Zwingli was also a murderer

You seem confused.
Adultery may be a death-penalty offense if the offended party agrees, but fornication is not.
The law is clear.

No, he doesn't. You are adding to the word of God bigtime.
You've got a mishmash of quotations uncited,
you've thrown them all together,
but you aren't acknowledging their limitations, meaning and contexts.

Torah is not lacking: its people who obey it that are lacking.
Your understanding of New Testament teaching is lacking.
Jesus may have raised the bar for Christian standards and behaviour,
but he didn't institute a new death penalty for fornication.

 

The 39 articles and the prayerbook don't properly or adequately define Anglicanism, any more than a crayon stick-drawing of a dinosaur by a 5th grader defines evolution.

The history of "Cardinal Newman" is most instructive. Everytime we get an intelligent Anglican, who actually investigates his religion, he either defects to the Roman-Catholics, or tries to drastically alter it.

"It was 18 years after 1815 before anyone pointed out that the formularies of the CofE are not Protestant at all; that its creeds are identical with those of the Roman Church; that bishops were supposed to have a religious function, and not just to sit in the House of Lords and bow down to the Royal Family; and that practices, which Protestants held in horror, such as auricular confession, are advised by the Prayer Book.

When the tractarians [Oxford Movement] drew attention to these and other facts, which were quite undeniable, a large part of the public was outraged. And this is what we should expect; for people do not mind being told what they do not know. They mind being told what they know and will not admit.

In some ways then, the key figure in the history of the church in the 1st half of the century is not Wilberforce or Simeon or Keble, but the anonymous bishop(s) who, on reading Newman's tract on the Apostolic Succession, could not tell whether he held the doctrine or not. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the extent to which the Church had lost sight of its intellectual foundations.

It was not that the bishops were stupid or uneducated men. It was rather that, taking the everlasting Protestantism of England for granted, and not guessing how soon indifference and worldliness might be replaced by active unbelief, they applied their minds to other questions, and forgot to ask themselves what they were supposed to be." ​

(A. O. J. Cockshut, Religious Controversies in the 19th Century, p.6)

This quibble is fascinating, but never explained to anyone during catechismal instruction.

Thank God Cranmer's muddled thinking doesn't define either Christianity or Anglicanism. He certainly fails here to define the Unforgivable sin.

Very instructive on the confusion rampant among both Anglicans and RCs.

 

You are sidestepping.

If you are saying my Anglicanism is not normative, you have to show what is.

The 39 Articles and the PrayerBook CANNOT be normative for Anglicanism anymore, since they have removed them from the pews deliberately and substituted the Alternate Services Book without the 39 Articles.

You keep trying to turn everything backwards.

I'm FOR the 39 Articles and most of the Prayerbook.
(Not the modern faggotry, but the REAL prayerbook, pre 1900.)

The modern church is NOT for the prayerbook,
since they are willing to marry homosexuals,
something which the Prayerbook is a historical witness AGAINST.

In fact, the modern church is not for ANY Christian doctrine.
Its just a group of homosexuals groping to hang onto control of property and money innocently and naively donated by real (dead) Anglicans in their wills, and granted by the Crown.

__________________________________________
I add this footnote, which you have not apparently noticed:
While the Prayerbook is FOR auricular confession (see my quote above), Cranmer is NOT (from your own link):

...so which position is normative for Anglicanism?

 

Exactly. You don't know the contents of the Prayerbook, because the "prayerbook" you are using is not the prayerbook, and hasn't been for a 100 years.

 

Wikipedia:

"Historically, the practice of auricular confession was originally a highly controversial one within Anglicanism. When priests began to hear confessions, they responded to criticisms by pointing to the fact that such is explicitly sanctioned in The Order for the Visitation of the Sick in the Book of Common Prayer, which contains the following direction:

Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special Confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which Confession, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it)
​

Auricular confession within mainstream Anglicanism became accepted in the second half of the 20th century; the 1979 Book of Common Prayer for the Episcopal Church in the USA provides two forms for it in the section "The Reconciliation of a Penitent." Private confession is also envisaged by the canon law of the Church of England, which contains the following, intended to safeguard the Seal of the Confessional:

if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we...do straitly charge and admonish him, that he does not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy[7]

There is no requirement for private confession, but a common understanding that it may be desirable depending on individual circumstances. An Anglican aphorism regarding the practice is "All may; none must; some should".[8]​

 

The scriptural basis (of Trollope's interpretation) of the 39 Articles is "In Adam all die." (1st Cor 15:23). He reads this as "a corrupt seed produced a corrupt race...by nature 'the children of wrath' (Eph 2:3), and liable to punishment." (Trollope, Questions and Answers, p. 39, #6 What is the Scriptural Testimony...?)

