Let's do a detailed discussion for each of the Articles of Religion

I imagine you do not need me to remind you that the eternal generation of the Son as specifically spelled out in the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel would call you to be very careful how far down this path you tread, or risk becoming heterodox. I don't have a real problem with feminine images of the Holy Spirit, as the word I believe is feminine in both Hebrew and Greek. Rather than taking an either or stand, I would add that I do see the participation of the Holy Spirit in the Incarnation, and at the Baptism of Jesus, as ensuring the egalitarian nature of the Trinity as espoused by Basil and the two Gregory/s. In all honesty I am not comfortable with the idea of calling the Holy Spirit the Mother of Christ, and I don't think it would be orthodox christian belief, and certainly I don't see a hint of it in the Thirty Nine Articles.

Gregory of Nazianzus, I have read a fair bit of Gregory, who, from memory, presided over the First Council of Constantinople. I think he is hard going for a poor western mind to fully comprehend. I think the point that McGukin is entirely valid. Reading Basil On the Holy Spirit you feel he is about to express a theology of double procession and pulls away at the last moment. The context may have some bearing on this, and if you compare the Creed from the Council of Nicaea and the Creed from Constantinople you will quickly realise that the profound differences, include dropping the anathemas, shoring up the Christology against the Arian position, and a much stronger statement about the Holy Spirit as divine which was clearly intended to address the matter f the pneumatomachi who argued that the Holy Spirit was not God but a Creature given by the Son.

I think that is essentially the approach that makes for plain reading of Augustine and Aquinas. I have said, before and I will repeat myself, To the time of Augustine most of the Churches theology was Greek, where as Augustine's theology was in Latin, and I can't help feeling that that is part of the problem in understanding each other.

I have read Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by Photius, another not too easy read, and in a sense (my limited western perception) his outrage and polemic dominate his argument (and I am not saying he is wrong), almost like listening to US Presidential hopefuls speaking ill of each other. At that stage of the History of the Church it was clear that the Popes, some of whom (probably many) embraced a theology of double procession did not endorse it being by way of the Filioque inserted in the Nicene Symbol.

It is clearly possible to understand Article 5 in a way that would offend our Eastern Orthodox sisters and brothers in faith. Some clearly do. I do not as I believe I have shown. I accept that their are members of the EO who will not consider anything from the Western Fathers, and take refuge in the Mystagogy every time double procession is mentioned.

Part of the reason why I think I have reached this conclusion is because I have thought read and prayed about the matter of the Procession of the Holy Spirit at length and for some time. I would remind you that some of the earliest thoughts on double procession came from Antioch, so double procession is not totally left field for the Eastern Christians, however the point is that it should never undermine Monarchical Role of the Father, and on that point I would concur.

The four agreed statements of Anglican Orthodox Dialogues can be found from this page. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/relationships/ecumenical-dialogues/orthodox.aspx

 

​

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical BOOKS.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy,
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The 1st Book of Samuel, The 2nd Book of Samuel,
The 1st Book of Kings, The 2nd Book of Kings,
The 1st Book of Chronicles, The 2nd Book of Chronicles,
The 1st Book of Esdras, The 2nd Book of Esdras, The Book of Esther,The Book of Job,
The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or Preacher, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
4 Prophets the greater,
12 Prophets the less

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any Doctrine: such are these following,

The 3rd Book of Esdras, The 4th Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the son of Syrach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the 3 Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The 1st Book of Maccabees, The 2nd Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them Canonical.

________ o ________​

It seems that listing the books of the Old Testament and not the New Testament suggests that there was perhaps a level of controversy about the deuterocanonical texts, often called the Apocrypha. Augustine at a Council in Carthage in 397 listed these texts, though they were in not included in the Hebrew Canon. The Eastern Church includes them in the canon and recognises them as being less important than the Hebrew Canon. The Council of Trent in 1546 included them. The 6th Article recognises their value, but not to determine doctrine. It is probably a similar position to that taken by the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The force of this important article is the Authority of the Canon of Scripture for the purpose of establishing doctrine. If it cannot be proven in the received canon of Scripture, then it cannot be required as something that must be believed or that is necessary to Salvation.

