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

Jesus came with renewal, not abrogation

 

Aidan,
Jesus' famous words were: "I have not come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill it."

However, we can ask what is the status of the Torah after that fulfillment. That is, is the Contract or Covenant of Torah still in full force in every sense once it has been completed (As Jesus said: "It is accomplished") and its terms fulfilled, or is there a sense in which it recedes or goes away?

To "abrogate" means to "repeal" or "do away with". Is there any sense in which the Torah has been done away as a result of its completion when Paul says: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

It seems to me that if we say that the Torah is not abrogated or done away with in any sense then in every sense it remains in full force, such that Jews remain under the covenant of Moses and his Torah in, of course, every sense. This does not seem to be the case when Peter has his vision that it's fine to eat non-Halakhic animals.

Nota Bene, I don't see the Articles as teaching that the Covenant of Old remains in force, rather that its "moral commandments" part are in force.

 

So to summarize the main questions about Article 7 would be:
Whether there is anything in the Old Covenant that is in any conflict with the New Testament,
Whether we must affirm that the heresy that the Israelite fathers only looked for transitory/earthly promises must not even be heard, and
Whether in any sense men are free from the Torah's moral commandments (ie. teachings on any moral issue?)

 

I think that is a fair summation.

I think that fulfil is an important part of the construct.

I think it is important that there is a real sense that we can never properly understand the new covenant if we do not understand the Old. Perhaps more properly the Old shines much light by which we may better understand the new.

 

Wherefore there are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.​

I think you may be misreading the text. I take it to mean

We don't listen to those who say that the Fathers of the Old Testament only looked for transitory promises. ​

I am sure some notable scholar will set us straight if we are reading this incorrectly.

Clearly it would be absurd and absolute heresy to suggest that Moses, Elijah, Abraham, Elisha, simply saw these matters and promises as being limited to time and space.

 

I don't know how much you want to get into it, but there is an outlook called Covenantalism that sees the OT and NT as having an Old and New Covenant or agreement with people, by which the agreements are separate.
In one understanding, the rites of the OT requirements are no longer in force as the Article 7 says regarding Christians, even Jewish ones. Thus, that agreement - People follow circumcision etc. is no longer in force, the reason being that Christ fulfilled it.
Next, a New Covenant or new agreement comes into force, by which people live under grace, rather than Law as Paul explained.
Thus, in this view there are two covenants.
Within this framework, it looks to me like the Old "Agreement", with its terms and conditions, the old Contract is no longer in force and a new one comes into force. Thus, believers are living under the New Contract, rather than the Old one.
Within this framework of the Old Contract "passing away" as Paul says, I don't know if we can say that the old requirements, even the moral ones are still "binding". Paul took the view that under the Law, we all sin and thus we are all penalized with death, and thus therefore we live under grace rather than Law. It's not as if the Law has zero meaning, since it's important for instruction, and we should still follow the moral commands, but within this framework are they still "binding" in that same old sense of Law and old commandments when Paul talked about living under grace not Law?

I understand that there are different ways of looking at this and that another view is that the Old Covenant has been subsumed into the New.

 

The thing about looking to Transitory promises I take to refer to ideas, not uncommon among scholars today, that the Promises were about earthly political issues. So in return for obedience, God promised Moses to rule the land. And this promise of ruling the land went to the Kingdom of Israel and its tribes.
And then in Isaiah 52-53 when it talks about redemption, these scholars teach that the redemption in the Old Testament, the redemption of Israel was a NATIONAL redemption, whereby God delivered Israel from its enemies and let them return to their state. Thus, even the Messiah was to be a political leader.

Now on one hand it's clear to me that the Old Testament teaches an afterlife and that the Messiah would resurrect. But the concept that God was promising resurrection to the Israelites is less clear. In the Torah, when some good people die, it says that they return to their ancestors. This is not said in the form of a future promise, but as a factual description of what happens at the time of death. Ezekiel makes a factual prediction that Israel will resurrect in Chp. 37, which I think is about real resurrection, but many scholars imagine that it is only about political resurrection. When it comes to Isaiah 53, at least 5 Protestant Study Bibles I have found (one by Oxford Press I think) teaches that Isaiah 53 is about the Servant as Israel the nation, rather than as the Messiah.

