Reasonable Christian: A Short Catechism for Young Churchmen, Chiefly on the Thirty-Nine Articles

Since I'm already posting the Westminster Larger Catechism, I thought I would also post one question per day from this Anglican catechism developed by the Church Association Tracts at the Church Society website.

Q. (1) Who made you?
A. “God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.”—(Nicene Creed, Art. 8; Genesis 1:1, 26; Job 33:4; Hebrews 11:3.)

Reasonable Christian: A Short Catechism for Young Churchmen, Chiefly on the Thirty-Nine Articles

David Broughton Knox Upholds Scripture as Propositional Truth

"In the last resort, the concept that God's revelation is in deeds can only be maintained by a forgetfulness that God is all-sovereign over the world. The fact is that there is no event which God controls more than another and, therefore, every event is equally revelational of some aspect of his character. Yet to say this is to say that no event is revelational in itself. For example, God controlled the migrations of the Syrians from Kir and the Philistines from Caphtor as completely as He brought up the Israelites out of Egypt (Amos 9:7). What is it then that makes the tribal migrations of the Israelites pregnant with revelation throughout the Old and New Testaments, while those of their related tribe, the Syrians, reveal only the one fact of God's general providence to which Amos alludes? Similarly, why are the invasions of neighbouring countries by the Assyrians, and the fate that overtook the Assyrians, revelational of God's character (see Isaiah 10), while the inter-tribal warfare of, say, the Maoris is not? It is not as though God's sovereign control is exercised any the more over the one, or any the less over the other, of these different events, but simply that to the one have been added interpretative propositions and statements, but not to the other. It is the proposition which is the revelation, giving meaning to the event. Through the proposition we know of God. The event, by itself, reveals nothing."

From:  The Nature of Revelation

Confess or Die: How Historic Confessions of Faith Can Save the Church

The Anglican Church League has posted audio files online from several past conferences, the most recent being Confess or Die: How Historic Confessions of Faith Can Save the Church. You will especially want to hear the lecture given by the academic dean of Moore Theological College, Mark Thompson, The 39 Articles and Global Anglicanism.


I am firmly committed to the 39 Articles as confession of faith, not simply a constitutional document with no theological implications. As Thompson says in the lecture, Gerald Bray upholds the plain teaching of the Articles as Protestant and Calvinistic.


This lecture by Mark Thompson is a must hear. Thompson points out several problems with adherence to the 39 Articles as a Confession of Faith. There are always those who "falsely" subscribe. True subscription depends on the integrity of the person subscribing. Also, he points out that Tract 90 opened the door for essentially a "postmodern" reading of the Articles, which are clearly Protestant and Calvinistic. It occurred to me that those who promote Anglo-Catholic views open the door for the sort of postmodern reading of Scripture itself which twists the authority of Scripture in such a way that homosexuality becomes a blessed gift of God instead of immorality and an abomination before God. This lecture by Thompson is particularly interesting in light of the book I posted by the late David Broughton Knox, Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of Anglican Faith.


I would like to post also the comments of bishop of a continuing Anglican church in England who e-mailed me with this account of his experience of ordination in the Church of England:

Dear Mr Ray,

Thank you for reproducing Broughton Knox' on the Articles, and for your clear and helpful comments. There are additional ways of avoiding the Articles of Religion. Ever since the earliest days of the Reformation the common way has been, and is, for a candidate for ordination or to an incumbency to swear conformity lightly, shifting ground after as circumstances suit, like the Vicar of Bray'. The second is 'Mental Reservation'. This has increased since it was used by the earliest Anglo Catholics. It was to swear as a Protestant whilst mentally rejecting. This was Newman's advice and example. He held much of the position of Rome, whilst publicly swearing to being a Protestant, and advised his young men to do likewise. When ordaining me the diocesan bishop asked me if I believed the Articles, quickly adding he did not expect me to. I replied I would not have sought ordination if I had not. A third way was quickly adopted by the Anglo-Catholic movement in order to get over the public outcry and indignation and charge of dishonesty caused by 'Mental Reservation'. A man entered a parish as a true Protestant and in some cases as soon as three weeks later, introduced Mass practices, abhorrent to the congregation, thus causing a huge rift and the emptying of the church, as the bishops refused the congregation redress. This marked the end of Church Discipline. The problem was that the State Church finally enforced this by the secular courts. Bishop Ryle took several to court, but shortly the courts washed their hands of this and refused to allow further prosecutions to be brought. The Anglo-Catholic method for justifying themselves was then to say the had believed the Articles all along, but interpreted them. This was other than according to their natural and intended sense. They therefore wrote the 'Tracts for the Times', reinterpreting the Articles in a Roman sense. One was the infamous 'Tract 90', which said that Article 31 calling the central teachings of the masses of Rome 'blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits', was only meaning one bad Mass the writer had seen on some occasion, but did not mean the Mass in general. This method is as old as the Reformation, Gardiner interpreting 'alms and oblations' in the Communion Office. The only way the Articles can be defended and discipline maintained is by the living work of the Holy Spirit, a deep and real work in the deceitful and deceiving human heart.


Yours sincerely,

****

Interestingly, in his lecture Mark Thompson points out that in the 1970s the Church of England changed its oath of subscription to something more vague allowing that the 39 Articles points to the same faith of the creeds and the Scriptures. Thus, one could ascribe to that "faith" but not the plain and literal meaning of the Articles themselves as a Protestant and Calvinistic document.

See also the Confess or Die website.


Charlie

Part XX: Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of the Anglican Faith: The Articles Incomplete

 

". . . A modern confession must strive to express what the Scriptures have to say to the world of today."

Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of the Anglican Faith

A book by David Broughton Knox (Sydney: Anglican Church League, 1967).

The author: Canon David Broughton Knox, B.A., A. L. C. D., B.D., M.Th., D. Phil. (Oxford), was Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia. Ordained in 1941 he served in an English parish and as a chaplain in the Royal Navy before becoming a tutor at Moore College 1947-53. On leave in England he was tutor and lecturer in New Testament at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford 1951-53 and Assistant Curate in the parish of St. Aldale's, Oxford. He became Vice Principal of Moore College in 1954 and Principal in 1959. He was elected Canon of St. Andrew's Cathedral in 1960. His other books include "The Doctrine of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII" (London: James Clarke, 1961).