There are clearly a number of important issues under review at this time, as the pressures for reform in Europe were building. The 39 Articles are but 40 years after Luther refused to recant at the Diet of Worms. Luther said

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”​

There is no doubt that the authority of and in the Church was a big issue in England as well. Henry VIII had wanted a divorce, which in normal circumstances would have been granted, however due to the Pope’s circumstances, it was not. Henry desperate for an heir (the history of the Tudors will explain why - the battle of Bosworth Field was 50 years before) had called a limit (end) to the Pope’s authority and the rest is history.

Accordingly in framing the articles, there were a number of factors that bore pressure on the Church to establish where authority in doctrine was to be found. Absolute authority is to be found in the Canon of the Old and New Testaments. The spelling out of the Old Testament Books is clearly to ensure that the Canon ratified by Trent was not accepted. It also clearly removes that kind of authority from monarchs and from prelates.

The tenor of Article 6 is in a way more Reformed than Catholic on this issue. It is not simply a matter of the definition of Scripture, but the clear statement of the authority of Scripture in determining doctrine. The source and nature of authority in doctrine are clearly for us as Anglicans to be found in Scripture.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches have always given great weight to Scripture, as indeed we see in the writings of all the Fathers. Post Vatican II Catholicism seems to have embraced a new approach to Scripture, seeing it is being more accessible to all believers, and actively promoting the study of the scriptures.

For us as Anglicans, Article 6 tells us what is in the Canon of Scripture, and that everything we need to know for our salvation is there. Scripture is the rule by which we measure ideas that are put to us in terms of our relationship with God.

The article does not tell us how we are to read scripture, and clearly it was composed some 300 years before the advent of mainstream modern Biblical Criticism, which is one the areas where Anglicans have punched above their weight. For example Genesis chapters 1 through 5 is read as history by some, whilst others understand it as carrying a different kind of truth. Article 6 does not as such commit us to a literal or fundamentalist position, nor does it rule it out. Many contemporary Biblical scholars will speak of E J P D and R which others reject. Article 6 is long before such things were considered and so does not speak for or against this approach.

I believe Luther’s approach ‘sola scriptura’ is also not quite what was envisaged here, but rather ‘prima scriptura’. That is to say, not only scripture, but scripture first. One of the key areas of concern as this article was being drafted was to understand that the Church in declaring doctrine has to find its primary authority in Scripture. There was no doubt a feeling that the Bishop of Rome had not met such a standard in a number of areas. The response of the articles on this is clearly on Luther’s side of the equation, but not all the way. Perhaps this is one of the clear examples where the Anglican Church steers a middle way.

 

Hello, Philip!

I would like to make an amicable comparison here: the Anglican Church's position of Prima Scriptura matches the Orthodox view, except that many Orthodox see the Ecumenical Councils, which I think both Anglicans and EOs accept, as infallible. But Orthodox are not united on this. Also, I understand Roman Catholics to teach a "material sufficiency of scripture", that the building blocks sufficient for salvation are in the Bible, but they also say that Tradition is an important, if not necessary, tool to put those blocks together. Supposing for a moment that the Anglican and EO positions are the same on Prima Scriptura, it is not clear to me that Sola Scriptura is actually substantively different, but that is a question for another forum.

 

Now let me raise two questions here:

1. Article 6 establishes the canonical books of scripture for Anglicans, although Anglicans, RCs, EOs, and I think Lutherans have lists of books that are considered apocryphal/deuterocanonical.

Anglicans and EOs differ on whether certain books that are in the Greek Septuagint version that was used in the early Church, like Tobit, should go in the canonical list. Do you agree with Wikipedia's explanation on why the Anglican Church rejected this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit

Or would you give a different reason on why the Anglican list differs from the Orthodox one?

2. When Article 6 says that nothing that can't be proven from the canonical books should not be a required Article of Faith, does it mean that "faith teachings" like, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, giving the Eucharist to the sick outside of a liturgy (ie. which would require reservation), that cannot be clearly and definitively settled once and for all are not to be demanded of Christians' acceptance?

Or does it just mean the same thing that Catholics do when they talk about the "material sufficiency of scripture" for salvation?

 

Hi Rakovsky

I believe the position of the Anglican Church is that we accept the Oecumenical Councils - I don't think it would be fair to say that we accept them as being infallible. I think that position is made clear later in the articles, and perhaps reflected in current discussions with our Coptic Orthodox brothers and sisters in faith in the Cyprus accord.

