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

I love this quote by C S Lewis - thanks for sharing it.

 

Pharisees and Saduccees

 

Hi Aidan, I may be a little dense, or perhaps you just hadn't finished the post. I get that the Pharisees were letter-bound legalists and the Saducees were radical conservatives, but I am not sure how that plays out here.

 

Lol brother Philip. Perhaps I was being too succinct. The discussion was about self righteous people whom I feel are akin to Pharisees and Saduccees

 

​

There is nothing artificial about the Anglican understanding of the Incarnation. It has been and remains one of the very strong arms of our theological contribution. Jesus was as us in every respect, save for the presence of sin in his life.

You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
1 John 3:5​

By Anselm’s argument in Cur Deus Homo, had Jesus to atone for any of his own sin, then he could not atone for our sin, however as sinless, and Christ and Christ alone was sinless and human, it was possible that he could atone for the sins of the whole world, once and for all, because he had no sin of his own to atone for.

Our capacity for sin, and especially sin after Baptism is then raised, and this of course directs our thoughts to the Donatist controversy of the fourth century. During the Diocletian persecutions, there were many whose faith had lapsed in order to protect their lives. Following this period, the church was generally welcoming as many of these people returned to the community of faith. The Donatists, wanted a purer Church and argued that they were no longer worthy. The articles here clearly acknowledge the reality of sin after baptism, and make the point that if we think we don’t sin then we are amusing ourselves, because it is just not true. (In the words of a cult Australian film “tell him he’s dreaming”)

Of course, as we discussed earlier the Pelagians also felt it was possible to keep from sin, and so become worthy to enter eternal life.

The articles come to birth in turbulent times, from a religious perspective, and Cranmer was burnt at the stake only six years before the articles, which most believe he would have generally approved of, though Matthew Parker was the Archbishop when the articles were formulated. Cranmer's successor, Cardinal Pole had died, 12 hours after Queen Mary, from influenza.

I think everyone at the time was very much aware of the reality of sin, and there had been more than ample opportunity for it to be manifest, and this perhaps contributes to the article being so clear on the matter.

 

Amen and well-said!

 

​

Sometimes you hear people say ‘Christians think they are perfect but …’ Well the truth is Anglicans do not think they are perfect. The confession in the BCP Liturgy is quite clear.

ALMIGHTY God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men: We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we from time to time most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of thy Name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.​

Sin after Baptism is a real possibility, and indeed on the strength of the article, a distinct probability. It is clear that some sin after Baptism is unpardonable, and that some of it may be pardoned. The differentiation is Sin against the Holy Spirit. This is clearly a reference to Mark 3:29

Mark 3:29
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin’​

The force is that which is unforgivable is to not follow the leading to the Holy Spirit to the Father through Jesus the Son.

The article makes it clear that we may fall from grace, and yet be lifted up again, we may return the Lord our God. People who believe that they no longer sin are in error. Indeed that may be the very error.

Forgiveness and Repentance are the hallmarks of the Christian Life. It is quite clear that the article picks up on this point made in Article 15 and leaves no room for doubt. The Anglican Church will have no part of the Donatist heresy either.

 

​

This issue of the tension between Predestination and Free Will was one of the tense discussion topics between the reformers. Calvin drove a strong line on Predestination and addressed a theology of double predestination whereby some people were predestined to heaven and some were predestined to hell. This embraced a view of God that not everyone was prepared to accept. Post Calvinists and Neo Calvinists have perhaps driven that line still farther, and perhaps not always helpfully.

Arminius and the Arminian position emphasised the free will and response to grace that was enabled by faith, and that salvation is limited to those who trust in Christ, though that free will is emboldened through grace.

Many of us 21st Century Anglicans don’t really get the difference that quite possibly drives to the core of the distinction between Presbyterians and Wesleyan Methodists which most of us have never really understood.

Article XVII takes a positive spin here and commences speaking of predestination to life - which is essentially what God wants, so, even before creation was begun, known to him and not to us, to deliver those he has chosen in Christ and by Christ lead them to salvation.