David Broughton Knox also founded George Whitefield College in South Africa in 1989.

Table of Contents.

Chapter Nine

The Articles Incomplete

In conclusion it may be said that there is room for a verbal revision of the Articles to remove some of the obscurities of the language in order to make clear their original meaning. But this sort of merely verbal revision of the Articles would absorb a lot of time and talent which is not worth spending for the small gain in clarity here and there. It is better to allow them to stand as they are, in their Elizabethan English.

Because the Articles were written four hundred years ago it is natural that there are some matters touched on which are less important in our current situation than they were in the sixteenth century. This is no reason for dropping these statements, since they are in themselves correct. Similarly, there are matters which have come to the fore during the last four hundred years and which seem important to the modern Church, but which the Articles omit to treat. In this sense the Articles are incomplete, and there may well be room for a supplementary confession. Both Dean Matthews and Professor Lampe stress the point that the Articles do not deal with some topics of current importance. This in itself is no argument for dropping the Articles, but it does suggest that it might be advisable for the modern Church to put out a supplementary confession which incorporates the Articles, in the same way as the Articles have incorporated the earlier Creeds, but which goes on speak on topics on which the Articles are silent. But it is a matter of fundamental importance that any such statement by the modern Church should follow the same principles of construction as the Creeds and the Articles themselves. That is to say, a modern confession must strive to express what the Scriptures have to say to the world of today.

The historical position of the Church of England is that the Scriptures are sufficient, and that the principles they enunciate are adequate for all human situations. It may be that we need to incorporate those principles in further Articles or other form of confession which speaks to our modern situation. In this way the Church of England would become once more a confessing Church, confessing the faith in the presence of today's form of unbelief and misbelief. But if our denomination were to decide to supplement in this way the Creeds and Articles already agreed upon, it is essential that it should proceed by the method of basing such a confession quite firmly on the historical Christian doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture, so as to ensure that the declaration prefixed to the Articles might continue to be 'that the Articles of the Church of England . . . do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's Word'.

[This completes the book.]

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Part XIX: Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of Anglican Faith: Denominational Association

"Thus, on doubtful or less important doctrines the Articles are rightly silent. But ambiguity which aims at the same liberty which silence provides is a false and unworthy method for association, and there is no evidence that the Articles proceed by such a method."

"Members of a Christian association which has a doctrinal basis, as has the Church of England, should be expected to hold that basis themselves, especially if they receive remuneration from their membership."

Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of the Anglican Faith

A book by David Broughton Knox (Sydney: Anglican Church League, 1967).

The author: Canon David Broughton Knox, B.A., A. L. C. D., B.D., M.Th., D. Phil. (Oxford), was Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia. Ordained in 1941 he served in an English parish and as a chaplain in the Royal Navy before becoming a tutor at Moore College 1947-53. On leave in England he was tutor and lecturer in New Testament at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford 1951-53 and Assistant Curate in the parish of St. Aldale's, Oxford. He became Vice Principal of Moore College in 1954 and Principal in 1959. He was elected Canon of St. Andrew's Cathedral in 1960. His other books include "The Doctrine of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII" (London: James Clarke, 1961).

David Broughton Knox also founded George Whitefield College in South Africa in 1989.

Table of Contents.

Chapter Nine

Denominational Association

In such a visible church, where there is believing fellowship in prayer and God's Word, and where as a consequence the Holy Spirit is present according to Christ's promise, there is plainly less need of a binding doctrinal statement as a basis of association. God's Word mutually ministered and accepted is sufficient. But in the course of centuries churches have become linked in exclusive groupings, as, for example, as has been mentioned, the Novation, Catholic and Donatist churches in the ancient world, and in our own time the various Catholic and Protestant denominations. These groups are usually called Churches, though in fact they have no biblical prototypes. They differ from churches in that they never assemble, nor form a congregation in which the pure Word of God can be preached so as to do its work of informing and correcting the mind and the conscience. Now if such an association in groups is to be helpful to the churches concerned, it is necessary that there should be a clear doctrinal basis for the association, and this is especially needed when, as in most denominational groups, the central organization of the denomination has taken over some of the duties of the congregation, in particular the duty of ensuring that the pure Word of God is preached within it, by the selecting and disciplining of the ministers. More frequently than not, the denomination has a large say in the appointment of the minister of the church, and in the discipline of church members, including the minister. The denomination also very often regulates the worship of the church. In this way the denomination has taken over the duty of ensuring that the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered in the way that Christ ordained, on which, according to Article 19, the very existence of the visible church depends. It is therefore a matter of absolute necessity that the denominational association should have a doctrinal basis.

The need for a clear and full doctrinal basis for denominational association is enhanced by the financial sanctions which the denomination comes to possess over the church or the congregation. The denomination attracts to itself gifts and legacies in trust, which its central organization and office-bearers administer. Grants in aid of ministers' salaries or superannuation, or the awarding of theological bursaries, are examples. Moreover, in some denominations the property which the Church finds convenient to use, such as the church building where it meets, or the house for its minister, is owned or controlled by the denomination. This arrangement is often convenient and helpful, but it puts the possibility of powerful financial sanctions into the hands of those in charge of the central organization. It is a 'this-worldly' type of sanction and has nothing at all in common with the spiritual sanctions or discipline which alone should be exercised in the congregation, namely, the Word of God. for God's Word has the power when it is faithfully ministered to convict a regenerate conscience, and to move the will of the child of God (II Corinthians 7:8-11).

To minimize the possibility of the central organization tyrannizing over ministers of the Gospel in the church, it is not only necessary to have carefully articulated church law (i.e., denominational rules) which preserve the exercise of spiritual principles to the minister and the congregation, and to keep these rules; it is also necessary to have a carefully articulated theological statement which controls all the lawmaking of the denomination's legislative body, and to which assent is required from the ministers which the denomination sends to the churches.