I accept you argument that in material terms the difference between prima scriptura and sola scriptura may be at best modest. I think what it allows for is the inherited wisdom of the tradition of faith (such as the Oecumenical Councils) to be given a level of weight, but not over scripture.

I think the reason why Tobit is not on the Anglican list is because it is not on the Jewish list. I am not aware of it having any great weight, and if they were drawing up the list again today, perhaps the result would be different in light of archaeological finds since the 39 Articles were drawn up. I can not guess further than that on that subject.

I think the force of the article is that if the Church wants to promote an article of faith as requisite for salvation, then they need a good basis to act, and the basis must be found in scripture. I am not sufficiently conversant with the Catholic phrase 'material sufficiency' and I know they often have precise legal terminology on such matter, so I might duck on answering that one. mia culpa.

 

Hello, Philip!

Yes, "the Anglican Church ... accept(s)the Oecumenical Councils", but not "as being infallible."
Can you tell me if the Copts officially stated the same in their declaration - that the Ecumenical Councils are not Infallible?

This is my personal guess, but I think that Sola Scriptura does not violate the concept of Prima Scriptura, or that "the inherited wisdom of the tradition of faith (such as the Oecumenical Councils) to be given a level of weight, but not over scripture." I have looked through Lutheran declarations on Sola Scriptura but have not found a concise definition or one that totally rules out prima scriptura. And Lutherans in their foundational documents have made declarations that even seem to say that non-Biblical doctrines have "authority", although not "infallibly" so.

Also, the concept of infallibility is not defined, debated, or dogmatized as much in the EO Church as it tends to be the medieval to modern West. Some EOs teach inerrancy, while others don't. This is the idea that every verse in the Bible must be factually correct as its author intended. This was also Augustine's teaching - he made an explicit declaration to that effect.

Many Evangelicals and Reformed though teach Formal Sufficiency of Scripture, SOLO Scriptura, and/or full inerrancy of scripture.

You write: "I think the reason why Tobit is not on the Anglican list is because it is not on the Jewish list. I am not aware of it having any great weight".

I think one reason why what you call the "Jewish list", ie the post-Christian rabbinical Masoretic version, was accepted was because it was in Hebrew like the Bible was written in. Do you think so too?

How do you relate to the frwquency with which the New Testament cites Septuagint renderings from the canonical books instead of Masoretic renderings and refers to passages from Septuagint books that are not in the Anglican list of canonical books, treating those passages as if they are scriptural authority?

I think that the Catholic teaching on the material sufficiency of scripture might have come to the fore during the Reformation or afterwards, to distinguish itself from the Reformed view that the Bible was "formally sufficient", that you can just read the Bible without referring to Traditions outside the Bible and that this "plain reading" is enough to get all the requirements for salvation. So you can pretty much just pick up a Bible someplace and everything you need to get saved will automatically be crystal clear for anyone of basic reading ability and sound adult mind.

I tentatively interpret Article 6 as in line with the Catholic teaching on this debate. But I am not writing this post to define for Anglicans what they believe on this question. So I want and must leave open this as a question instead to anyone who wants to answer it. Namely, do you see the first sentence of Article 6 as teaching nothing more than the same concept that the Catholics have when they teach "Material Sufficiency of Scripture'?

 

I don't know, however I am aware the the Copts, as I understand it, have some difficulty with some of the decisions of Chacedon!

Yes.

The NT writers were for the most part Greek speakers, and as such they would have been most familiar with the Septuagint.

I don't really know, however my understanding is that the Catholic position was based on need the Church to understand the Scriptures, clearly different to the reformed position that required the individual to understand for themselves. I think that the articles perspective on this is that the Church can help shine light, however the source of that light is found in scripture.

Not sure I would think perhaps a middle way position.

 

Philip, when Reformed and Catholics debateSufficiency, they don't conceive of a middle doctrine. Either you teach that the building blocks are there and so easy to understand that you don't need tradition, or you don't and just teach that the building blocks are there.

If you don't have an affirmative teaching that it's easy to read, why do you not by default go into the CatholiC position?

In case you don't agree with my guess and still teach a middle road, then what do you think about infant baptism as it relates to Article 6?

That is, if you are saying that faith teachings are always more obvious than just building blocks,then how do you see infant baptism as a teaching of the faith that is provable only from scripture once and for all?

