# 39 Articles incompatible with sola scriptura?



## JM (May 29, 2007)

> The Thirty Nine Articles give the church an authority that is clearly incompatible with sola scriptura.
> 
> Article 20—Of the Authority of the Church reads:
> 
> ...




Any thoughts?

link

j


----------



## yeutter (May 29, 2007)

The 39 Articles deny the regulative principle. Anglicans do not equate the regulative principle with sola scriptura


----------



## etexas (May 29, 2007)

We view church as a defense against heresy. As an Anglican we do accept Scripture as final authority. The Articles are not to be viewed as confessional. The Anglican church is a creedal body. Grace and Peace. ( I should make myself clear, we submit to the 3 great historic creeds)......the Articles are not a creed in this sense. Thank you.


----------



## AV1611 (May 29, 2007)

yeutter said:


> The 39 Articles deny the regulative principle. Anglicans do not equate the regulative principle with sola scriptura



Not at all


----------



## AV1611 (May 29, 2007)

JM said:


> Any thoughts?



Yes indeed and what springs immediately to mind is "complete and utter rubbish!"

"HOLY Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that _*whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation*_." (Article 6)

"THE three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for _*they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture*_." (Article 8)

"THE Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and _*yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another*_. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as _*it ought not to decree anything against the same*_, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation." (Article 20)

"IT is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, _*so that nothing be ordained against God's word*_." (Article 34)


----------



## JM (May 29, 2007)

yeutter said:


> The 39 Articles deny the regulative principle. Anglicans do not equate the regulative principle with sola scriptura



That was helpful, thanks.

j


----------



## AV1611 (May 29, 2007)

I would point out that we have Reason, Tradition and Scripture. The formula being, Reason is guided by Tradition which is guided by Scripture.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 29, 2007)

Brian Schwertley, _Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship_:



> 1. Episcopalianism
> 
> Unfortunately, the Lutheran and Episcopal symbols both contradict sola scriptura in their discussions of ecclesiastical ceremonies, church authority and tradition. The Thirty Nine Articles give the church an authority that is clearly incompatible with sola scriptura. Article 20—Of the Authority of the Church reads:
> 
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (May 29, 2007)

*Of Ceremonies, 
Why some be abolished, and some retained.*​
OF such Ceremonies as be used in the Church, and have had their beginning by the institution of man, some at the first were of godly intent and purpose devised, and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition: some entered into the Church by undiscreet devotion, and such a zeal as was without knowledge; and for because they were winked at in the beginning, they grew daily to more and more abuses, which not only for their unprofitableness, but also because they have much blinded the people, and obscured the glory of God, are worthy to be cut away, and clean rejected: other there be, which although they have been devised by man, yet it is thought good to reserve them still, as well for a decent order in the Church, (for the which they were first devised) as because they pertain to edification, whereunto all things done in the Church (as the Apostle teacheth) ought to be referred. 
And although the keeping or omitting of a Ceremony, in itself considered, is but a small thing; yet the wilful and contemptuous transgression and breaking of a common order and discipline is no small offence before God, Let all things be done among you, saith Saint Paul, in a seemly and due order: the appointment of the which order pertaineth not to private men; therefore no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint or alter any publick or common Order in Christ's Church, except he be lawfully called and authorized thereunto. 

And whereas in this our time, the minds of men are so diverse, that some think it a great matter of conscience to depart from a piece of the least of their Ceremonies, they be so addicted to their old customs; and again on the other side, some be so newfangled, that they would innovate all things, and so despise the old, that nothing can like them, but that is new: it was thought expedient, not so much to have respect how to please and satisfy either of these parties, as how to please God, and profit them both. And yet lest any man should be offended, whom good reason might satisfy, here be certain causes rendered, why some of the accustomed Ceremonies be put away, and some retained and kept still. 

Some are put away, because the great excess and multitude of them hath so increased in these latter days, that the burden of them was intolerable; whereof Saint Augustine in his time complained, that they were grown to such a number, that the estate of Christian people was in worse case concerning that matter, than were the Jews. And he counselled that such yoke and burden should be taken away, as time would serve quietly to do it. But what would Saint Augustine have said, if he had seen the Ceremonies of late days used among us; whereunto the multitude used in his time was not to be compared? This our excessive multitude of Ceremonies was so great, and many of them so dark, that they did more confound and darken, than declare and set forth Christ's benefits unto us. And besides this, Christ's Gospel is not a Ceremonial Law, (as much of Moses' Law was,) but it is a Religion to serve God, not in bondage of the figure or shadow, but in the freedom of the Spirit; being content only with those Ceremonies which do serve to a decent order and godly discipline, and such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signification, whereby he might be edified. Furthermore, the most weighty cause of the abolishment of certain Ceremonies was, That they were so far abused, partly by the superstitious blindness of the rude and un, learned, and partly by the unsatiable avarice of such as sought more their own lucre, than the glory of God, that the abuses could not well be taken away, the thing remaining still. 