Those who are so called by the Holy Spirit are by grace obedient and justified freely and made by adoption children of God. They are made in the image of his only begotten Son and walk religiously in good works, and ultimately receive joy.

Of course godly persons are comfortable with this, however for the curious and carnal the idea of eternal damnation before their eyes it is dangerous as it can lead them to fail to aspire to good things, and embrace uncleanness and wretchedness.

Furthermore we must receive God’s promises as set forth in Holy Scripture.

So the article in a real sense acknowledges predestination, however not quite as far as John Calvin took it, because it is secret to us now, so we can not know we have been predestined. We are therefore called to live our lives as persons of free will, to do that which we believe God has called us to do, accepting the promises made to us in scripture.

The trick of course is that it can not be the good that we have done, the free will that we have chosen to exercise that brings about our salvation, for such would lead us to Pelagianism which is exactly what the Arminians were accused of espousing. This complication is probably one of the reasons why the article is as long and seemingly complex as it is.

I once held the view that I should act as if I had free will now, because it is attested to in scripture, I can embrace it and it is what I can work with now. If in heaven I discover I was predestined, that will be a bonus, but for now I can’t know that, so whilst we acknowledge the idea of predestination, we live as children of free will, knowing that ultimately life and eternal life are a gift, and not our own doing.

I don’t know that that is any clearer than the article, but I think that is what I am working with for now. I am conscious that this could en-flame a reformation debate all over again. I see this article as one of those places where Anglicanism has tried to steer the middle way.

In practical terms I normally don’t raise the subject of predestination as it seems to suggest that there is no point in trying. Conversations on the subject are normally lengthy, hard to follow and and generally result in all the participants being no clearer than when the discussion began. It was a topic that raised a lot of heat during the continental reformation, and no doubt in part contributed to the fragmentation of the reformation.

I think Article XVII’s last word is sage.

Furthermore we must receive God’s promises as set forth in Holy Scripture. It is quite wrong to take an argument about predestination and use it against the words we find in Scripture.

Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; John 6:37​

In a sense predestination is mostly about the nature of God, all powerful, and all knowing, and not about our life as a manipulated game where our free will is only an illusion. One has the feeling that those who write the articles are alerting us to the danger of taking this discussion too far.

 

I guess I hold on to my Orthodox roots when it comes to predestination. The basic teaching is that the word predestination can be better translated/understood to mean pre-ordained. Many Church Fathers (St. John Cassian,etc)held to the belief that we are predestined(preordained)to be conformed in the image of Christ if we live a life of repentance. This by our free will and mutual working together(synergy) with God, without whose power and grace we can do nothing. Predestination in the Christian West being very influenced by Augustine(who is a Saint I greatly respect). In ancient Orthodoxy he was often said to not have been fully taught about subject of predestination, but was never considered a heretic,just not fully taught. None the less there are a lot of modern Orthodox who will not refer to him as "Saint"but rather "Blessed". A title somewhat less than fully Saint. Then again there are Orthodox who say that is a holier than thou attitude, and Augustine is a true Church Father and Saint. I would again with the latter.

 

​

This article of course is good sound stuff. I can see many of you running for verses from Scripture in your head.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Acts 4:12
There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.

Philippians 2:10-11
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

Or perhaps with Elgar notes ringing in your head you are mentally singing at the Name of Jesus to the tune Land of Hope and Glory!

The very clear point here is that being Anglican (or CofE, or EO, or RC, etc) is not required for salvation. Salvation is known in the Name of Jesus Christ, and in that name alone. At the time the Articles were drafted the specific self understanding was that this was The Church in England. Not is the sense of being exclusive, not in the sense of being a club or a sect, but the national expression of the Catholic Church. The Church of England as such is the Church for everyone, not a membership society, group or club, but the Church for all the People of the realm. We spoke of the cure of souls, not that we looked after our own, but we cared for and prayed for everyone in the specified district.

Slicing through the divide of the continental reformation, and in that sense sidestepping the doctrinal debates that that involved, salvation is known in the name of Jesus alone.