 

I am not trying to give you a hard time, just explaining why I see this as teaching the Roman Catholic view: I don't see anything in Art 6 saying that all needed teachings are obvious and easy to read in the Bible alone with zero help from or reference to the church's understanding of theology.

 

Not from an Anglican website, but some interesting thoughts on prima scriptura, sola scriptura and sola ecclesia.
http://www.orthodoxevangelical.com/2014/02/26/prima-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-sola-ecclesia/

Another interesting take on sola and prima scriptura
http://spectrummagazine.org/node/667

 

Hi Rakovsky,

Anglican theology is gracious, and often seems to outsiders a bit floppy around the edges. We are less inclined to hardline dogmatic emphatics in the tradition of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

There were at the time of the articles being written a number of claims for religious dogma that many, Luther, Zwingli, and I dare say Cranmer by way of example, felt were difficult to sustain and they believed that there needed to be a better standard of testing these claims. The fathers of the continental reformation were keen to argue, for scripture alone. The Thirty Nine Articles, (in my humble opinion) sought to lean heavily in that direction, but not absolutely.

In many senses I feel the difference in the position is not great, however it does show a reluctance on the part of the Thirty Nine Articles to dispense with tradition outright, as seemed to be more the flavour of some (at least) of the continental reformers.

By way of example, many felt that the three fold order of the sacred ministry, could not rigorously be proven by scripture alone, (many of us would not agree with that wholeheartedly) and certainly the witness of Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement, all early Father, all outside the canon of the New Testament, has helped shape our understanding. There is no intent in the Thirty Nine Articles to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The claim for a non-conciliar Petrine Primacy is clearly an area where the Thirty Nine articles would imply that there is insufficient biblical warrant for the claim.

I would also have to say that there is a diversity among Anglicans as well as Orthodox on these matters, which keeps us a live and vibrant community of faith. Anglicans can change their opinion without changing their communion. However if you need to make doctrinal claims, you need to be able to back it up, and whilst the tradition may shine a light, it is in Scripture.

Mark 10:14
But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.​

Because the said boss so!

Well I guess you are doing it by accident then! I think contemporary Roman Catholic Theology has moved a long way from the Council of Trent. The Pope now stands in silence in Auschwitz praying hope and reconciliation for a broken world. No longer captive of a Spanish King, no longer calling for crusades and foreign invasions, and in his last encyclical lays great emphasis on the world as creation, on the Eucharist as offering, on the importance of Oecumenism, an quoting significantly from Bartholomew. Would the 39 Articles be different if Trent was more like Vatican II? Would Luther have left a Vaitican II Church?

Hypotesis : Antithesis : Synthesis
​

 

Maybe they should.

I don't know. I think some of it is very easy to read. This morning I read at the liturgy Hosea 1:1-11, and I think I got the gist of it, and from what a number in the congregation said, I think they got the gist of it as well. Some of it is a bit harder. I have been looking a Tobit, since you raised it, and I think I will need to consult some more learned than myself.

Mark 10:14
But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.​

Because the said boss so! I also acknowledge that there are people who don't agree, and I accept that. I recognise that the rise of individualism has certainly changed the way we think of a lot of these things. We no longer think of X and his whole household, because we have an understanding that the wife and children make their own decisions.

I don't think that is what I am saying. I think what Article 6 says, is if you want me to believe, show me from Scripture, and if you can't, then the Church has not authority to require it to be believed as a requirement for salvation.

Blessed be God
and blessed be his great name,
and blessed be all his holy angerls.
May his holy name be blessed
throughout all the ages.
Though he afflicted me,
he has had mercy upon me.

Tobit 11:14-15​

 

Not sure how much more I need to get into this, but here are my main take aways:
1. The question and crucial difference I see with the EOs on Article 6 is that some books the EOs have held as "canonical" since at least the fourth c., simply because they were in the LXX and that was always current among Greek-speaking Christians like Paul and the gospel writers. So what would be so important an issue that some of these books should no longer be canonical even though the early Christians thought they were?

2. I don't see the Article 6 as conflicting any way with material sufficiency of scripture - ie. the building blocks sufficient for faith are there and Art 6 never claims like some Reformed do that the Bible is so perfectly clear on this issue that there is zero need for an educated person to check what mainstream Christians actually think about this outside the Bible itself. In fact, I see Art 6 as teaching this same idea - that the building blocks are there.

