Comments on: Three Forms of Unity http://blog.sloppyedwards.com/three-forms-of-unity/ Steve Long's Blog Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:51:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Steve Long http://blog.sloppyedwards.com/three-forms-of-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-476 Steve Long Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:28:37 +0000 http://blog.sloppyedwards.com/?p=261#comment-476 I touched on the 39 Articles in my summary of the history behind the Westminster Standards, but they probably deserve more attention as a unifying description of "orthodox" Christian doctrine. My interest in the confessions in particular is that they go beyond the historic creeds and articulate what they deem as sound doctrinal interpretation, not just laying out the core essential beliefs of Christianity. As we've discussed before, the problem with the view that some take of "no creed but the Bible" is that there can be an awful lot of disagreement about what the Bible says, and there are no guides for comparison of disparate views for determining which are more "orthodox." I think the same problem exists to a certain degree with the creeds. You've mentioned that we look to the Church and to tradition to test our understanding of what is biblical. I see the confessions as an attempt to write down what the Church has traditionally understood about the Bible. We've also talked before about the draw that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have on some evangelicals because then doctrinal debates are "settled." I think to some degree a well-established confessional standard can provide the same sort of "certainty." (Of course, you still have to decide whose standard to adopt.) I touched on the 39 Articles in my summary of the history behind the Westminster Standards, but they probably deserve more attention as a unifying description of “orthodox” Christian doctrine.

My interest in the confessions in particular is that they go beyond the historic creeds and articulate what they deem as sound doctrinal interpretation, not just laying out the core essential beliefs of Christianity.

As we’ve discussed before, the problem with the view that some take of “no creed but the Bible” is that there can be an awful lot of disagreement about what the Bible says, and there are no guides for comparison of disparate views for determining which are more “orthodox.” I think the same problem exists to a certain degree with the creeds.

You’ve mentioned that we look to the Church and to tradition to test our understanding of what is biblical. I see the confessions as an attempt to write down what the Church has traditionally understood about the Bible.

We’ve also talked before about the draw that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have on some evangelicals because then doctrinal debates are “settled.” I think to some degree a well-established confessional standard can provide the same sort of “certainty.” (Of course, you still have to decide whose standard to adopt.)

]]> By: Nate http://blog.sloppyedwards.com/three-forms-of-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-474 Nate Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:53:52 +0000 http://blog.sloppyedwards.com/?p=261#comment-474 The 39 Articles of Religion are similarly significant and first assumed their current form in 1563. They first took form as 10 Articles in 1531, went through a series of transformations, took their most reformed nature as the 42 Articles of 1552, drafted by Thomas Cranmer, and finally settled sown in 1563. They have been subsequently ratified repeatedly. The Protestant Episcopal Church of America ratified a version (that didn't swear allegiance to the Crown) in 1801. John Wesley adapted them for the Articles of Religion that are still used by the Methodists. I appreciate them because they seem to be the most middle ground between Catholic and Protestant, Reformed and Arminian that I have ever found, while still not skimping on the essentials. England had been torn apart by religious warring (as had many other countries) and they deliberately chose to find a <i>via media</i> that would permit folks of orthodox yet varying faiths to worship together in one church. A question. Are you distinguishing creeds from confessions? Because if you're looking for earliest, the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed certainly antedate any of the ones so far mentioned and certainly enjoy a broader embrace that crosses all denominational or theological divides among Christianity. The 39 Articles of Religion are similarly significant and first assumed their current form in 1563. They first took form as 10 Articles in 1531, went through a series of transformations, took their most reformed nature as the 42 Articles of 1552, drafted by Thomas Cranmer, and finally settled sown in 1563. They have been subsequently ratified repeatedly. The Protestant Episcopal Church of America ratified a version (that didn’t swear allegiance to the Crown) in 1801. John Wesley adapted them for the Articles of Religion that are still used by the Methodists.

I appreciate them because they seem to be the most middle ground between Catholic and Protestant, Reformed and Arminian that I have ever found, while still not skimping on the essentials.

England had been torn apart by religious warring (as had many other countries) and they deliberately chose to find a via media that would permit folks of orthodox yet varying faiths to worship together in one church.

A question. Are you distinguishing creeds from confessions? Because if you’re looking for earliest, the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed certainly antedate any of the ones so far mentioned and certainly enjoy a broader embrace that crosses all denominational or theological divides among Christianity.

]]>