But now as concerning those persons, which peradventure will be offended, for that some of the old Ceremonies are retained still: If they consider that without some Ceremonies it is not possible to keep any order, or quiet discipline in the Church, they shall easily perceive just cause to reform their judgements. And if they think much, that any of the old do remain, and would rather have all devised anew: then such men granting some Ceremonies convenient to be had, surely where the old may be well used, there they cannot reasonably reprove the old only for their age, without bewraying of their own folly. For in such a case they ought rather to have reverence unto them for their antiquity, if they will declare themselves to be more studious of unity and concord, than of innovations and new-fangleness, which (as much as may be with the true setting forth of Christ's Religion) is always to be eschewed. Furthermore, such shall have no just cause with the Ceremonies reserved to be offended. For as those be taken away which were most abused, and did burden men's consciences without any cause; so the other that remain, are retained for a discipline and order, which (upon just causes) may be altered and changed, and therefore are not to be esteemed equal with God's Law. And moreover, they be neither dark nor dumb Ceremonies, but are so set forth, that every man may understand what they do mean, and to what use they do serve. So that it is not like that they in time to come should be abused as other have been. And in these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people only: For we think it convenient that every country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a most perfect and godly living, without error or superstition; and that they should put away other things, which from time to time they perceive to be most abused, as in men's ordinances it often chanceth diversely in divers countries.


----------



## AV1611 (May 29, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Brian Schwertley, _Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship_:




Errs in saying "The Thirty Nine Articles give the church a power independent of Scripture" and goes down hill from there failing to distinguish between High Church interpretations of the Articles and Low Church views.


----------



## etexas (May 29, 2007)

Be nice Andrew. You cannot judge us on your personal Presbyterian bias. I respect my Presbyterian Brethren and do not judge or hold them to Anglican expectations. Grace and Peace.


----------



## AV1611 (May 29, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> You cannot judge us on your personal Presbyterian bias.



One problem I have come across is that people read into our Articles what they want to see. So our Presbyterian brethren read "The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith" and ignore "and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."

They fail to realise that our Articles say no more that theirs when they teach "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His Church". (WCF Chapter 31 sect 3)


----------



## etexas (May 29, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> One problem I have come across is that people read into our Articles what they want to see. So our Presbyterian brethren read "The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith" and ignore "and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."
> 
> They fail to realise that our Articles say no more that theirs when they teach "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His Church". (WCF Chapter 31 sect 3)


Very good point.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 29, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Errs in saying "The Thirty Nine Articles give the church a power independent of Scripture" and goes down hill from there failing to distinguish between High Church interpretations of the Articles and Low Church views.



This is, of course, an Anglican perspective. Reformed Presbyterians, naturally, disagree.



I follow Jesus said:


> Be nice Andrew. You cannot judge us on your personal Presbyterian bias. I respect my Presbyterian Brethren and do not judge or hold them to Anglican expectations. Grace and Peace.



I have not said or done anything that was not "nice." By merely posting a quotation by a Presbyterian which shows there is a gulf in the understanding of sola scriptura between Anglicans and Reformed Presbyterians, I should not be accused of "judging" someone. All I have done in the previous post is to answer the OP with a quote sharing the Presbyterian view of the Anglican understanding of sola scriptura. To infer that I am judging people on the basis of this quote is at the very least uncharitable.


----------



## Peter (May 29, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> *One problem I have come across is that people read into our Articles what they want to see.* So our Presbyterian brethren read "The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith" and ignore "and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."
> 
> They fail to realise that our Articles say no more that theirs when they teach "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His Church". (WCF Chapter 31 sect 3)



Hey, if Anglicans have been doing it [reading whatever they want to believe into the articles] for 400 years why can't we nonanglicans?


----------



## Kevin (May 29, 2007)

Peter said:


> Hey, if Anglicans have been doing it [reading whatever they want to believe into the articles] for 400 years why can't we nonanglicans?


----------



## etexas (May 29, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> This is, of course, an Anglican perspective. Reformed Presbyterians, naturally, disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not said or done anything that was not "nice." By merely posting a quotation by a Presbyterian which shows there is a gulf in the understanding of sola scriptura between Anglicans and Reformed Presbyterians, I should not be accused of "judging" someone. All I have done in the previous post is to answer the OP with a quote sharing the Presbyterian view of the Anglican understanding of sola scriptura. To infer that I am judging people on the basis of this quote is at the very least uncharitable.


Here is a shocker!!!!! The Anglican Church is not perfect....no church is. The Church is a divine institution. But,guess what.....it is filled with human beings. Thank God Almighty for Grace. (Sorry if I sounded uncharitable.....today is my smoking cessation, I am not really feeling "nice".)