So personally I would agree that the Old Testament "promises" things that are eternal blessings that go beyond what is earthly and go into the afterlife, but it is not really so clear and detailed for me.

According to Article 7, if I were to take an opposite view than I do and say that the Old Testament Israelites were only looking to earthly promises, then wouldn't such views be not even heard and considered? Basically, such posts would have to be deleted because otherwise it would mean giving a hearing to something that must not be heard, as you gave an example of when talking about shutting down delegates' voices in parliament?

 

FYI, the idea that the Od Testament is no longer true, or valid, is the Marcionist Heresy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

 

Actually, the idea that the OT is no longer true or no longer valid absolutely cannot be the Marcionist heresy. That is because Marcionism teaches that the OT was never true or valid in the first place. For Marcion, it came from a different God.

Let's consider what Tertullian says in this on his work Against Marcion. But before we do, let me clarify - in traditional Christianity - and here I am including classical Anglicanism's practical beliefs on the question - there is a sense in which the Old Testament is vanishing away and outdated, and there is a sense in which it is in continuance. To show you that this can be found in Anglicanism, consider the explanations of the Anglican Vicar Stephen Sizer in the following video:


Now let's turn to Against Marcion. There, Tertullian explains that we know for sure that the same God in the Old Testament is the same God as in the New Testament because in the Old Testament it was predicted that the Old Covenant would pass away. Tertullian explains that the disposal of the Old Law proves that this disposal was done by the disposition of the Creator, who had made that Old Law.

Tertullian writes about it in the beginning of his second chapter, for example:

• The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive against Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the abolition of the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it actually proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator,— a point which we have already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that the innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God. Now, if the Creator indeed promised that the ancient things should pass away, to be superseded by a new course of things which should arise, while Christ marks the period of the separation when He says, The law and the prophets were until John Luke 16:16 — thus making the Baptist the limit between the two dispensations of the old things then terminating— and the new things then beginning, the apostle cannot of course do otherwise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was revealed after John, than invalidate the old things and confirm the new, and yet promote thereby the faith of no other god than the Creator, at whose instance it was foretold that the ancient things should pass away.
• Therefore the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show us that the supersession of the law comes from the appointment of the Creator— a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind. Since also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the reason for the abolition of the law— especially as the prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him who has called you to His grace to another gospel Galatians 1:6-7 — He means) another as to the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its worship; another as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity; because it is the office of Christ's gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the Creator to another god.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm

I wish to note that Tertullian did not say "supersede" in Latin above. As I remember it, he said that the "disposal" of the law was by the "disposition" of the Creator, making a play on words. In case anyone can read Latin, I welcome you to see if that is correct. The Latin is in Chapter 2 of Book V here:
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/evans_marc_11book5.htm

One of the things that is attractive to me about Anglicanism is that it tends to give authority to Church Tradition in its quadrilateral. When talking to a Reformed, they might just not care hardly at all about someone like Tertullian, but within Anglicanism, it is considered a source of authority.

 

I think both Marcion and Tertullian as early Fathers pushed boundaries in the early Church, and as the Church matured some of where they pushed was understood not to be the place to go. This of course is the plight of theologians who are determined the tease out and understand and break new ground. It reminds me that the Church has not always been nice to its Theologians - it is a tough gig.

Marcion 85 ad - 160 ad was working in a world where tensions between Judaism and Christianity were high. The Christians had not long been expelled from the Synagogues, and the Church was needing to form and find its identity outside of Judaism. In this context it is easy to see why Marcion was ready to replace the Old Testament. In the end cooler heads prevailed.

Tertullian, 155 ad - 240 ad was working in a world with a little more distance and calmer relations. Tertullian as such saw the history and heritage of the Old Covenant as being the background of the new. He was opposed to the teachings of Marcion, as it failed to make sense of history, and left the Christian Faith open the shifting and groundless.