I think in the contemporary world with extensive globalisation, and with a seemingly heightened sense of everybody else’s culture and religious traditions through travel, media, communications, and indeed the internet, we can seem a little less sure of this, which was once a very extensive comprehension is being taken in a much more exclusivist sense. The language of salvation can be quickly turned to the language of damnation.

I think that we should as far as possible avoid this temptation. The good news is; however lost we may be - God will seek us out; however fallen we may be - God will lift us up; no matter how dark the night - the darkness will not overcome the light; for God has a plan, and his plan born in love is that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess him King of Glory now.

 

​

In way it may seem a little disappointing that the Article on the Church seems a little scant on ecclesiology, however some of that has already been encompassed in the Nicene Creed which has already been affirmed in Article 8.

So we begin, the visible Church is the congregation of faithful people in which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according the Christ’s ordinance.

So we presume that we are speaking of the living and visible community of faith, so clearly not a secret organisation, and in this congregation we might expect to hear the scriptures faithfully expounded, and a later article will point us to the book of homilies which clearly are understood to do that. Article 9 directed our attention to the Homily of Justification. At the same time we require this community to be faithful in the ministration of the sacraments. In light of Article 25 we must take this to especially refer to the Holy Communion and Holy Baptism.

In a sense this is the nature of Anglicanism being expounded, be true on the one hand to the clear word of scripture, and faithful and loyal in the historic sacramental life of the Church. No either or is offered here. It is quite simply both.

The rest of the article then suggests that the historic Church has erred. The Patriarchies of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria are singled out, and one is left wondering why Constantinople is not mentioned here. Given that the Church of Rome also does get singled out for having erred in their living and manner of ceremonies but also in matter of faith, one is left with the feeling that the other three may not have erred in living and manner of ceremonies rather than matter of faith.

Whilst Constantinople had fallen to the Ottomans in 1453, the Patriarchy continued and in 1562 when the articles were published Joasaph II was the incumbent patriarch, and he had shown interest in the reformation and especially Lutheranism.

In today’s climate we are more likely to focus on what we do right, rather than to suggest that others are doing it wrong. Given that England was emerging from the reign of Mary and Cardinal Poole, and under that regime Archbishop Thomas Cranmer had been executed it would be unusual in the historic context not to see a little angst, given the time the Articles were penned.

 

I love these.

 

Let me second that! ❤

 

Amen!

 

I have been reflecting on the matter of the other Churches.

Jerusalem
It is not clear to me what the errors might have been, unless it has to do with the conflicted nature of the Patriarchy where for some time there have been The Patriarch was really established around the Council of Chalcedon 451, and post the great schism the crusaders failed to recognise the Eastern Patriarch and arranged for a Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Alexandria
It seems to me that the most likely error of Alexandria that may be inferred will relate to the Council of Chalcedon and the declaration that they were monophysite. According to our most recent agreed statement with the Oriental Orthodox we have agreed that this charge was untrue and represented a failure to understand their true position which we now take to be miaphysite, which is the teaching to St Cyril (The teaching confesses not a single nature but one incarnate united divine-human nature of the Word of God.) So maybe in the current climate we might be ready to let Alexandria off the hook.

Antioch
Antioch has a big history and there is much confusion following various divisions. There are I think presently seven Patriarchs of Antioch with various allegiances to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Others. It is also true that the Nestorian Church, seems to have some connections with Antioch though in reality that is not properly connected to any of the Patriarchs of Antioch. Philogonius actively defended Arius, which might be seen as the error. With seven Patriarchs it is hard to image that you could find some error! That having been said the Antiochean Orthodox are amongst the most conservative branches of the Christian Church on the planet.

The Church in these three Patriarchal regions faces, and has faced, some of the stiffest opposition and persecution through the Christian centuries. We owe a great theological debt to each of these regions for the faith proclaimed by people who birth in faith is found among them. As Anglicans I think we would do better to focus on fixing our own errors rather than fixating on the errors of others.

 

​

Authority was a key issue to consider at the time the 39 Articles were penned. It had been at the centre of the matters that led to both the acts of separation. And indeed it would seem, in light of the things in front of the Anglican Communion today, authority remains a key issue.