----------



## MW (May 29, 2007)

Whitgift and Hooker, in their debate with the Puritans, limited the scope of Scripture to what is salvific. Hence, no, traditional Anglicanism does not deny sola Scriptura with reference to what is necessary for salvation. Their purpose for limiting the scope of Scripture in this way was to allow room for tradition and consensus to speak over and above Scripture in matters pertaining to the church. Hence, yes, they deny sola Scriptura with reference to anything that is non salvific, whereas the Puritans taught Scripture is a perfect rule of faith and life both for the individual and the church. (And yes, I have read Whitgift and Hooker.)


----------



## AV1611 (May 30, 2007)

Before we progress may be it would be helpful for a definintion of _sola scriptura_? 

When you or I come to the Scriptures we come to it as a plain canvas as do Arminians, Socianians, Sabbelians &c. This being so we are like the eunuch,

*Acts 8:30, 31* "And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."

We need an interpreter. Now obviously the interpreter ultimately is the Holy Ghost and yet the way this truth is formulated is via councils or synods (Acts 15). That is why we Anglicans accept the Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian). However read our Article carefully:

"The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; *for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture*."

God has declared in Scripture that "the house of God, which is the church of the living God" is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). It does this through Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms. The Church has the authority to determine what time we meet on the Sunday etc as Presbyterians accept for they confess that "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His Church". (WCF Chapter 31 sect 3)

I believe that at the same time the Spirit was leading the Church into all truth via the development of orthodox creeds in defence of the faith He led the development of the episcopate to what we Anglicans have now. You disagree? That is your prerogative.

As an Anglican I steadfastly affirm _sola scriptura_ but I do not affirm _solo scriptura_.


----------



## JM (May 30, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> As an Anglican I steadfastly affirm _sola scriptura_ but I do not affirm _solo scriptura_.




In the past brother you've affirmed Exclusive Psalmody, how do you justify this belief?


----------



## etexas (May 30, 2007)

JM said:


> In the past brother you've affirmed Exclusive Psalmody, how do you justify this belief?


There is nothing for him to justify brother, Richard and I and all traditional Anglicans do affirm sola scriptura not solo scriptura.


----------



## AV1611 (May 30, 2007)

JM said:


> In the past brother you've affirmed Exclusive Psalmody, how do you justify this belief?



Because I see no Scriptural warrant for uninspired poetry in the worship of God. He alone determines how he is to be worshipped. It is important to note that one can remain faithful to the Prayer Book and maintain EP.

I am currently looking at EP as you may gather from my other thread.  

Bishop Ryle wrote an excellent help: http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/item_detail.php?4972


----------



## AV1611 (May 30, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> traditional Anglicans



For what it's worth, I hope our Prebyterian and Baptist brethren recogise that the true Churchman is the Evangelical/Low Churchman.

Cranmer, Hooper, Latimer and Ridley are our spiritual forefathers and let us not forget that Hooper rejected clerical vestments, Ryle refused to wear a mitre, Cranmer sough Bucer's view of vestments and Bucer signed off on the BCP of 1552.


----------



## etexas (May 30, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> For what it's worth, I hope our Prebyterian and Baptist brethren recogise that the true Churchman is the Evangelical/Low Churchman.
> 
> Cranmer, Hooper, Latimer and Ridley are our spiritual forefathers and let us not forget that Hooper rejected clerical vestments, Ryle refused to wear a mitre, Cranmer sough Bucer's view of vestments and Bucer signed off on the BCP of 1552.


Yes, I am Evangelical and Low-Church. I take up my King James and say this is the word of the Lord. I do hope my beloved Presbyterian and Baptist Brothers and sisters here at the PB do know we are of a "camp" they might identify with on many levels. Grace and Peace.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (May 30, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Yes, I am Evangelical and Low-Church. I take up my King James and say this is the word of the Lord. I do hope my beloved Presbyterian and Baptist Brothers and sisters here at the PB do know we are of a "camp" they might identify with on many levels. Grace and Peace.




Max, I can certainly identify with you brother. But then I'm a huge C S Lewis fan.

Grace and Peace brother.


----------



## etexas (May 30, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Max, I can certainly identify with you brother. But then I'm a huge C S Lewis fan.
> 
> Grace and Peace brother.


Chuckle! We Anglicans are not perfect we have however made a few nice contributions to Christian culture......including Lewis, but of course!


----------



## AV1611 (May 30, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Max, I can certainly identify with you brother. But then I'm a huge C S Lewis fan.
> 
> Grace and Peace brother.



What about T S Eliot?

http://www.mmisi.org/ir/39_01_2/scruton.pdf


----------



## MW (May 30, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> As an Anglican I steadfastly affirm _sola scriptura_ but I do not affirm _solo scriptura_.