If the denominational association is to be stable, and to serve the purposes for which it was brought into being, it is essential to have a doctrinal basis for the association. Though this theological statement should at every point be based on Scripture, Scripture itself was not written as a document for a basis of association of churches and it is not suitable for this purpose. Yet a doctrinal basis of association is necessary especially when the association takes a form in which the churches hand over to the central organization of the association so many vital matters which concern their own continuance as truly Christian churches. In these circumstances it goes without saying that any assent given to a doctrinal basis of association must be given ex animo,¹ and that any required statement of belief that the basis is agreeable to the Word of God must be meant unequivocally. On the other hand, proper liberty for Christian thought should be preserved within the terms of association. Thus, on doubtful or less important doctrines the Articles are rightly silent. But ambiguity which aims at the same liberty which silence provides is a false and unworthy method for association, and there is no evidence that the Articles proceed by such a method.

Members of a Christian association which has a doctrinal basis, as has the Church of England, should be expected to hold that basis themselves, especially if they receive remuneration from their membership. Occasionally clergy leave the Church of England for doctrinal reasons and this is straightforward action. According to the rules of the association mutually agreed upon (e.g., Canon 5 of 1604), roundly to denounce the doctrinal basis as full of erroneous doctrines (as some modern churchmen have done) is automatically to exclude oneself from membership of the association (and so disqualify oneself for holding preferment within it). This also is straightforward and honest. In negotiations for denominational amalgamation the Articles can play a useful part. A question that should asked and answered early in the negotiations is how the negotiating churches stand with regard to the Articles. Not all the Articles are of equal importance for a basis of association. This has been recognized from the beginning. For example, the Act of 1571 which required the clergy to assent to the Articles restricted the requirement to those Articles 'which only concern the true Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments'^iv; and by the Act of Toleration of 1689 dissenting ministers were required to subscribe only the doctrinal Articles and not those which treated of church polity, namely Articles 34, 35, 36 and the opening clause of Article 20.^v But some of the Articles are crucial for any denominational association, and it would be a more straightforward and satisfactory method for the negotiating parties to state how they stood with regard to these than to draw up a new doctrinal statement.

Next Section

1From the heart: sincerely.

ivHardwick: A History of the Articles of Religion (1851), pp. 217f.

vGee and Hardy: Documents Illustrative of English Church, p. 638.

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Part XVIII: Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of Anglican Faith: Are the Articles Necessary?

"A religion of revelation which is given in the events and words of history must be dogmatic in character. But doctrine that is founded on nothing but enthusiasm, that is to say, on current opinions whether of the individual or of a group, or on opinions sufficiently long held to be called tradition, is unstable and gives promise of no permanence in the future."

Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of the Anglican Faith

A book by David Broughton Knox (Sydney: Anglican Church League, 1967).

The author: Canon David Broughton Knox, B.A., A. L. C. D., B.D., M.Th., D. Phil. (Oxford), was Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia. Ordained in 1941 he served in an English parish and as a chaplain in the Royal Navy before becoming a tutor at Moore College 1947-53. On leave in England he was tutor and lecturer in New Testament at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford 1951-53 and Assistant Curate in the parish of St. Aldale's, Oxford. He became Vice Principal of Moore College in 1954 and Principal in 1959. He was elected Canon of St. Andrew's Cathedral in 1960. His other books include "The Doctrine of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII" (London: James Clarke, 1961).

David Broughton Knox also founded George Whitefield College in South Africa in 1989.

Table of Contents.

Chapter Nine

Are the Articles Necessary?

But Professor Lampe has raised another question which is prior to the question of revision, or even of the maintenance of the status quo, and that is whether the Church of England needs Articles at all. Are they really necessary? Should they be dropped as a doctrinal statement and the Church remain content merely with the Creeds? This is what Professor Lampe advocates. He believes that the Articles should be retained as an important historical document of the Church of England, witnessing to its beliefs at the time that it separated itself from the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century, but that the Church should now proceed without requiring any assent either to them or to any other Articles which might take their place. He writes: "Our best course would be to dispense with Articles, retaining the thirty-nine but explicitly recognizing them to be an important document of our church which no longer serves its original function and to which no form of subscription should now be required."ⁱⁱⁱ

The cancelling of the requirements for assent to the dogmatic statements of the Articles would be in keeping with the present temper of protestantism which since the rise of pietism (as exampled by the Quakers) has seen the progressive eroding of the importance of dogma in Christianity. Luther saw the danger when he wrote in the Smalcald Articles (III:8): "Enthusiasm" (that is, piety that does not stick to the Word of God) "clings to Adam and his descendants, and it is the strength, source and power of all heresies including those of the papacy and of Mohommet." Undogmatic Christianity has very largely replaced the Christian faith of the Reformation amongst Protestants. This attitude can give no value to the requirement of assent to dogmatic statements, but sees this only as a burden, so that even if the assent is still given in accordance with inherited requirements, it is not treated with seriousness. There is, however, no future for undogmatic Christianity -- that is, for a Christianity that follows wherever the thoughts of its current theological leaders may lead -- because Christianity is essentially, and always has been historically, a dogmatic religion. When Jesus asked his disciples, "Whom say ye that I am?"and asked His adversaries, "What think ye of Christ, whose son is he?" He incorporated dogma as integral part of the Christian faith. A religion of revelation which is given in the events and words of history must be dogmatic in character. But doctrine that is founded on nothing but enthusiasm, that is to say, on current opinions whether of the individual or of a group, or on opinions sufficiently long held to be called tradition, is unstable and gives promise of no permanence in the future. Historical Christianity is thoroughly dogmatic, and has an unchanging basis for its doctrines -- the inspired teaching of the Scriptures -- though it is always open to an improved understanding of what this unchanging basis teaches.

The Christian faith must always adhere closely to the Word of God, which means that it will be characterized by dogma. But this does not in itself answer the question whether the Church needs Articles apart from the Word of God in Holy Scripture to incorporate that dogma. At first sight it might seem that it does not. If the visible church is defined as "a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered", what more is needed than this word of God preached within the context of the faithful congregation? The answer is that nothing more is needed; but this does not mean that the Church of England can do without Articles or the requirement of assent to them from its office bearers. The solution to the paradox is the distinction between the church and the denomination which also goes by the name of church, and unless this distinction is clearly kept much confusion in many areas of theology and ecumenical endeavor results. The visible church is rightly defined by the nineteenth Article as "a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance". Such a visible church does not necessarily need Articles, nor assent to Articles, in order to preserve the true Christian faith within its fellowship, so long as the congregation retains and exercises its authority and duties as a congregation. The Christian congregation's duty is to exhort one another as to the mind and will of God, and to admonish one another whenever any deviation from the revealed mind of God shows itself.