I really like the end of the quote above it is the office of Christ's gospel to call folk from law to grace, not from the creator to another God. To me that seems to be on the same track as article 7.

 

Sure, I am with you on parts of the Old Testament being no longer applicable; still true but just no longer applied to Christians today. However they are fully just, and moral.

You had said that parts of the Old Testament are outright immoral and contradicted by the New Testament, as if written by a different moral standard. (as Marcion would argue).

 

​

All power to anyone who thinks that this is the least controversial of the articles. Mind you I have been surprised by what has created debate in these discussions, and I know I have learned a lot so far.

I will try and deal with the creeds fairly, and in order.

The Nicene Creed is generally to be understood as the Creed initially from the 1st Council of Nicea in 325, and significantly developed by the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381, those changes being strongly influenced by the work of the Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa. This Creed is the Creed of the Oecumenical Councils. It was ratified at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

There is no other creed with such impeccable credentials to be the Creed of the Whole Christian Church, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic. It is also referred to as the Nicene Symbol, being a symbol of the unity of our faith.

It is held that every part of this creed finds its anchor in Holy Scripture.

Perhaps one of the controversial parts of this article relates not so much to the article, as to the words used to express the Nicene Creed in the Prayer Books of 1559, 1552, 1661-2 and others. The tradition has been to print the creed with the Filioque Clause inserted. This practice appears to have simply been adopted from the earlier liturgy translated. The Filioque does not appear to have been considered until people such as JM Neale, and EB Pusey discussed it in the post tractarian period. They believed it was added at Toledo III (579) however we now know it was later than that.

The Filioque Clause was not part of the original creed, and its first use may have been as a result of textural aberration in Iberia / Gaul in the 7th or 8th century. The council of Frankfurt in 794 under Charlemagne did insert it. It was not used in Rome till 1014. Its use in the English Church is certain after the Norman Conquest (1066) but uncertain prior to this.

My personal view, and therefore of little account, is that the article is accurate, good and true on this, and that it would make a better expression of loyalty to the 39 articles and the reality of history if in printing our liturgies we refrained from inserting the Filioque Clause. Whilst that differs from BCP 1661-2, as it is printed, it would make for a more consistent reading of the Articles.

This is also a position that has been aired at least three times by the Bishops of the Lambeth Conference, and such recommendations are often made in documents relating to oecumenical discussion with the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. These are published on the Anglican Communion website if you want to research this further.

ACNA have discussed it and at one stage were to proceed with the Nicene Creed, yet baulked at the gate and have continued to insert it in their liturgies.

The Apostles Creed comes, historically, not long after the Nicene Creed. The first record we have of it is in a letter from Ambrose of Milan in 390 following a synod in Milan to Siricius, the then Pope. In essence the Apostles Creed seems to be a compromise text, based to some extent on the earlier Roman Symbol, a even shorter Creed, without the complexity of the Nicene Creed.

Ambrose become Bishop in Milan following the death of Auxentius in 374. Auxentius was an Arian theologian, and Ambrose was a popular Governor in Northern Italy. When he attended the election assembly a chant broke out calling for him to be appointed, even though Ambrose was not an Arian. Ambrose held the Nicene position of the Catholic faith, yet made some space for, and had good relationships with, the many Arians in his Diocese. Some would understand that the Apostle’s Creed, which makes no specific claim as to the divinity of Jesus, or to the divinity of the Holy Spirit (2 big issues from Constantinople I) is a creedal position that Arian Christians could manage to adopt.

The Apostles Creed has become the Baptismal Symbol or Creed in the West, being used in almost every western church that uses a creed. The Apostles Creed has never been accepted in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, nor has it ever been part of an Oecumenical Council.

It is quite clear that there is nothing wrong with the Apostle Creed. If you accept the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed asks nothing of you that you do not already profess. I a recent Roman Catholic Missal in Australia I was shown the Apostles Creed.

Historically, in Anglican Liturgy, the Apostles Creed was said or sung as part of Morning and Evening Prayer on Sundays and Holy Days. The custom in many places would be that everyone would face liturgical east for the Apostles Creed.