As a Presbyterian I also affirm sola and not solo Scriptura. In WCF 1:6 you will find the Presbyterian definition of sola Scriptura, and it will be found to differ from traditional Anglicanism in that it provides a larger scope for Scriptural direction, and does not allow the traditions of men to be added to that direction.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 30, 2007)

*Regulative vs Normative*



yeutter said:


> The 39 Articles deny the regulative principle. Anglicans do not equate the regulative principle with sola scriptura



I'm presently at the Banner of Truth conference in Grantham, PA (where Messiah college is now a hot spot for wireless, yah!) and reading this.

After having asked a number of people here on this board, as well as spoken with some Reformed and Presbyterian pastors and theologians at this conference, the fact is that I no longer have any idea what RP means or stands for. The normative principle, yes, but the regulative is beyond my comprehension.

Does the RP:
- deny use of liturgy? (yes and no depending on who you ask)
- deny use of vestments? (yes and no depending on who you ask)

I'm not even trying to make any statements to add or subtract from this topic. Just making a personal observation. 

Any thoughts that might help? Any *solid* articles or thoughts to guide?


----------



## JM (May 30, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> There is nothing for him to justify brother, Richard and I and all traditional Anglicans do affirm sola scriptura not solo scriptura.



RJS wrote the following:

Because I see no Scriptural warrant for uninspired poetry in the worship of God. He alone determines how he is to be worshipped. It is important to note that one can remain faithful to the Prayer Book and maintain EP.

But you don't need s scriptural warrant if you are not solo scriptura, right?


----------



## Kevin (May 30, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Max, I can certainly identify with you brother. But then I'm a huge C S Lewis fan.
> 
> Grace and Peace brother.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 30, 2007)

Dear ArmourBearer,

Thanks for bringing up the topic of the Elizabethan Puritans! They're a forgotten mob who are wonderful to read.



armourbearer said:


> Whitgift and Hooker, in their debate with the Puritans, limited the scope of Scripture to what is salvific. Hence, no, traditional Anglicanism does not deny sola Scriptura with reference to what is necessary for salvation.



Actually, neither Whitgift nor Hooker speak as regulative figures for Anglicanism. To claim so is just like saying Richard Baxter speaks for Presbyterians.

Richard Hooker's sacramentalism, for example, contradicts the 39 Articles on justification by faith alone, just like Baxter's neonomism contradicts the WCF.

Moreover, to say that Whitgift and Hooker argued against the "Puritans" needs nuancing. They argued against the _new school Puritans_ that arose through Cartwright, with its concomitant new ideas on church polity which the older Elizabethan Puritans did not hold.



armourbearer said:


> Their purpose for limiting the scope of Scripture in this way was to allow room for tradition and consensus to speak over and above Scripture in matters pertaining to the church.



This is simply not true. Whitgift and Hooker had different ecclesiologies and can't be lumped together. Whitgift believed that the NT didn't actually prescribe a set form of church polity, hence there is a freedom in the area of polity (as long as it doesn't contravene Scripture).

Hooker's position is a little more subtle, and I can't be bothered going into it here because it requires a clear understanding of his take on "Law".

However, neither of them ever argued that "tradition and consensus to speak over and above Scripture in matters pertaining to the church".

Every blessing,

Marty.


----------



## MW (May 30, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Actually, neither Whitgift nor Hooker speak as regulative figures for Anglicanism. To claim so is just like saying Richard Baxter speaks for Presbyterians.
> 
> Richard Hooker's sacramentalism, for example, contradicts the 39 Articles on justification by faith alone, just like Baxter's neonomism contradicts the WCF.



Fair enough, so long as you distance yourself from Whitgift and Hooker's defence of the Elizabethan settlement, which includes a rationale for those sections in the thirty-nine articles providing for the imposition of human authority in sacred things. As far as I am aware their jus humanum argument for episcoapcy and ceremonies has been the prevalent view amongst Anglicans, unless you except modern evangelical Anglicanism's dichotomising between the church (gathered) and the institution, which has become popular through Messrs Robinson and Knox.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Moreover, to say that Whitgift and Hooker argued against the "Puritans" needs nuancing. They argued against the _new school Puritans_ that arose through Cartwright, with its concomitant new ideas on church polity which the older Elizabethan Puritans did not hold.



Cartwright was an Elizabethan Puritan. Not sure where you are getting your facts from, but they are not founded in history. I think perhaps you are trying to force a broader meaning on the word Puritan to suit your objection.



JohnOwen007 said:


> This is simply not true. Whitgift and Hooker had different ecclesiologies and can't be lumped together. Whitgift believed that the NT didn't actually prescribe a set form of church polity, hence there is a freedom in the area of polity (as long as it doesn't contravene Scripture).
> 
> Hooker's position is a little more subtle, and I can't be bothered going into it here because it requires a clear understanding of his take on "Law".
> 
> However, neither of them ever argued that "tradition and consensus to speak over and above Scripture in matters pertaining to the church".