This exhortation and admonition by members of the congregation one of another includes, of course, exhortation and admonition of those ministers whom the Spirit of God has placed in the congregation. Only those who worship together and know one another in daily life, can truly exercise pastoral care over one another. By mutual exhortation and "submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God" (Ephesians 5:21) the preaching of the Word of God is kept within the doctrines of the Word of God. For by exhortation and admonition from the hearer the preacher prompted by his Spirit-led mind and conscience responds to the exhortation and so keeps within the revealed Word of God, just as the preacher, by the exercise of his gift, maintains and builds up the spiritual understanding and Christian character of the congregation. Thus the pastor of the pastors is the congregation itself. Moreover, if any member of the congregation (whether pastor or not) is not subject to admonition based on the Word of God (for only 'godly admonition' binds the Christian's conscience) then the New Testament makes clear that it is every Christian's duty to withdraw his fellowship from such a brother who walks disorderly.

Next Section

iii The Articles of the Church of England, p. 111.

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Part XVII: Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of Anglican Faith: The Future of the Articles

"Christian doctrine does not take its authority from the fact that it is held by a majority of those who profess Christianity, nor by a majority of those who have obtained office or eminence in the Church. History gives many examples of when a minority opinion was plainly the correct one. It may be that the present time is a further example. At all events, it is not the task of Church confessions to reflect majority opinions ('the general mind of the Church') but to reflect the truth, which in a religion of revelation as is Christianity is found by a return to the source of revealed truth, God's Word."

Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of the Anglican Faith

A book by David Broughton Knox (Sydney: Anglican Church League, 1967).

The author: Canon David Broughton Knox, B.A., A. L. C. D., B.D., M.Th., D. Phil. (Oxford), was Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia. Ordained in 1941 he served in an English parish and as a chaplain in the Royal Navy before becoming a tutor at Moore College 1947-53. On leave in England he was tutor and lecturer in New Testament at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford 1951-53 and Assistant Curate in the parish of St. Aldale's, Oxford. He became Vice Principal of Moore College in 1954 and Principal in 1959. He was elected Canon of St. Andrew's Cathedral in 1960. His other books include "The Doctrine of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII" (London: James Clarke, 1961).

David Broughton Knox also founded George Whitefield College in South Africa in 1989.

Table of Contents.

Chapter Nine

The Future of the Articles

The Thirty-Nine Articles are a problem to many churchmen because they find they do not hold some of the doctrines taught in them. Three solutions have been suggested: first, that the declaration of assent should be glossed by an interpretative declaration accompanying it; or secondly, that the Articles should be revised; or thirdly, that clerical subscription to the Articles should no longer be required. The first suggestion was acted on, for example, by Canon H. W. Montefiore at his institution to the Vicarage of St. Mary the Great, Cambridge. After making the statutory declaration "I assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and to the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons; I believe the doctrine of the Church of England as therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God . . .'' Canon Montefiore added, ''I make the following supplementary declaration . . . In asserting my belief in the Articles, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, I take account of the period in which they were written, and I accept them as agreeable to the Word of God as this was then understood and expressed.'' But this does not achieve much; for the last phrase "agreeable to the Word of God as this was then understood and expressed" simply means "agreeable to their compilers' expression of their understanding of the Word of God''. This is merely tautologous; and it is quite different in meaning from the statement of the statutory declaration: "I believe the doctrine of the Church of England . . . therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God." The latter has no real relationship in meaning to the former, and so the one does not modify the other. The plain meaning of the declaration of assent is not susceptible to being glossed into merely 'general' sense as is frequently attempted, or to being modified by a supplementary declaration.

Dr. Matthews advocated that the Church of England should bring out a new set of articles as a substitute for those drawn up in the sixteenth century. He gave two reasons. One is that the Articles as they stand are offensive to the religious opinions of those outside of the Christian Church. He was of the opinion that many leading thinkers in the past who rejected Christianity in England did so because they found the teaching of the Articles "repugnant to their reason and conscience . . .", and adds that unless new Articles are drawn up

I see little hope for the evangelization of England . . . I am convinced that the formulation of new Articles of religion, which will express our real belief and be intelligible to those whom we hope to convert, is an absolutely necessary preliminary to any hopeful effort to evangelize our people.ⁱ

This is a very important matter to consider, but it ought to be recognized that the historical Christian faith has always been a ground of offence to many well disposed and thoughtful persons. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius is an outstanding example, and St. Paul's experience of preaching the Gospel led him to say that it appeared to be foolishness to the Greeks and an offence to Jewish thinkers.

The real question to face in discussing a revision of the Articles is 'Do they truly and clearly reflect God's revealed Word?' The compilers of the Articles would themselves have wished their product to be constantly subjected to this test. The other tests are ultimately irrelevant.

Dr. Matthews's other reason for advocating a new set of Articles was that the Thirty-Nine Articles do not represent the present views of members of the Church of England. It is, of course, highly desirable that the Articles should reflect the common mind of the Church, but that they should be altered to reflect that mind does not follow, for it may be that the mind of the Church should be altered to reflect the teaching of the Articles; for both the Articles and the mind of the Church should reflect the mind of God in those matters which have been revealed to us. If the mind of the Church does not do this, the matter may be set right by prayer and exhortation and faithful exposition of the revelation. If, however, it is the Articles which do not reflect God's revealed mind, then they ought to be revised. Critics of the Articles have not in recent years sufficiently examined them along this line, though in the past when subjected to this test they have been vindicated.