3. What I think Anglicans are going to say, in accordance with Article 6 about proving Faith Articles from scripture, is that things like infant baptism, sacerdotalism, the doctrine of the Trinity in its fullness, etc. "may be proved" from the Bible. So citing "Let the Children come to me" is how you have just tried to "prove" one of them.

Personally, with so many educated people able to disagree on those topics (eg. Baptists rejecting infant baptism), it looks to me like you are speaking too strongly about what can and can't be "proven". That is, to say that we can't prove the RC beliefs so they are not Faith Articles, but we can prove Infant Baptism because it says "Let the Children Come to me" and other verses that are rather indirect..... I don't know.... The Catholics also claim their things like Papal Supremacy can be proved from the Bible because Peter was called the Rock. These all seem like very loose ideas of "proving" doctrines.

This is why I think it's just best to go with the Anglican teaching of Reason, Scripture, Tradition instead of putting too hard a case on what you just did. But it's fine. I Understand your logic that Anglican teachings "may" be "proven" from the Bible but RC ones can't.

 

'Proof' may be an interesting construct to explore, as I suspect the meaning of the term in the 16th century was conceived a little differently to how we conceive it today. I have a better understanding of the deuterocanonical texts as a result of the discussion.

Yeah, I think I might accept this. I was trying to underline the case this article makes.

 

Might a difference between Anglicans and RC (today, not in the 17th century) be that for Anglicans, everything necessary for salvatuon can be be proven from the Scriptures, other Anglican teachings, doctrines or whatever you want to call them (such as infant baptism) whilst practised, are not requirements for salvation? Baptism can be proved from the Scriptures, but Infant baptism whilst hinted at, cannot as the Scriptures can be interpreted in different ways - for that Anglicans accept tradition. As far as I understand it, RC teaches that you have to believe in doctrines such as immaculate conception and papal infallibility as a requirement for salvation. (Although I find that difficult to understand as some RC seem to advocate universal salvation). Not all right belief (orthodoxy) can be proved from the Scriptures, whereas perhaps everything necessary for salvation can.

 

Christina,
It is talking about "Articles of Faith". Doesn't that mean the teachings of a religion? Isn't the question of what books go into the Bible an "article of faith"?

My impression is that Article 6 is talking about doctrines of their religion and saying that something like The Trinity or Infant Baptism can be demonstrated from scripture in the way that Philip just "proved" it - Jesus said to let children come to Jesus, so that "proves" infant baptism. I understand that you are arguing against Philip that this does not prove it. But the truth is, I think that Article 6 means by "proof" the kind of thing that Philip just did, even though you think he failed in "proving" it.

I do understand the way you are reading it and why, but I think that it intended what Philip talked about.

So here I think you mean "requirement" in a very very strict sense - you believe in Jesus, you have faith, you get baptized, you follow what God says, these are requirements. But the truth is, you have provided a very narrow definition that by implication doesn't entail a wide range of doctrines.

And secondly, if you think that infant baptism doesn't count as "proven" because there are different interpretations by some Protestant groups, then what about all the other things like the "Trinity"? The Bible never says something so succinct as "God is Three persons - Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit - united in one Godhead". The Jehovah's Witnesses have different "interpretations", as do Christian unitarians. How about Jesus' resurrection and incarnation? Marcus Borg said that they are "spiritually true".

This is why I think Philip is right - he means "proven" in the way that he "proved" Infant Baptism.

It's the same approach with the RCs and their "material sufficiency". They claim that the Pope is infallible because Jesus called Peter the Rock, which I know to you and me is not a proof. But my point is that "prove" doesn't seem to mean it in the sense of one and for all.
Roman Catholics don't teach that believing in the Pope's infallibility is an absolute requirement for salvation - after all, they give Orthodox communion and we don't believe Roman Catholic teachings on that.
But they DO believe accepting it is a requirement to JOIN the RC Church to be a full member of their Communion.
Likewise, wouldn't Anglicans in practice require Anglican bishops to accept infant baptism as a teaching of Christianity?
If you don't have infant baptism and you are an infant, you don't become a member of the Anglican or RC churches, and don't you think baptism counts in a sense as a "requirement" for salvation in a loose sense of the term?

So this is why I take Art 6 the way I said.