Whitgift's method of argumentation is more subtle than simply denying a set form of church polity in the NT, and included an appeal to relativism. Hooker argued along similar lines but based it on natural, unchanging laws; since, however, you can't be bothered going into it I see little reason why I should do little else than quote his own words. He specifically taught that there are laws "expedient to be made for the guiding of his Church, *over and besides* them that are in Scripture."

I find it strange that you distance Anglicanism from Hooker and then run to his defence.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 31, 2007)

Dear ArmourBearer,

Thanks for your response.



armourbearer said:


> ... so long as you distance yourself from Whitgift and Hooker's defence of the Elizabethan settlement, ...



This sounds a tad authoritarian?



armourbearer said:


> Cartwright was an Elizabethan Puritan. Not sure where you are getting your facts from, but they are not founded in history. ...



This also sounds rather authoritarian ...

Yes, of course, Cartwright was an Elizabethan Puritan. Read any standard book on Elizabethan Puritanism (from Knappen to Collinson) and they show (as the primary sources do) that Cartwright ushered in a new approach to church polity that was not among the older Puritans (like Grindal, Greenham and co.). And, the Marprelate Tracts that came a little later horrified the older Puritans.

Puritanism wasn't a a completely homogeneous animal, even in the Elizabethan period.



armourbearer said:


> I find it strange that you distance Anglicanism from Hooker and then run to his defence.



Interesting comment--again you're quick to accuse me of error. We need to separate two issues here: [1] Understanding Hooker aright; and [2] Agreeing with Hooker. I was merely going for [1]. You read me as doing [2]. Perhaps you could even ask before assuming? It makes for more lubricated interaction.

A few years ago I wrote an M.Th. thesis on Richard Hooker and Elizabethan Puritanism. What struck me is how misunderstood Hooker is. Every party claims him for their own, and yet he appears to fit into none.

God bless you,

Marty.


----------



## MW (May 31, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> This sounds a tad authoritarian?



Wires might be getting crossed here. You wanted to show the relation of Hooker to Anglicanism by comparing it with Baxter's relationship to Presbyterianism. OK, Presbyterians distance themselves from Baxter's soteriology and ecclesial compromises. All I am saying is that if you want to make the comparison I think Anglicans need to put the same distance between themselves and Hooker, Nothing authoritarian about that. I wish they would; but the fact is they don't.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Yes, of course, Cartwright was an Elizabethan Puritan. Read any standard book on Elizabethan Puritanism (from Knappen to Collinson) and they show (as the primary sources do) that Cartwright ushered in a new approach to church polity that was not among the older Puritans (like Grindal, Greenham and co.). And, the Marprelate Tracts that came a little later horrified the older Puritans.



Let's be clear on how we are using the term "Puritan," because I sense you might be using it to describe a doctrinal position which the churchmen in that day shared, whereas I am taking it in its historical sense as a person who remained within the Church of England but sought to reform it according to the pattern of that "most perfect school of Christ" found at Geneva. In this sense the Puritans were distinct from the defenders of the Elizabethan settlement. It is not a division which occurred after the Settlement, but appears whilst they were exiles on the continent during Mary's reign. To say that Cartwright represented a new movement within "Puritanism" which challenged the establishment is unhistorical, since historical Puritanism in and of itself made this challenge.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Interesting comment--again you're quick to accuse me of error. We need to separate two issues here: [1] Understanding Hooker aright; and [2] Agreeing with Hooker. I was merely going for [1]. You read me as doing [2]. Perhaps you could even ask before assuming? It makes for more lubricated interaction.
> 
> A few years ago I wrote an M.Th. thesis on Richard Hooker and Elizabethan Puritanism. What struck me is how misunderstood Hooker is. Every party claims him for their own, and yet he appears to fit into none.



I can't recall accusing you of error. It is incumbent on you to show where Hooker has been misinterpreted rather than simply say so and then intimate you can't be bothered showing it.

Your thesis sounds like it would be an interesting read. I wrote a paper many moons ago in which I evaluated Hooker's defence of the Elizabethan Settlement against Puritan objections. I've gone back to it from time to time and made additions as opportunity knocked. I don't think there is much to misunderstand, and certainly the "Christian Letter" of 1599, with which Andrew Willet's name has been associated, called Hooker to account for his unorthodox opinions.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 31, 2007)

Dear ArmourBearer,

Thanks so much for the clarifications.



armourbearer said:


> Wires might be getting crossed here.



Ok, great. Wires are now uncrossed.



armourbearer said:


> To say that Cartwright represented a new movement within "Puritanism" which challenged the establishment is unhistorical, since historical Puritanism in and of itself made this challenge.



Why so eager to claim it's "unhistorical"? That's strong language. History can be a very messy business. I wish it were less untidy. But it ain't.