None of this 'Calvinist'. It is understood (with various nuances) by Roman Catholics, Puritans, Orthodox etc.

Trollope mentions a related heresy, Pelagianism whereby some simply believe that Adam & co. were by nature mortal, that his descendents were not culpable for Adam's sin, that his guilt injured himself alone etc.

Of special interest is "that infants come into the world as innocent as Adam before the Fall".

I personally see this as a separate issue, and not necessarily connected to Original Sin properly defined and expounded. I am not a Pelagian (follower of Pelagius' doctrine or elaborated theories based on his teaching), but I am amenable to this idea.

The propensity, inclination, weakness to fall into sin, even the inevitability to eventually sin, is not the same as committing sin, being a sinner, or being found guilty of sin.

Who knows what Calvin thought, and who cares.

It doesn't say "no free will", but that we would have no personal power to save ourselves without the assistance of the grace of God.
All is grace, even oxygen to breathe is given by grace.
The opportunity to be saved is given by grace.

That is simply not the same as 'total depravity' or 'no free will', or any other perverted Calvinist dogma. It does not in any way support predestination.

Happy to discuss this sometime.

Actually, the Article states:

"Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, he has constantly decreed...to deliver ...those whom He has chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation etc. ...

"As ...Predestination and our Election is full of comfort to godly persons...and those who feel in themselves the working of the Spirit...as well because it...confirms their faith of [their] salvation...kindle their love towards God:
[and in complimentary fashion] for carnal persons to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall; whereby the Devil thrusts them into either desperation or unclean living.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises as ..set forth in Holy Scripture: and..the Will of God is to be followed, [as] declared in the word of God."

Aside from the longwinded gobbledygook, what does the 17th Article actually say?

It says godly people (or those who think they are), get comfort from the belief that they were predestined to salvation, and ungodly people are driven mad by the belief that they are predestined to be lost.

This is a truism, a tautological observation about human beings, godly and ungodly, about stupid people. It says nothing about the truth of the doctrine of Predestination, nor does it expound any particular formulation of it. It does not even vaguely affirm Predestination, and curiously uses capital letters to signal some special meaning for the word, which however is left undefined.

The first two paragraphs of the Article appear to be written by lawyers imbibing in the communion wine, who after much wordiness, have in the end said nothing, and said it brilliantly in their own minds.

The final paragraph, back to earth, is a simple affirmation of the word of God (the Holy Scriptures), and a recommendation to follow it.

Thus, as a reader, I am amused by the first two paragraphs, and heartily embrace the last one.

I find no trace of Calvin here: however, there is ample evidence of boozing.

 

This seems entirely wrongheaded to me.

You are able to distinguish:

(1) adultery from fornication.

(2) the death penalty from other penalties.

(3) the distinction in penalty in the Torah re: adultery vs fornication

(4) the Old Testament from the New Testament

(5) the teaching of Christ from the teaching of Moses

(6) death from life.

(7) the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom of earth.

But you are unable to distinguish:

(1) mortal life (limited to 120 years by God) vs. eternal life.

(2) the reward for obediance to Torah (a long life) vs. the reward for faith and obediance to Christ (eternal life).

(3) the penalty for severe disobediance to Torah (death) vs. the penalty for disobediance to Christ (the Second Death).

(4) laws, precepts, guidelines and instructions for Israelites in the Old Covenant vs. laws, precepts, guidelines and instructions for Christians in the New Covenant.

If you had these things clearly distinguished in your mind, based on the distinctions found in Holy Scripture,
you would not be confusing conditions regarding the New Covenant and Kingdom of Christ with conditions regarding the Old Covenant and life on earth.

You would not be thinking that Christ changed the Torah, when in fact He laid down new conditions for a New Covenant.