Since my position is one of a "confessing" Evangelical, --I believe that confessional statements of what we believe the Bible teaches are absolutely necessary to mark out clearly for others what we believe and where we stand-- it follows that I adhere to the plain teaching of the 39 Articles of Religion as a document which is binding on the conscience of ministers and officers of the church. To deny any one of the Articles is essentially to exclude oneself from the Anglican church/denomination/communion. I find it particularly troubling that one who represents himself as a low church, Evangelical Anglican could in good conscience pretend to be an Anglican while denying the very document we confess as a unified body of believers. To deny the Protestant document in any part is really to adopt the same tactic of the Anglo-Catholics only it is done from a more Anabaptist approach.
At any rate, you can judge for yourself from the following comments posted by William Scott:
Charlie's comment: After reading this extended quote I came to the conclusion that David Broughton Knox in his final years allowed his critics to push him to make illogical and unjustified interpretations of Scripture passages that are understood by every major denomination and church tradition to refer to water baptism. One of the most critical of these misinterpretations is Knox's denial of Matthew 28:18-20 as a reference to Christ's command to baptize with water. Knox takes the allegorical method of interpretation to justify this highly questionable view of Matthew 28:18ff. Most Evangelicals prefer the historical/grammatical approach to biblical exegesis, hermeneutics and interpretation. This only goes to show that even Evangelicals can go either liberal or off into allegorical interpretation methods along the lines of the church father Origen or that of modern day charismatics and pentecostals.