposition must not be considered any further unless it can answer the objections.

    Premise 1 begins with the idea that "if intelligibility did not exist, we would not be able to argue that intelligibility does not exist." We must define intelligibility. According to Merriam-Webster's, intelligible means "capable of being understood or comprehended" as well as "apprehensible by the intellect only." According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, intelligibility means "the quality of being possible to understand." So when discussing the question of intelligibility, we are discussing that which can be comprehended. Which means that if the ability to comprehend things or understand them does not exist, we wouldn't be able to argue that they do not exist since this presupposes language which requires our comprehension of this fact. This first premise does not seem all that controversial and can be agreed by many.

    Premise 2 then logically follows in the result that "intelligibility exists," which is proven in the fact that we comprehend things and thus there are intelligible statements, facts or truths in this world. Even the words on this blog post presuppose and thus demonstrate intelligibility exists since you need to comprehend the words in order to be able to understand the message I am relaying. If I do not come across as being understood, then this also presupposes a measure in which there is a way to be understood or comprehended, otherwise it is useless to say that something "cannot be understood at the moment" without referring to some measurement of what it means to comprehend or understand.

    Premise 3 gets into the spicy territory as we enter the premise that says "Christianity exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility." We must understand that we haven't really proven Christianity here yet, but simply stating that Christianity does provide the grounds and answers for intelligibility. Christianity is able to provide these in light of the Triune God, which serves as a means to wrestle with the problem of the one and the many. To explain the problem, Bosserman provides the following comment:

“Properly speaking, the one-many problem pertains to how universals may overlap with historical particulars. But in its broadest import, the one-many problem lies at the base of questions concerning how subjects may intelligibly relate to objects; governments and citizens may live together harmoniously; ethical norms may be relevant to diverse situations; etc.” (B. A. Bosserman, “The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox” [p. xix])

    So far, we see that the question is very complex. Ultimately just dealing with matters of explaining unity among diversity in such a way that it is reasonable. I will deal with this problem in a future post, but until then I shall wrestle with the Christian solution. Van Til gives us this as a solution from the 2nd edition of Introduction to Systematic Theology:

“As Christians, we hold that in this universe we deal with a derivative one and many, which can be brought into fruitful relation with one another because, back of both, we have in God the original One and Many. If we are to have coherence in our experience, there must be a correspondence of our experience to the eternally coherent experience of God. Human knowledge ultimately rests upon the internal coherence within the Godhead; our knowledge rests upon the ontological Trinity as its presupposition.” (Cornelius Van Til, “An Introduction to Systematic Theology" [p. 59])

    Premise 4 then makes the controversial claim that "any deviation whatsoever from Christianity no longer exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility." We argue that the Christian worldview can provide the grounds, but what about the non-Christian ones? I would argue that depending on who you are, each non-Christian view boils down to either elevating the One over the Many, which leads to a problem. How can one account for diversity among the creatures or things if we begin with absolute unity or oneness among them. How do we distinguish between various types of dogs, horses, automobiles, etc. with the idea of absolute unity among these.

    If reality is basically a single great monism, it is impossible for us to know it in principle, because it would be impossible for us to distinguish it from anything else. Furthermore, any distinctions that we make within this monism will necessarily be imposed upon reality rather than derived from it. In such a case, our knowledge would have no meaningful or intelligible relation to states of affairs in as they really are.

    Consider the Many over One solution, this results in a chaotic anarchy of no equality at that point because diversity is what matters instead over unity. If we posit that reality is basically an amalgam of many things, we are in no better position. It would be impossible to know anything in principle because nothing in reality could be related to any other thing in reality unless we impose a false unity and similarity upon these two objectively unrelated things. Once again, knowledge, which depends on generalities and categories, would be impossible, for any purported knowledge would have as its content an alien unity imposed post hoc on reality as it really is.

    So we can then argue for the case of the Triune God from this as a point for Christianity in light of the one and many being accounted for by a triune God, but it would not be able to be consistently argued for the non-Christian. Some have attempted to argue for the equal ultimacy of the one and the many, but will ultimately have to rely on Christian principles to do so and thus borrow from the Christian worldview. I would find this to be sufficient reason to valid Premise 4.

    Premise 5 then follows with "If intelligibility is true, Christianity is true" and thus the logical conclusion of the premises follows which states that "Christianity is true." This is by no means a perfect argument and could use improvements as well as needs to be expounded upon in debates with particular worldviews. However, I do believe it is a nice starting point that all Christian debaters using the argument can go for. Especially in what can be expounded upon to make each version of this TAG case unique.

    Do I believe it is the definitive smoking gun argument, no. I think it is one that is fallible and prone to have some potential criticisms that are fair, but so far is my most favorite argument possible for the existence of the Christian God as opposed to a general theistic perception of God. I do hope that this article can begin a discussion on the topic as well as encourage others to sharpen their own similar arguments for the Triune God of Christianity.