Elizabethan Puritanism (and I agree with your definition) unleashed a series of _different_ challenges to the Church of England. The early challenges concerned the cross in baptism, the surplice, the wedding ring, and kneeling at communion. However, Cartwright brought a _new _challenge concerning _ecclesiastical polity_. The earlier Puritans weren't all completely happy with Cartwright's new movement. Richard Greenham believed that it tried to fix the roof when the foundations hadn't been laid.

A good account of it all is in Patrick Collinson, _The Elizabethan Puritan Movement_ (OUP, 1967), Part Three (pp. 101-155). It is entitled "The First Presbyterians". And Part I is entitled "A New Dogma". You can can get the drift of newness that the younger Puritans injected from these chapter and section titles.



Every blessing brother,

Marty.


----------



## MW (May 31, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> A good account of it all is in Patrick Collinson, _The Elizabethan Puritan Movement_ (OUP, 1967), Part Three (pp. 101-155). It is entitled "The First Presbyterians". And Part I is entitled "A New Dogma". You can can get the drift of newness that the younger Puritans injected from these chapter and section titles.



A very good work, but I think you are turning a secondary issue into a primary one by highlighting church government at this point. This thread pertained to Anglicanism's commitment to sola Scriptura in the light of the 39 articles. Anglicanism received its "bent" from Whitgift and Hooker's replies to the Puritans over ceremonies.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 31, 2007)

Dear ArmourBearer,

Many thanks for your reply. Although we seem to be going around in circles here.



armourbearer said:


> A very good work, but I think you are turning a secondary issue into a primary one by highlighting church government at this point. This thread pertained to Anglicanism's commitment to sola Scriptura in the light of the 39 articles.



You kept confidently telling us the claim of Cartwright's newness was "unhistorical". Then when the evidence questions it, you say it's not germane to the thread?



armourbearer said:


> Anglicanism received its "bent" from Whitgift and Hooker's replies to the Puritans over ceremonies.



From the _Cartwrightian_ Puritans, not all the Puritans. That's the point.

On any account of Anglicanism your statement is incorrect. What do you mean by Anglicanism? If we go by the BCP, 39 articles, and homilies (which the articles include) then Whitgift and Hooker have as much to do with Anglicanism as Baxter does to Presbyterianism.

When we include the homilies it is very clear that Anglicanism upholds _sola scriptura_ from their teaching.

Cheers,

Marty.


----------



## etexas (May 31, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear ArmourBearer,
> 
> Many thanks for your reply. Although we seem to be going around in circles here.
> 
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (May 31, 2007)

JM said:


> But you don't need s scriptural warrant if you are not solo scriptura, right?




But I do afirm _sola scriptura_ as do the 39 Articles 

You may find these helpful: 
http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/39A/iss_doctrine_39A_intro.asp
http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/heads/bible/iss_doctrine_heads_bible_intro.asp


----------



## AV1611 (May 31, 2007)

Marty and Matthew,

An excellent book on the puritans Amazon.com: A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life: Books: J. I. Packer


----------



## JM (May 31, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Whitgift and Hooker, in their debate with the Puritans, limited the scope of Scripture to what is salvific. Hence, no, traditional Anglicanism does not deny sola Scriptura with reference to what is necessary for salvation. Their purpose for limiting the scope of Scripture in this way was to allow room for tradition and consensus to speak over and above Scripture in matters pertaining to the church. *Hence, yes, they deny sola Scriptura with reference to anything that is non salvific,* whereas the Puritans taught Scripture is a perfect rule of faith and life both for the individual and the church. (And yes, I have read Whitgift and Hooker.)





Thanks for pointing that out. 

j


----------



## AV1611 (May 31, 2007)

JM said:


> Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> j



I think he is misguided for we hold no more than what the WCF teaches here:

_It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His Church". (WCF Chapter 31 sect 3)_​


----------



## MW (May 31, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> You kept confidently telling us the claim of Cartwright's newness was "unhistorical". Then when the evidence questions it, you say it's not germane to the thread?



I think it can be easily shown that Cartwright shared the same conviction with the Puritan movement that Scripture is a rule for church practice as much as for individual practice. Church govt. is simply an extension of that conviction. He shared this conviction with the Puritan movement as a whole in contrast to the Elizabethan settlement which Whitgift and Hooker defended. Take church govt. out of the equation and you are still left with a Puritan commitment to Scripture which conflicts with the roots of Anglicanism as found in Whitgift and Hooker.



JohnOwen007 said:


> From the _Cartwrightian_ Puritans, not all the Puritans. That's the point.



Any way you look at it, Anglicanism limits the scope of Scriptural regulation. Puritanism, from its first manifestation in Frankfort in 1554, sought the freedom to regulate church practice according to the Scriptures. Church govt. comes to the fore later, and is really the result of the Puritans growing tired of the heavy handedness of the bishops in enforcing uniformity. But as early as 1554, when the congregation of exiles were permitted to do things according to biblical conviction, they turned their attention to a biblically regulated church order. It is this which brought them into conflict with the Coxians, and as Whittingham's account demonstrates, this was the first outbreak of the conflict which continued to plague the Church of England after the exiles returned.