The Athanasian Creed quite possibly has it’s origins as a liturgical piece, in order to teach the people, rather than as a Creed of Symbol. The origins of the piece are almost certainly after the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The two areas where it is more expansive than the other creeds is in the areas of the Strength of the Trinitarian Exposition and an expansive and equally strongly enunciation of a Chalcedonian Christology.

It is generally thought that the early uses of the Athanasian Creed were liturgical, and designed to drive home important aspects of the faith. 1661-2 BCP prescribed 19 occasions in the year when it was to be said, Trinity Sunday being the most obvious. The use of the Athanasian Creed has reduced since the nineteenth century, probably for a number of reasons including a growing awareness that it was not written by St Athanasius, that it was too long and people seem to have lost the ability to grasp the complexity of the long and reasonably repetitive statements, and a general dislike in the suggestion that a failure to believe all this meant that you would perish everlasting, and a feeling that there was perhaps an undue emphasis of the faith being Catholic.

Current use seems to be to take up a page or two in the back of Anglican Prayer Books. This Creed is accepted in some form in a number of Western Churches, perhaps not newer churches in the protestant tradition. The Athanasian Creed has never, to my knowledge, been used or assented to by any of the Eastern Churches.

There were copies of the Thirty Nine Articles on the web that had managed to drop the reference to the Athanasian Creed in Article VIII. I think this follows The Articles of Religion as they appear in the 1789, 1892 and 1928 Books of Common Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America seemed to contain that amendment.

- - - o - o - o - - -​

Article VIII tells us that these three Creed accord with Scripture and are to be received and believed. I think that the Nicene Creed is the best theological expression of the the faith of the Church yet devised. I am happy to accept the Apostle’s Creed as a statement of faith, though for me I feel it lacks the fullness of the expression of faith that we find in the Nicene Creed. And I love the warm theological blanket of the language of the Athanasian Creed, and I love something of the theological precision it endeavours to convey, and I recognise that it is liturgically less useful than it once was.

When I was in Papua New Guinea, where we did not have enough prayer books, the Athanasian Creed was recited with the line read out by the lector, and then repeated by a congregation, for whom English was a second language. After one such rendition the lector concluded that this practice was unworkable and that the whole thing was incomprehensible, indeed maybe even three incomprehensibles!

In the end, I am not sure what we should do with the Athanasian Creed, beyond obviously receiving and believing it in accordance with article VIII. It’s language is now incomprehensible to many of the average people in the street, and I think pursuing it liturgically probably just makes us look a bit knaf. Possibly its future may be to render it as a choral piece for performance, I am really not sure.

If there is one creed we should always take to any Oecumenical Table it is the Nicene Creed. I think it is sad that we don’t get more teaching on the Nicene Creed as part of our armour as Christians and Anglicans, so when we start discussing the things, we will know what we believe. I do not like, the practice of some, of skipping the Nicene Creed on a Sunday if the sermon has run a little over time.

 

I esp. agree about the filioque but I actually think the Athanasian Creed does a great job in summing up the Trinitarian belief.

 

In an expansive kind of way!

 

Absolutely!lol

 

Anglican 74,

Marcion would never speak of the "old testament" because he would never say it was ever in effect.

Asserting that "there are some places in the Old Testament that have a contradiction with places in the New Testament" agrees with the fact that the Torah requires food rules for Jews, the New Testament says it's not needed.

Jesus says "You have heard it said an eye for an eye, BUT I tell you..."
If there was no contradiction, Jesus would not use the word BUT.
I am aware that the contradiction is resolvable (Law v Forgiveness), but nonteheless it's still a contradiction- Demand Punishment and Demand Forgiveness contradict each other, but it's not unresolvable.

In any case, it's a correct statement "there are some places in the Old Testament that have a contradiction with places in the New Testament".

What did you think

 

What did you think about Sizer's talk in the clip?

 

Rakovsky,

There is a difference here between what the Scribes and Pharisees taught about the Old Testament, AND the actual teachings in the OT themselves. You say that the Pharisees who attacked Christ were right about their understanding of the OT, and he rewrote or changed God's truth. But I would say that they were wrong and Christ understood the OT much better than they did. There was no difference between the OT and the NT, and the Pharisees merely understood it incorrectly.