The first part of the article intends to give to the Church a level of autonomy in matters of rite, ceremony, and the resolution of controversies of faith. It should be remembered that the Church was the religion of the State, and it was clearly the established Church. In a sense, though, part of what is trying to be set in place is the prospect that the Church, and the faith of the people, will be preserved from the involvement of the State in matters that are more properly matters of religion.

Next there comes a caveat (or limitation) to this authority, that nothing may be set in place that is contrary to scripture. Clearly in the context of the European Reformation it suggests a leaning in the area of controversies of faith towards the position of Luther, and perhaps also Calvin and Zwingli.

Yet even here there is a balance. Profoundly the article requires that one part of scripture be not expounded in a way to is contrary to another part of scripture. Whilst scripture is clearly held high this does not represent an endorsement of Sola-Scriptura, rather simply that you can not go against scripture, and you cannot use scripture against scripture. This of course is an extension of the principles used in traditional Jewish scholarship which never allowed single source justification, but required two witnesses, one from the law and one from the prophets. These basic principals in Anglican exegesis have served the purpose, by and large, of preserving us from fruitcakes and corruption (in the main!).

The Church is witness and keeper of holy writ. As such our role is to bear witness to the truth conveyed in scripture, and to preserve the meaning of the text of scripture. In this Anglican scholarship in the main has sought to fulfil the expectation, in understanding what the text truly means, and in ensuring that we have the most accurate text, and the best translations of the text possible.

And whilst, the Church can not do anything against scripture; it also cannot require, as a matter of faith required for salvation, anything that may not be firmly established in scripture.

One phrase in the article I think has been seized upon by some to try and force a meaning on Anglicanism that may not be entirely consistent with Anglicanism as I understand it. That phrase is ‘God’s word written’ which some have tried to say that the text of scripture is the very words breathed from the mouth of God. This is of course the same kind of understanding with which Islam reads to the Koran. I would be inclined to think it is here used as a linguistic device used to denote christian scripture rather than intending to provide a specific theological meaning to the phrase. Article 6 (and 7) deal specifically with the content of scripture that we receive and by which we may establish the content of our faith. I think if the writers of the articles had intended to force such a reading, that meaning would have been made clear in the articles addressing the scripture, rather than here.

Another thing that the article seems to lay the groundwork for is something of the sense of a Church that in secular matters is answerable to the relevant authorities (Crown, Parliament, Court) and in spiritual matters free and, subject to being true to the scriptural foundation, capable of speaking to the moral conscience of the state. One might hope that such an arrangement might keep us free from extremists seeking a theocracy and despots seeking to suppress the people. Basically balanced and sensible.

 

Regarding autonomy, did not Henry VIII declare himself as head of the church thereby making the monarch the supreme authority?

 

Yes, he had himself declared the "Supreme Head" of the Church. After Mary I's death, Queen Elizabeth took the title "Supreme Governor." In practice, it is Parliament today that has the final say on what the Church of England can, and cannot do, as evidenced by the 1927/28 BCP crisis.

 

Yes, one of the things I don't understand is why a Prayer Book passed by the convocations of York and Canterbury in 1661, went to the House of Commons and the House of Lords to be passed in 1662. Article 20 would seem to have given the Church authority in the matter without need of the leave of the House of Parliament.

 

​

For us, in a way this seems odd, and perhaps recognises a change in the way we understand the nature of the Church. The first Council of Nicea was called fairly much at the behest of Constantine to sort out the mess being created by the rise of Arian Christians. Constantine at that stage was not a baptised Christian, though he clearly saw a number of advantages in the Christian religion, in 314 having been co-author of the Edict of Milan which amongst other things made Christianity legal in the Empire.

Perhaps the articles reflects the idea that the Church is established and it is not an alternate universe to the real and political world. It also suggests that the Church is important enough for the state to be interested, concerned and connected to it it some way.

If there was to be a new General Council in our day, I am not sure which prince would will and command it, given that the possibility of such an event largely dissipated with the Great Schism in 1054, I am not sure that the Church is in a position to have a General Council. I don’t see this filtering down, and I don’t believe that the command and will of anyone external to the Church is required for the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia to meet. On the other hand the possibility that that body might err, I feel sure is within the province of understanding this article.