JohnOwen007 said:


> When we include the homilies it is very clear that Anglicanism upholds _sola scriptura_ from their teaching.



Yes, as noted in my first post on this thread, it is sola Scripture with reference to what is necessary for salvation.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 31, 2007)

Dear ArmourBearer,



armourbearer said:


> Take church govt. out of the equation and you are still left with a Puritan commitment to Scripture which conflicts with the roots of Anglicanism as found in Whitgift and Hooker.



Have you listened to anything I've said? Anglicanism does *not* have its "roots" in Whitgift and Hooker anymore than Presbyterianism has its roots in Richard Baxter. Anglicanism is defined by the BCP, 39 articles and the Homilies. Whitgift and Hooker did not write these anymore than Baxter did the WCF. If there is a particular figure in which the "roots" of Anglicanism is found, it's Thomas Cranmer.

The Anglican symbols uphold the classic *reformation *formulation of _sola scriptura_. Read any of the classic commentaries on the 39 articles from Griffith-Thomas to Oliver O'Donovan. Try also reading Packer's chapter 15 of _A Quest for Godliness_.

Every blessing,

Marty.


----------



## etexas (May 31, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear ArmourBearer,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JM (May 31, 2007)

Does the Anglican Church uphold the 39 Articles?


----------



## etexas (May 31, 2007)

JM said:


> Does the Anglican Church uphold the 39 Articles?


In what sense? Define uphold.


----------



## etexas (May 31, 2007)

Articles...#6Holy Scripture containeth ALL things necessary to salvation:so that what soever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby,is not to be required of any man............


----------



## JM (May 31, 2007)

Uphold
UPHOLD, v.t. pret. and pp. upheld. [Upholden is obsolete.]

1. To lift on high; to elevate.

2. To support; to sustain; to keep from falling or slipping.

Honor shall uphold the humble in spirit. Prov 29.

3. To keep from declension.

4. To support in any state.

5. To continue; to maintain.

6. To keep from being lost.

Faulconbridge, in spite of spite, along upholds the day.

7. To continue without failing.

8. To continue in being.

Does the Anglican Church use the 39 as they core confession, do they continue to maintain the doctrine therein, does the Anglican Communion support the 39 as a standard?


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Have you listened to anything I've said? Anglicanism does *not* have its "roots" in Whitgift and Hooker anymore than Presbyterianism has its roots in Richard Baxter. Anglicanism is defined by the BCP, 39 articles and the Homilies. Whitgift and Hooker did not write these anymore than Baxter did the WCF. If there is a particular figure in which the "roots" of Anglicanism is found, it's Thomas Cranmer.



Yes, I am listening to what you are saying. What you are saying is wrong, fictitious. Please do read Packer's Anglican perspective on the Puritan Approach to Worship. One will not find the differences minimised so greatly as in that lecture provided by a Puritan-sympathising Anglican. But even he had to acknowledge, "This way of putting it gives the impression that Luther and the reformed Church of England did not regard holy Scripture as constituting an authoritative rule for worship at all -- *which was, of course, the constant Puritan accusation right up to the Civil War*." So it is very plain (and even Packer has eyes to see it) that the Puritan commitment to a biblically regulated Christian worship led them to find fault with the Anglican imposition of human authority, and subsequently to deny that the Elizabethan settlement was properly "reformed" according to the Word of God.

Now the low-church Packer undoubtedly tries to soften the differences, and to make them consist merely in the province of the interpretation of Scripture. That no doubt is what the low-church Anglicans are trying to accomplish in this thread also. But it is without historical foundation, as the Packer quotation demonstrates. It is revisionism. The Puritans perceived the Anglican constitution defective so far as it concerned its commitment to be reformed in the area of worship according to Scripture. And, my low-Anglican friends, with whom I have much in common doctrinally, to come onto a *Puritan* board, and to suggest that the Anglican approach to worship follows the principle of sola scriptura, is just not going to meet with a sympathetic ear. Those in the modern day who, like the Puritans, adopt a comprehensive plan for biblical reformation, are not going to see the Anglican intrusion of human ceremonies in divine worship as a proper outworking of the principle of sola Scriptura. From an historical perspective, therefore, you are beating your head against a virtual brick wall.

As for Whitgift and Hooker, fine, as I said before, distance yourself from their defence of the Elizabethan settlement; but history is a stubborn thing, and Anglicanism has a long pedigree of defending the imposition of human ceremonies on the basis of these divines' methodology against Puritanism. I think you are obliged to provide an alternative to their method of negating the Puritan principle of worship, and inthe absence of that alternative you can expect others to revert to the default system of Anglicanism which is presented to them.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 1, 2007)

Dear ArmourBearer,

I don't think we're getting anywhere very fast. We are brothers in Christ and have so much in common and yet you seem so quick to want drive a wedge between us. Should we not be encouraging each other to work _together _for Christ and his gospel in a lost world? Why the desire to exclude and create parties?