Professor Lampe repeats this objection of Dr. Matthews. The original purpose of the Thirty-Nine Articles in Professor Lampe's opinion is that they should "represent the general mind of the Church on the religious and moral issues."ⁱⁱ But this is not an accurate statement of the intention of the compilers of the Articles. These were not drawn up to reflect the common mind of the Church of their day in the way, for example, that the Archbishop's Commission on Doctrine reflected the mind (if not the common mind) of the Church of the twenties, but rather that they should be a means of unifying the mind of the Church by guiding and informing it. As their title page puts it, they are "for the Establishing of Consent touching True Religion". The Articles, then, are to be normative, not merely descriptive; they are to establish and not merely reflect the mind of the Church, and for this they must take their character not from the Church and its mind but from the Word of God.

Christian doctrine does not take its authority from the fact that it is held by a majority of those who profess Christianity, nor by a majority of those who have obtained office or eminence in the Church. History gives many examples of when a minority opinion was plainly the correct one. It may be that the present time is a further example. At all events, it is not the task of Church confessions to reflect majority opinions ('the general mind of the Church') but to reflect the truth, which in a religion of revelation as is Christianity is found by a return to the source of revealed truth, God's Word.
Next Section

iThe Thirty-Nine Articles, (London, 1961), pp. 38f.

iiThe Articles of the Church of England, pp. 104, 107.

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Part XVI: Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of Anglican Faith: The Nature of Revelation, Part 2

"Denial of 'propositional revelation' makes Christian faith logically impossible in its fullest and deepest expression of trust, for it is impossible to trust absolutely unless we have a sure Word of God. Such denial restricts Christianity to a religion of works, that is, to following Jesus Christ as best we can."

"The Articles . . . accept the biblical interpretation of events recorded in Scripture as true revelation. If this is the correct view of revelation, it follows that the Articles should only be discarded or corrected if their compilers misunderstood (that is, wrongly exegeted) the biblical interpretation, and not on the ground that the biblical interpretation on which the Articles are based should itself be discarded or corrected in favour of a new interpretation of the events."

Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of the Anglican Faith

A book by David Broughton Knox (Sydney: Anglican Church League, 1967).

The author: Canon David Broughton Knox, B.A., A. L. C. D., B.D., M.Th., D. Phil. (Oxford), was Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia. Ordained in 1941 he served in an English parish and as a chaplain in the Royal Navy before becoming a tutor at Moore College 1947-53. On leave in England he was tutor and lecturer in New Testament at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford 1951-53 and Assistant Curate in the parish of St. Aldale's, Oxford. He became Vice Principal of Moore College in 1954 and Principal in 1959. He was elected Canon of St. Andrew's Cathedral in 1960. His other books include "The Doctrine of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII" (London: James Clarke, 1961).

David Broughton Knox also founded George Whitefield College in South Africa in 1989.

Table of Contents.

Chapter Eight

The Nature of Revelation

[Continued from part 1].

In the last resort, the concept that God's revelation is in deeds can only be maintained by a forgetfulness that God is all-sovereign over the world. The fact is that there is no event which God controls more than another and, therefore, every event is equally revelational of some aspect of his character. Yet to say this is to say that no event is revelational in itself. For example, God controlled the migrations of the Syrians from Kir and the Philistines from Caphtor as completely as He brought up the Israelites out of Egypt (Amos 9:7). What is it then that makes the tribal migrations of the Israelites pregnant with revelation throughout the Old and New Testaments, while those of their related tribe, the Syrians, reveal only the one fact of God's general providence to which Amos alludes? Similarly, why are the invasions of neighbouring countries by the Assyrians, and the fate that overtook the Assyrians, revelational of God's character (see Isaiah 10), while the inter-tribal warfare of, say, the Maoris is not? It is not as though God's sovereign control is exercised any the more over the one, or any the less over the other, of these different events, but simply that to the one have been added interpretative propositions and statements, but not to the other. It is the proposition which is the revelation, giving meaning to the event. Through the proposition we know of God. The event, by itself, reveals nothing.

Modern theology largely ignores the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, and the important consequences of this are seen in modern theories of revelation which place revelation in events. But God guides and controls every event. The new element which brings about revelation is the infallible guidance of the prophet's mind so that he interprets the event aright. Thus it is the interpretation which is revelation to us, and this interpretation is in the form of inerrant propositions. The biblical doctrine is that propositions form in the mind of the inspired prophet through the work of the Holy Spirit who also secures their embodiment in the written Scripture. The activity of God in controlling events is continuous and unchanging (though the purposes of His control will vary); but the gift to man of interpreting the event aright and writing down that interpretation accurately is sporadic. In this gift of revelation the working of God is in accordance with and through the nature which He himself created. It will therefore be natural, not artificial or mechanical, as we observe and examine it.

For an event to be revelational it must be interpreted by God Himself. This, and not merely some human reflection on occurrence, is the real differentiating factor. God interprets through His Word, given in the form of propositions or statements about that event. Thus for the prophets the word of the Lord was not the event, but the interpretation of the event which had been given them by the Spirit. The same is true of that supreme event, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. View detachedly, Jesus had the stature, mien, voice and gait of a Galilean. However, the disciples came to hold a much more significant judgment about Him, expressed in the proposition 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'. They formed this judgment by reflecting (that is, by forming mental propositions) about His acts, and character, and teaching. It is this formed judgment which Jesus said was God's revelation. And it did not come to the disciples of themselves, for it was revealed not by flesh and blood but by the heavenly Father (Matthew 16:17). It is the apprehended, interpretative proposition about Christ that is the revelation, and not the observed action or event by itself.