 

I think that there are many things that are witnessed to by Scripture that are not of the nature of something that must be believed in order to be saved.

Numbers 22.22-30
God’s anger was kindled because Balaam was going, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the road as his adversary. Now he was riding on the donkey, and his two servants were with him. The donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand; so the donkey turned off the road, and went into the field; and Balaam struck the donkey, to turn it back on to the road. Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side. When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it scraped against the wall, and scraped Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck it again. Then the angel of the Lord went ahead, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it lay down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff. Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and it said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’ Balaam said to the donkey, ‘Because you have made a fool of me! I wish I had a sword in my hand! I would kill you right now!’ But the donkey said to Balaam, ‘Am I not your donkey, which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you in this way?’ And he said, ‘No.’​

I do love the story of Balaam's Ass, and I feel that there are things for us to learn here, such as the wisdom of being a bit better attuned to what the world of nature is telling us. However, I do not feel that my salvation is dependent on an historical reading of this text, or a requirement that I believe in talking horses.

1 Corinthians 15:3-7
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me.​

I do feel that the passage from Paul in 1 Corinthians does declare some of what he understood to be the faith necessary for Salvation.

In terms of using Scripture, the wisdom of the ancient Jewish practice was to require two witnesses. Those texts had to be from the Law and the Prophets. The tendency amongst some Christians (or perhaps more awkward Christians) is to use a single verse as sufficient witness, or indeed perhaps you use several verses from Daniel and Revelation as sufficient witness. As these are both apocalyptic writings there is probably wisdom in searching for a further Biblical Witness to what they are claiming.

There is more on how to use scripture later in the articles, so we will cover it there.

In 381 the Church gathered in Constantinople to discuss various teachings that seemed errant to them and the Creed of that Council in many ways outlines what is necessary for Salvation. I believe it is under-taught and undervalued by many in the contemporary Church.

2 Corinthians 5.20
So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.​

I see the ambassadorial role as being that of advocating for, and encouraging and welcome. I am disappointed by those who see a role as being that of God's bouncers, keeping everybody out.

I think we have a responsibility to keep the core (that which is necessary for salvation) lean. I don't think God is manic about tithing the herbs in the window box, where as I think he is very concerned about how we treat each other.

 

​

Article VII specifically deals with our approach to the Old Testament. It is not like last years phone, which we simply replace with this year’s model. The first statement is clear, that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New Testament. At times that can be challenging, but we all challenged to see the everlasting consistency of God in dealing with humankind.

The prime factor in that consistency is that in both the Old and the New Testament God offers humankind eternal life. Regardless of whether that is understood in terms of the New Testament or the Old, the agent of that offer of eternal life is Christ.

Those who argue that the old fathers of the old covenant only looked for transitory promises are held to be incorrect, or in the words of the article ‘not to be heard’, a phrase with parliamentary overtones.

The next is quite simply a distinction in terms of the law given from God by Moses, between those parts of the Law that are about ceremonies and rites, and those directives that might be called moral.


Leviticus 1:14-15

If your offering to the Lord is a burnt-offering of birds, you shall choose your offering from turtle-doves or pigeons. The priest shall bring it to the altar and wring off its head, and turn it into smoke on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out against the side of the altar.​

This commandment in Leviticus might be ascertained as regarding ceremonial and ritual, and therefore not binding on a Christian.

Exodus 20:13

You shall not murder.​

This commandment in Exodus might be ascertained as being a moral commandment, and as such it is a commandment that a Christian would need to embrace.

Whilst no doubt theologians and lawyers may argy-bargy about whether something is moral or ritual, at the end of the day for the most part we get it. At the end of the day, most mature Christians realise that the Old Testament has a lot to tell us about God. The Hebrew Canon, though not at the time of Christ defined, was essentially what Jesus understood to be Scripture.

It should also be remembered that this was the scripture that the writers of the New Testament had grown up with, and this helped shape their worldview and understanding, so the better we understand the Old Testament, the better able to are to understand the New Testament.

I am conscious as I write of the passage John 3:11-16, and the Old Testament image here of Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness from Numbers 21:9. This also recalls for us a passage in The Wisdom of Solomon 16:7 which remarks ‘For the one who turned towards it was saved, not by the thing that was beheld, but by you, the Saviour of all.’