There are many problems with this statement. For one, it means that God had an idea and then changed his mind, which means he is not constant or eternally finalized/perfect. Or he was wrong, and had to correct himself, which means he isn't infallible or omniscient.

In your paradigm God doesn't know, or have, a single set of rules that constitutes "his teaching." You want to pick the NT and disregard the OT's teachings. That is not what Christ taught, when he taught that "not a jot and tittle of the Law shall pass away" and observed the Ten Commandments and taught them to us.

It's basically like saying that there is a contradiction between what God says in place A, and what God says in place B. It's impious. And because you only consider the NT, it is effectively Marcionist, because you don't actively treat the OT as scripture.

I agree with him.

 

Anglican74,

The full quote is "For verily I say unto you, Till. heaven and earth pass, one jot or one. tittle shall in no wise pass from. the law, till all be fulfilled."

So we can consider if the Atonement had anything to do with this, as when in John 19:30 He said "It is accomplished", and afterwards Paul teaches about putting away the law, and in Heb 8:13 about the law being obsolete and vanishing.

"saying that there is a contradiction between what God says in place A, and what God says in place B. It's impious."
In Jonah's story, God said he would desroy Nineveh, and then later he said he wouldn't, seeing their penitence. There is a contradiction or disagreement between destroying Nineveh and not destroying Nineveh. I understand that the contradiction is solved by saying the conditions changed (penitence), but nonetheless as a matter of simple logic the two statements are in disagreement by themselves.

Or in other words "God had an idea (destroy Nineveh) and then changed his mind (bc Nineveh repented), which means ...." God can change his mind or make a statement in different conditions that contradict previous ones.
Although your interpretation was "he is not constant or eternally finalized/perfect."

So if God requires circumcision to be in covenant with Jews and then doesn't require that of Jews, it's an opposite rule in different circumstances.

"because you only consider the NT, it is effectively Marcionist, because you don't actively treat the OT as scripture."
This is strange to hear. I and Tertullian are in agreement. The Old Law is put away. It does not mean that the OT has no value of any kind or was never in force for anyone. That does not stop it from being a holy writing "scripture". But as Paul and Tertullian teach, it is not in force as Law, and we are to live by grace rather than Law. Since this is from Tertullian's disagreement with Marcion, it's weird to be talking about "effective" Marcionism, since Marcionism "effectively" means that the Old Testament was never scripture and never from God, while Tertullian's/Paul's position is that it is from the same God but it is abolished/vanished away. Should we "fully admit" the "abolition of the ancient Law" as Tertullian says?

 

​

In order to have a meaningful understanding of this article, one has to unpack a number of things.

Pelagianism is alive and well. It is a belief that original sin does not taint human nature or our moral will. It is therefore within our capacity to avoid sin and choose the right without divine assistance. Essentially the implication of Pelagianism is that we are all responsible for our own fate, and we are capable of that through moral choice. The assumption is that each of us is capable of perfection, which seems to fly in the face of experience.

Original Sin takes the view that Adam, as the archetypal progenitor of us all, in falling from grace in the first sinful act brought to all of humankind a capacity and an inclination, that even if we managed a perfect life, we would still have failed through no fault of our own save that we belong the Adam’s type.

Even for those of us who believe who are regenerate, there always remains some part of us that is yet to be turned to Christ. There is no doubt that the article has sin in general and lust and sensuality in particular in its sights. The terms, lust of the flesh, phronema sarkos (the will of the flesh), wisdom sensuality affection desire of the flesh are not subject to the law of God.

And of course a word somewhat fallen from general usage concupiscence (strong sexual desire and lust) has of itself the very nature of sin.

It may seem that the Tudor vigour of life has turned to an Elizabethan restraint and modesty.

The crucial issue quite simply seems to be that whatever I think of Adam’s sin, I have enough of my own to condemn me. If I think I am without any sin, I may just have tripped over my own bootlace. And our sexual nature is probably one of the hardest parts of our nature to truly bend to the will of God, striking deeply as it does in our very being.