Temple states, on the contrary: 'the faith in which His early followers believed that they had found salvation did not consist in the acceptance of propositions concerning Him, nor even in the acceptance of what He taught in words concerning God and man, though this was certainly included: but in personal trust in His personal presence, love and power'.^vii This statement contains an inner contradiction. Faith is based on concepts apprehended by the mind; concepts are propositional in character. Certainly Christian faith (and in particular the disciples' faith) was not exercised towards propositions about material things, but towards concepts of a person, His power, and His promises. Nevertheless the disciples' trust in Christ's 'presence, love and power' was ultimately based on the acceptance of propositions about these things, which had been formulated in their minds. The case is no different, though more obvious, with regard to those who 'not having seen, yet have believed', for their knowledge of Christ's presence, love and power (from which their personal trust in Him springs) is conveyed to their minds by propositions. Trust in Christ as a religious experience is a consequence of a revelation given and received ('He who comes to God must believe that he is'). This trust and religious experience is to be distinguished from revelation. Such experience of God is, of course, more than propositional; but the revelation on which it is based, and by which it must be judged, is essentially propositional. A confusion arises unless the meanings of the word 'knowledge' are clearly distinguished from revelation. Such experience of God is, of course, more than propositional; but the revelation on which it is based, and by which it must be judged, is essentially propositional. A confusion arises unless the meanings of the word 'knowledge' are clearly distinguished. Knowledge of God in the sense of revelation of Him is entirely intellectual; it is apprehended by the mind alone. It is therefore propostional. But knowledge of God in the sense of fellowship with Him goes beyond intellectual apprehension, and is experienced through all the avenues of our being. In this latter sense knowledge of God is not exclusively, or perhaps not even essentially, propositional; but this knowledge of God is not revelational, though it illuminates revelation and suffuses revelation. Yet such religious experience must be based on revelation, if it is to be regarded as true, and not spurious, knowledge of God. Revelation is the test and criterion of such religious experience, as to whether it it is knowledge of God and the revelation which forms this test is the words of the Scripture and the propositions which these words form.

Denial of 'propositional revelation' makes Christian faith logically impossible in its fullest and deepest expression of trust, for it is impossible to trust absolutely unless we have a sure Word of God. Such denial restricts Christianity to a religion of works, that is, to following Jesus Christ as best we can. Moreover, denial of propositional revelation makes the lordship of Christ impossible of actual realization, for it is only by the sceptre of His Word that he can exercise that absolute lordship over men's consciences and wills which is His by right. For it is wrong to give absolute obedience to an uncertain command or to place absolute trust on an uncertain promise. Indeed, obedience to God as an element in the Christian life implies a command from God to obey. If there is no such revealed command (which is apprehended as a proposition) obedience gives place to prudence, that is, to the doing of what seems right in one's own eyes.

Denial of propositional revelation goes hand in hand with a denial of inerrant revelation. It is commonplace nowadays to assume that the words of the Bible, being human words, must inevitably (either through natural human inadequacy or the presence of sin) distort God's revelation. But the assumption ignores the power of God expressed in the divine rebuke, 'Who hath made man's mouth?' (Exodus 4:11). To assert that its Creator (who saw all from the beginning) cannot fulfill His purposes which He determined on from eternity, namely, to reveal Himself infallibly through human speech, betrays the greatest impiety. [Charlie's note: See Isaiah 46:10].

It is sometimes further asserted that, from the nature of truth, it is impossible that there should be such a thing as an inerrant revelation. A simple illustration will show the falsity of this. If when the clock strikes four, I state 'The clock has struck four', I have made a propositional statement which is inerrant, if words mean anything; and this inerrancy remains characteristic of the proposition, even if (a) my hearer misheard me through deafness, (b) he failed to apprehend my meaning through faulty knowledge of English, or (c) there was no one present to hear me. If it is possible for an ordinary man to make an inerrant proposition which is a revelational fact for those who have ears to hear, it is again the height of impiety to say that God cannot do so if He will; and not make one such inerrant statement only, but to make a whole series of them within the pages of the Bible, and to exclude from among them any erroneous propositions, if He will. That God has in fact done so should be believed by all who give credence to the teaching and attitude of Christ and of His apostles (and, indeed, to the whole of Scripture itself) with reference to the character of Holy Scripture.

The very existence of the Christian religion depends on the infallibility of Scripture, for unless we have a sure word from God it is not logically possible to be Christians, for the Christian religion consists in giving God absolute faith, leading to absolute obedience. Now it would be wrong to ask for or to give this absolute faith and absolute obedience if we did not have an absolutely trustworthy Word from God, for it is wrong to put absolute trust in someone whom we are not quite sure about. Faith is not intended to fill up the gaps where something comes short of full reliability. Blind faith of this sort is not Christian faith, which is the quiet restful trust on God as He has revealed Himself in His Word.

There is another reason why the infallibility of the Bible is required if we are to be Christians in the way that God's people in the past have been. For if the Bible were not absolutely reliable as God's Word we would be in a worse relation to God than those people of the Old Testament times who heard God speaking to them directly at Mount Sinai, or to whom God sent His prophets saying, 'Thus saith the Lord.' The people of God in the Old Testament had in this way a direct word of God which they could trust and obey, giving to this word absolute faith and absolute obedience. Similarly the apostles, when they realized that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, knew that what He had said to them was God's Word absolutely. So they too could put their absolute trust in Him and obey Him implicitly, with unwavering hope in the certainty of the fulfillment of His promises.

Now unless we in our time have an equally sure Word from God in Holy Scripture we would not be able to exercise a religion of absolute faith and absolute obedience, and thus we would not be in a position to be Christians in the way that the apostles were, or those of the Old Testament times.

For God to have given us in the Scriptures His infallible Word means that He has inspired the words themselves. If He had merely controlled the events or inspired the thoughts but left it at that, we would never be in a position to recover God's Word, because the events and thoughts would have passed into history, beyond the reach of our recovery. But the Scriptures testify that God has not left us in this position of uncertainty about His Word, but that His Spirit has directed the very words that were written so that they can be said to be His words, the oracles of God. Thus following the example of Christ and the apostles we may put our complete reliance in the truth of the Bible, accepting what it teaches us about God and how it directs us to live.

The Articles are based on this principle, for they accept the biblical interpretation of events recorded in Scripture as true revelation. If this is the correct view of revelation, it follows that the Articles should only be discarded or corrected if their compilers misunderstood (that is, wrongly exegeted) the biblical interpretation, and not on the ground that the biblical interpretation on which the Articles are based should itself be discarded or corrected in favour of a new interpretation of the events.
Next Chapter

viiNature, Man and God, (London, 1934), p. 311.

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Part XV: Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of Anglican Faith: The Nature of Revelation, Part 1

"If revelation is in the event rather than in the interpretation, revelation becomes like a nose of wax to be reshaped according to every man's whim. In fact, if revelation is only in event, then there is no revelation in the sense of God-given knowledge of God."

Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of the Anglican Faith

A book by David Broughton Knox (Sydney: Anglican Church League, 1967).

The author: Canon David Broughton Knox, B.A., A. L. C. D., B.D., M.Th., D. Phil. (Oxford), was Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia. Ordained in 1941 he served in an English parish and as a chaplain in the Royal Navy before becoming a tutor at Moore College 1947-53. On leave in England he was tutor and lecturer in New Testament at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford 1951-53 and Assistant Curate in the parish of St. Aldale's, Oxford. He became Vice Principal of Moore College in 1954 and Principal in 1959. He was elected Canon of St. Andrew's Cathedral in 1960. His other books include "The Doctrine of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII" (London: James Clarke, 1961).

David Broughton Knox also founded George Whitefield College in South Africa in 1989.

Table of Contents.

Chapter Eight

The Nature of Revelation

The Thirty-Nine Articles accept as axiomatic a view of the character of revelation which is now widely rejected as inadequate. In assessing the place of the Articles in the modern church it is essential to re-examine the presupposition about revelation on which the Articles are based.

Professor Lampe has pointed out that the Articles rest upon the presupposition that revelation comes to us in our day and generation in the form of propositions or statements, so that if these statements are properly interpreted to bring out their true meaning, 'the truth of that doctrine is decisively established and is not open to question. The appeal to the text of Scripture may be expected to provide a final solution to controversial questions . . .' It is on this score that Professor Lampe presses his criticism of the Articles. He writes: 'To many of us the matter is not so easily resolved. God's revelation is disclosed in certain historical events, as these have been witnessed, evaluated and subsequently recorded, by men gifted with insight to perceive their signficance, but, since they were limited and fallible men, not necessarily able to discern their whole meaning and implications or to express this perfectly, and, since their thought is inevitably conditioned by the circumstances of their time, not necessarily able to transmit their understanding of the revelationary events in a form which will be meaningful to later generations.'ⁱⁱ Here is the crux. This understanding of revelation (inspiration as a concept has apparently gone by the board) means that God's revelation is confined within the historical events, so that no statements about God, even though made by the biblical writers themselves, are of final authority for our own thinking about God. Christian doctrines about God, Christ, salvation 'are subject to reinterpretation from age to age and are to be modified as science changes our views'.ⁱⁱⁱ It follows that the documents -- whether the Creeds or the Articles -- which state these doctrines, no matter how closely they may reflect the statements of Scripture, are involved in the same relativism.

This question of the nature of revelation, and consequently the character of Scripture, is crucial in evaluating the Articles; for, as Professor H. E. W. Turner has written, 'They depend closely upon the theory of propositional revelation.'^iv If the truth of the Articles is to be established and the propriety of requiring assent to them to be vindicated, the nature of revelation must be carefully investigated and its propositional character verified.

For some time now it has become common for theologians to assert that revelation is not given to us by God in the form of truths couched in words, that is, in statements or propositions, but in acts and events. Thus, Dr. Leonard Hodgson, former Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford and Canon of Christ Church, writes: 'The "Word of God" is not a proposition or a series of propositions prescribing what we are to believe or think. It is a series of divine acts, when they are reflected on by the mind as it seeks to grasp their significance. The revelation of God of God is given in deeds; the doctrines of the faith are formulated by reflection on the significance of those deeds.' Hodgson denies that there exists for us 'revealed doctrine, presented by God, ready-made in propositional form'.^v

This view may be traced back to F. D. Maurice, implicit in whose writings is the view that the Bible is not so much the revelation of God as the record of that revelation, and that God revealed Himself not in words but through events. Archbishop William Temple held the same view. He wrote: "There is no such thing as revealed truth. There are truths of revelation, that is to say, propositions which express the result of correct thinking concerning revelation; but they are not themselves directly revealed.'^vi

The denial of 'propositional revelation', that is, that God reveals Himself to men through meaningful statements and concepts expressed in words, though widespread nowadays, runs counter to the biblical view of revelation. The view of the Bible is that revelation is essentially propositional. This may be established in two ways. First, by considering how the Bible describes revelation, and secondly, by examining biblical revelation to see what in fact its nature is.

On the first point, it should be noted that the Bible regards words spoken, and, in particular, written, as revelational. For example, St. Paul describes the Old Testament as the 'oracles of God' (Romans 3:2). It is the written words of the Old Testament to which he referred to as 'oracles'. The same term is employed by St. Stephen in Acts 7:38, where the law at Sinai is described as 'living oracles'; and the phrase 'oracles of God' is used in Hebrews 5:12 and in I Peter 4:11. An oracle is a revelational utterance, or, in other words, a revealed truth. Its revelational character lies entirely in the words. The words may be descriptive of an event, or of a concept; but in both cases the words form propositions, and it is the proposition which has God for its author. This is the meaning of the phrase 'oracle of God'.

The apostolic writers regarded the Old Testament as a series of oracles, of which God is the author, though different prophets and law-givers were the penmen. The concept would be commonplace to the Greek readers of the New Testament. (We need not, of course, follow the pagan Greeks in their unduly mechanistic concept of the methods of inspiration). Nevertheless, the phrase 'oracles of God' can imply nothing else than that the end-product, that is, the words uttered and written down, are God's words, and so properly called 'His oracles'. The biblical doctrine of revelation is concerned with the end-product --the words written down. Words written meaningfully are, of course, propositions. Yet it is such written words which the Bible avers to be 'God-breathed' (II Timothy 3:16). It is the written Word, the Scripture, which Christ declared cannot be broken (John 10:35). The Gospel, which St. Paul says is God's power to save, is adumbrated in 'holy Scriptures' (Romans 1:2). Saving wisdom comes through knowledge of these 'holy Scriptures' (II Timothy 3:15).

In all personal relationships, propositional revelation is the basis. It is not the sum total experience which the revelation makes possible, but in so far as communication takes place between person and person it takes place through propositions, that is to say, in concepts conveyed to the mind of the recipient.