The reading of the Old Testament enriches our understanding of the New Testament. Our lectionaries should help us do that as well, but sometimes that may be a bit of a mute point. I sometimes quite fail to understand in contemporary lectionaries why things have been put together. Thankfully I know little and still have much to learn. The BCP lectionary is very good at matching readings.

 

Aren't there some places in the Old Testament that have a contradiction with places in the New Testament, like Jesus saying "You have heard an eye for an eye, but I tell you".... Or the time Jesus explained that it was OK for his disciples to gather grain on Saturday because David took bread from the temple in what Jesus said was a "violation" of the Torah? I understand that these can be harmonized - Jesus taught that He was higher than David, in explaining this. Nonetheless, aren't there contrary points?

When it says that Christ is the only mediator, I am inclined to think that they might be making a polemical inference about priests' role in Catholic services. At least when I was little, I heard a hostile polemic about RCs that they think their priests are mediators but that Protestants think they can directly pray to God. Anyway, isn't the Holy Spirit also a mediator, since it bestowed itself directly on to believers, while being God?

Must we affirm as an Article of Faith that peoples whose beliefs we reject (in this case the claim that the old Fathers only looked to transitory promises like national independence for the Israelite kingdom) must not be heard?

Finally, if God drastically changed the relationship with man and Paul writes that the Old Covenant is outdated and passing away, would we still be bound in the same legalistic way to each requirement of the Torah that is designated moral? I understand that adultery is wrong, but under the Old Covenant it was also penalized with death, something with which Christ disagreed to the extent that he chose forgiveness of an adulteress. Is it better to say that there are moral laws and as Paul said that the Commandments of the Torah are for "instruction"?

 

Hi Rakovsky

Aren't there some places in the Old Testament that have a contradiction with places in the New Testament​

The assertion of Article 6 is that the New and Old Testament are not contrary. The challenge for us who understand this is to see the principle will see that the New Testament take the understandings of the Old Testament and move them forward to the new.

So the Old Testament rule ‘an eye for an eye’ which was taken as being the responsible limitation of retribution, where punishment should exceed the offence, is taken to the next level, where Jesus calls us to love our enemies.

Likewise in the story of David taking the bread from the temple, was in keeping with the developed strand of Jesus teaching that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This in a sense is a deeper understanding of the Old Testament teaching, an extension rather that a usurping of the Old Covenant.

When it says that Christ is the only mediator,​

This I believe probably reference 1 Timothy 2:1-6, and probably Hebrews 4:14-16. Each individual christians approach to the throne of grace is secured and sure in the redeeming sacrifice of Christ made once for all. The role of the priest as mediator in this, is as a vehicle of grace, as a channel of that grace which is found in our Great High Priest who is Christ the Lord. I don’t see the polemical implication here, but I do see an affirmation of the universality of the actions of Christ, both retrospective and forward bound.

Romans 8:26-27 tells us that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us, and helps us in our weakness. I think to suggest that the Holy Spirit is mediator as well, may be moving close to a confounding of persons and a dividing of substance. We do affirm that all the persons of the Holy Trinity act as one, however we do understand the difference in the person and rolls of each person of the Trinity.

Must we affirm as an Article of Faith that peoples whose beliefs we reject must not be heard?​

I think that what the article is saying is that people who say that the Old Testament is no longer relevant should not be heard. If you watch parliament in a Westminster System one of the ways of closing a debate is to move that the honourable the member for … be no longer heard. This allows the parliament to move on the the next item of business without answering questions where there is no right answer.

Finally, if God drastically changed the relationship with man and Paul writes that the Old Covenant is outdated and passing away, would we still be bound in the same legalistic way to each requirement of the Torah that is designated moral?​

The writer to the Hebrews 8:13 makes the observation that the old covenant is obsolete. As such I believe the correct understanding of this is that the moral imperative in terms of understanding in the old covenant stands, and where we fail, the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus fulfil the requirements of the Old Covenant, not so that we think adultery is OK, but rather that it does not require us to stone people who have committed it.

The narrative of the woman caught in the very act of adultery, John 8:1-11, and the purpose of the narrative is about hypocrisy, not adultery, for somehow they had managed to catch the woman and not the man, and Jesus response is to call them out for their own pompous indignation. Jesus words, entirely consistent with his role as the only mediator was simply ‘neither do I condemn you’ and he of cause had no need to run away.

At least that's my take on these issues.