The next principle is quite simply, that Councils may err, and indeed sometimes have erred. Certainly when you rake around the history of the councils, there are times when you can suspect more politics than prayer. Something odd happened at Ephesus, and Antioch wasn’t there for the whole Council and similarly at Chalcedon where Alexandria seems to have been dealt with before they arrived. The robber council tried to undo and in turn was undone.

In the next councils there are a range of issues which have had limited acceptance (or total rejection) in the East. Icons out, Icons in, and a level of tooing and froing which clearly justifies the stance taken by the article.

The stance taken in terms of Councils is entirely consistent with the stance taken in Article XX, whereby things necessary for Salvation must be able to sustain the argument of Holy Scripture.

Here is a list of the Councils. For general purpose Anglicans (including GAFCON and ACC) we take Nicea 1 (325), Constantinople 1 (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), as ecumenical, and the balance with a lot less weight. In this matter we are pretty aligned with the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Our most recent agreed statement with the Oriental Orthodox recognises that there are Miaphysite and not Monophysite as has been suggested by many, and resulted in the Oriental Orthodox not accepting the Council of Chalcedon, despite the reality that Coptic Christology is almost certainly within the confines of Chalcedonian Christology with perhaps a little nuance.

1. The First Council of Nicaea (325) repudiated Arianism, declared that Christ is "homoousios with the Father" (of the same substance as the Father), and adopted the original Nicene Creed; fixed Easter date; recognised authority of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch outside their own civil provinces and granted the see of Jerusalem a position of honour.
   
   
2. The First Council of Constantinople (381) repudiated Arianism and Macedonianism, declared that Christ is "born of the Father before all time", revised the Nicene Creed in regard to the Holy Spirit.
   
   
3. The Council of Ephesus (431) repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos ("Birth-giver to God", "God-bearer", "Mother of God"), repudiated Pelagianism, and reaffirmed the Nicene Creed. (This and all the following councils in this list are not recognised by all of the Church of the East (The Nestorian Church)).
   
   
   1. The Second Council of Ephesus (449) declared Eutyches orthodox and attacked his opponents. Though originally convened as an ecumenical council, this council is not recognised as ecumenical and is denounced as a Robber Council by the Chalcedonians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants).
      
4. The Council of Chalcedon (451) repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism; adopted the Chalcedonian Creed, which described the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, human and divine; reinstated those deposed in 449 and deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria; and elevated the bishoprics of Constantinople and Jerusalem to the status of patriarchates. This is also the last council explicitly recognised by the Anglican Communion. This and all the following councils in this list are rejected by Oriental Orthodox churches.
   
   
   
5. The Second Council of Constantinople (553) repudiated the Three Chapters as Nestorian, condemned Origen of Alexandria, and decreed the Theopaschite Formula.
   
   
6. The Third Council of Constantinople (680–681) repudiated Monothelitism and Monoenergism.
   
   
   1. The Quinisext Council, also called Council in Trullo, (692) addressed matters of discipline (in amendment to the 5th and 6th councils).
      
      
   2. The Ecumenical status of this council was repudiated by the western churches.
      
7. The Second Council of Nicaea (787) restored the veneration of icons (condemned at the Council of Hieria, 754) and repudiated iconoclasm.
   

Even though Anglicans do not receive the later Councils in the same form as the first four, some part of those decisions would be fairly acceptable, including the rejection of Monothelitism and Monoenergism (which are probably excluded by Chalcedonian Christology anyway).

I have always thought that Origen was a bit hard done by as a pioneer theologian who wrote before the Nicene Creed, and in my view offers much and whilst he may not have got it all correct, he had a good go, and advanced Christian Theology. I personally prefer to see him more as a Saint than a Heretic.

The reality is that the later Councils are a bit of a mixed bag. This is almost certainly why the Jerusalem Accord (GAFCON) is specific about accepting the authority of the first four Ecumenical Councils. The Thirty Nine Articles are a little less specific however I think I have indicated the general line.