An examination of the nature of revelation in Scripture confirms that this revelation very frequently is plainly in the form of propositions. For example, the opening verse of the Bible, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', reveals one of the most fundamental facts in our knowledge of God and ourselves; and in so far as this verse is revelational (and it is profoundly so), it is because it is in the form of a proposition. No one was present when the act of creation took place, to perceive it. The event to which the proposition refers in itself revealed nothing to us. This verse which brings to us the knowledge that God is Creator is a revealed truth, revealed by the use of propositions. The same may be said of all that has been revealed, for example, with regard to the second coming, or about heaven and hell. By the nature of things such revelation must be propositional, for the action of the second coming has not yet taken place, while heavenly things cannot yet be experienced by men. Consequently our knowledge of future events, or of heavenly supersensible realities, must be revealed to us propositionally, that is to say, through meaningful words, if we are to have any knowledge of them whatever. The revelation which God has given us of the second coming, of the judgment day, and of heaven and hell, form a very large and important part of biblical revelation, and are all exclusively propositional. We are enjoined in Scripture to orient our lives by these propositions about God's actions in the future. If they are not reliable, that is, if they are not revealed truths, this would be an improper injunction.

Similarly, the knowledge of God's providence comes to us through propositions. For example, our Lord's invocation of God as 'Lord of heaven and earth' (Matthew 11:25) is a proposition. Yet by this title a profoundly important truth has been revealed to us. God's providence is not deducible by observation of events; though having been given to us through propositional revelation we can see this doctrine reflected in events. In the Bible God is constantly represented as revealing facts about Himself in the propositional form; for example, 'I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.'

In the biblical narrative the event of the bush burning without being consumed was not revelation, but pre-revelation. It evoked from Moses no more than the comment, 'I will turn aside now and see this great sight.' It was the words that he then heard that revealed to him profound truths about the character and purposes of God and which sent him back to Egypt to risk all in God's service (Exodus 3). All the great 'I am' sayings of Christ are propositions. Nor would these truths about Christ have been apprehended by the weak minds of men had they not been given as propositions.

A great deal of the Old Testament revelation was given to the prophets in the form of vision. So characteristic is vision of prophecy that the whole book of Isaiah is described as 'the vision of Isaiah' (Isaiah 1:1; II Chronicles 32:32). In revelation through vision, the event (that is, the having the vision) is not revelational, but it is the content of the vision (that is, the concepts which God makes known through the vision) which is the revelation. These concepts are all apprehended by the seer and passed on to the hearer propositionally; that is to say, through meaningful words forming the concepts which God put into the mind of His servant. One of the most important revelations through vision is Daniel's vision of the Son of Man in Daniel 7. Both the vision itself, and the vital interpretation of it, cannot be described otherwise than as 'propositional revelation'.

Professor Hodgson's statement that the revelation of God is not given in words but in deeds minimizes the fact that, if the deed is to be true revelation, it must be interpreted correctly. Take for example the crucifixion of Jesus. The cross is rightly acknowledged as the supreme revelation of the love and righteousness of God, but in itself the incident was a total miscarriage of justice. The event is revelation of the character of God because of the interpretative context in which the event is set, an interpretation given by the words of Jesus Himself and the Spirit-illumined preaching of the apostles subsequently. If this interpretation is not inspired by God and so reliable, there is no revelation in the event, but each who hears of the event must disentangle his knowledge of it from the interpretation with which it is accompanied, and then must re-interpret the event according to his own wisdom and insight. Of those who knew only of the event, some mocked, some said: 'He saved others, Himself He cannot save.' Even those who sympathized with the victim 'when they beheld the things that were done' could do no more than 'return, smiting their breasts' (Luke 23:48). The unilluminated comment cannot get beyond the observation of Festus, 'One Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive' (Acts 25:19). This is in fact all that the secular historian has ever been able to say of the crucifixion; but it is devoid of gospel or revelation. Even if a hearer of the event happened to light on the proper interpretation, this would not mean the event had become revelational for him, for he would have no assurance that this interpretation was the right one. The most that he would be able to say was that he saw in the event the reflections of the character of God learned from previous revelation. If he had no access to such previous revelation, then there would be no revelation for him in the uninterpreted cross either, but only guessing. Truth about God must come by revelation from above, not by guessing from below. God is sovereign and is able to reveal Himself at any time to anyone. On the other hand, revelation is not continuous, but God has spoken to us by His Son, and this revelation comes to us through the inspired ('God-breathed') Scriptures, in which alone the knowledge of Christ is to be found.

Confining revelation to deeds, and making the Bible merely a (fallible) witness to the deeds and not itself part of the revelation, excludes from revelation some of the most important parts of the Bible. [Charlie's comment: This criticism might also apply to neo-orthodox methods of interpreting Scripture.] For example, Hodgson's view that 'the Word of God is a series of divine acts, to which the Bible bears witness . . . the revelation of God is given in deeds; the doctrines of faith are formulated by reflection on the significance of those deeds', means that the New Testament epistles are excluded from being revelation. A similar consideration applies to such statements of Christ as 'God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth' (John 4:24). To deny that this statement or proposition is revelational is foolish.

A further unfortunate consequence follows from the denial of propositional revelation. If the words of the Bible are made merely witnesses to the revelation of God, the unique position of the authority of the Bible is undermined, and it becomes merely one witness of no inherently greater authority and of no more infallibility a character than the other two witnesses which may be brought in at this point, namely, the witness of the Church and the witness of the human spirit and reason to the acts of God in experience.

The dichotomy between event and the interpretation of the event, with the singling out of the former as the important element, or indeed as the sole element making up the revelation, leads, as might be expected, to the ignoring of the interpretation which commends itself to the reader or the scholar. For example, our Lord's acts and parables may be set in a reconstructed context, giving a different meaning and message for us from that intended by the evangelist. If revelation is in the event rather than in the interpretation, revelation becomes like a nose of wax to be reshaped according to every man's whim. In fact, if revelation is only in event, then there is no revelation in the sense of God-given knowledge of God.

Next Chapter

iiThe Articles of the Church of England, p. 99.

iiiIbid., p. 100.

ivIbid.

vThe Doctrine of the Trinity, (London, 1961), pp. 22 ff.

viNature, Man and God, (London, 1934), p. 317.

The Ninth Sunday after Trinity.

The Collect.

GRANT to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful; that we, who cannot do any thing that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.