You've got a notion of Anglicanism in your head that you want to read me and others through.



armourbearer said:


> What you are saying is wrong, fictitious.



Dear brother, why the authoritarian and extreme language? I don't understand. It doesn't make for harmonious discussion amongst friends. Yet you keep using it. Even if you were right (and I'm far from convinced) why this rhetoric?



armourbearer said:


> So it is very plain (and even Packer has eyes to see it) that the Puritan commitment to a biblically regulated Christian worship led them to find fault with the Anglican imposition of human authority, and subsequently to deny that the Elizabethan settlement was properly "reformed" according to the Word of God.



You still haven't defined Anglicanism, and are using it in a very generalized manner. Dear brother, _Anglicans aren't under the Elizabethan settlement now_. We don't have a monarch as head of the church! What I've subscribed to in my situation is very different. Why are you going back to this period as though it were somehow regulative, with Whitgift and Hooker as regulative figures? Baxter had a huge influence on presbyterians after him (as history testifies), but that doesn't make him regulative for Presbyterianism.



armourbearer said:


> And, my low-Anglican friends, with whom I have much in common doctrinally, to come onto a *Puritan* board, and to suggest that the Anglican approach to worship follows the principle of sola scriptura, is just not going to meet with a sympathetic ear.



This sounds awfully like: "I'm the true one here and you aren't; I'm in and you're not."

Just read the 1st homily on Scripture if you have doubts about the Anglican position on _sola scriptura_.



armourbearer said:


> As for Whitgift and Hooker, fine, as I said before, distance yourself from their defence of the Elizabethan settlement;



Brother, commanding me like this sounds authoritarian. I've continually said Hooker and Whitgift are not regulative figures for Anglicanism. Indeed, I don't know any Anglican these days who likes Whitgift. He is not an attractive figure. Why are you fixated on them? I could get fixated on Baxter's neonomism as a presbyterian. I could get fixated on presbyterians turning Socinian in the 18th century. But it has nothing to do with Presbyterianism. So, Anglicanism.



armourbearer said:


> but history is a stubborn thing, and Anglicanism has a long pedigree of defending the imposition of human ceremonies on the basis of these divines' methodology against Puritanism.



Which is a cheap shot, because (again) you use Anglicanism loosely and without definition. I could respond and say that Presbyterianism has a long pedigree of splitting churches, in-house fighting, and lack of grace. (Particularly when right doctrine should lead to gracious godly speaking and living). But I know that that is not the ideal of the WCF. So why take a cheap shot like that at Anglicans who've over the years not lived consistently with their confessions? Every tradition has warts in its history.

I'm bowing out of this thread because it's getting out of control.

God bless you,

Marty.


----------



## etexas (Jun 1, 2007)

JM, I would accept #5 as a very good definition of how we would uphold the Articles. With this in mind I point everyone to Article #6. It does give a clear stance and is solid in defense of scripture as the supreme rule of faith in the Christian walk. Grace and Peace.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 1, 2007)

JM said:


> Does the Anglican Church uphold the 39 Articles?



The Canons of the Church of England state:

*Canon A2* _Of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion_
The Thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.

*Canon A3* _Of The Book of Common Prayer_
1. The doctrine contained in The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the Use of the Church of England is agreeable to the Word of God.
2. The form of God’s worship contained in the said Book, forasmuch as it is not repugnant to the Word of God, may be used by all members of the Church of England with a good conscience.

*Canon A5* _Of the doctrine of the Church of England_
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

*Canon C15* _Of the Declaration of Assent_ 
The Declaration of Assent to be made under this Canon shall be in the form set out below:

*PREFACE*
The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith
as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?

*Declaration of Assent*
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 1, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> If there is a particular figure in which the "roots" of Anglicanism is found, it's Thomas Cranmer.



An excellent article is "The English Reformers’ Teaching on Scripture" in _Churchman_


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> I'm bowing out of this thread because it's getting out of control.



Then I won't add anything to my previous comments except to wish you grace and peace in the fellowship of the Blessed Holy Trinity.


----------



## etexas (Jun 2, 2007)

I am bowing out since anyone who reads the Articles in context, with a focus on Aricle#6 will see beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anglicans embrace Sola Scriptura. Grace and Peace.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 3, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> I am bowing out since anyone who reads the Articles in context, with a focus on Aricle#6 will see beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anglican embrace Sola Scritura. Grace and Peace.



I would simply point people who still are not convinced to the first homily:

_A Frvitfvll Exhortation to the reading and knowledge of holy Scripture_ (original spelling)

_Exhortation to the Reading and Knowledge of Holy Scripture_ (updated spelling)


----------

