Resources

There was certainly doctrinal confusion about God in the 4th and 5th centuries. But mainstream Christians had a major step forward over the doctrine of God as defined at the Council of Nicaea (AD325) with the Son being of the “same” substance as the Father. So the Church fathers said “No” to Arius’ view that Jesus was only God’s finest creature. And then mainstream Christians came to agree at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) saying “No” to Nestorius’ idea that Jesus was “two persons” and to Eutyches’ idea that divinity had taken over Jesus’ humanity. They agreed with the conclusion of Jesus being one person with two natures.

So when Christian believers read the Athanasian Creed (the result, after years of debate and disciplining of heretics) they are conscious that the God it is describing is the God with whom they themselves are in living union and whom they know not just by report but by experience. But why is this stress on the Trinity needed today? Because the world in which we live, and some in the Church of England (and other Christians), desperately need True and Traditional Anglican teaching about God. For everyone believes actually in some God which gives them their world-view. Apart from Christian believers, most people believe in one of the deities (or virtual deities) of the following:

1. monotheism - of various forms; or
2. monism - reality is ultimately nature or ultimately unknowable; or
3. pantheism - God is all and all is God; or
4. dualism - there are two ultimate realities; or,
5. polytheism - there are many Gods or Spirits.

However, modern pluralism has brought religious and moral confusion everywhere, particularly in the West where so many are really 'monists'. For many register 'none' in questionnaires on religious belief (48.6% in the UK).

I quoted the beginning of Mary Eberstadt’s description of the Western World’s problem in the invitation to this conference. Let me give you that quote again and the succeeding paragraph. For, we need to remind ourselves, after a brief focus on the 4th and 5th centuries AD, of what precisely we all are believing in the 22ndcentury. I quoted:

Solzhenitsyn famously defined the principal trait of the twentieth century in four words: “Men have forgotten God.” So far, the twenty-first century might be summarized in six: Men are at war with God. Awakened from agnostic slumber by new forms of temptation, chiefly the sexual revolution, humanity is at war with God over a question that reaches back to the beginning of time: Who, exactly, should have power over creation?

And she goes on:

Christianity and Judaism teach that the answer is “God.” The culture dominant in the West today teaches the opposite. It says that the creation of new life is ours to control - more precisely, that it is woman’s to control. It says that we can dispose of life in the womb for any reason whatsoever, from simple whim to a preference for a boy rather than a girl. It goes further, saying that we can erase life on the basis of rationales that continue to expand. In Belgium, a middle-aged woman was recently euthanized [killed] because she was distraught over the surgeries done and chemicals taken in the vain hope that she could change her sex. She was seduced by the prevailing culture, which says that we can re-invent ourselves in new genders, cosmetically accessorized by surgeries and chemicals.

That is the world of 2022. But back to the time of the 16th-17th centuries’ Reformation when there was unanimity (more or less) on what we’ve discussed so far, the triune nature of the God we worship. A major disagreement was over the authority of Scripture. So not surprisingly there had to be the Church of England’s Articles on Scripture. And they are so essential as much as ever to our true Tradition. Here are parts of Article 6, 7 and 20. Article 6, Of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation. It says:

Holy Scripture 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 an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. [Then it lists the Canonical Books of the Bible plus the books of the Apocrypha which are “read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine”].

And Article 7 is: Of the Old Testament. It says:

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

And last on Scripture we need to mention Article 20, Of the Authority of the Church for among other things it tells you how to exegete the Bible:

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 that is 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 any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

All these Articles are still so important. We must not forget them. And, I may say, having a tradition of Articles (or Pointers) has something for it over against a lengthy all-embracing Confession, like the Westminster Confession. For the danger is that the Confession can become a supreme authority in place of the Bible it is witnessing to. Whereas, the 39 Articles allows the Bible to remain supreme. For the 39 Articles make us:

…comprehend with all the saints [so not just 22nd century saints, and not just the 22nd and 16th and 17th century saints, nor excluding them, but all the saints” down the centuries] what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God (Ephesians 3.18-19).

Also we need to note that true Tradition of the Anglican Church is solidly grounded in the Scriptures and “in such teachings of the Ancient fathers and councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.” So we have to use our minds and our reasoning power in determining whether they are “agreeable” or not. And that gives you the three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. But that mustn’t be taken, as many do, to mean all legs are equal. The legs, as it were, are to be taken in descending order (according to Canon A5) and with Scripture on top. And Scripture has to be interpreted and expounded properly, as we’ve just seen in Article 20 which said:

It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.

However, inspite of all that, is there something that is missing today among those of us who insist on being Biblical? Carl Trueman, the author of the best-seller, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, thinks there is. For he wrote this within his foreword to a new book by Craig Carter, Contemplating God with the Great Tradition. This was published last year and subtitled – Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism. Trueman writes:

Recent years have witnessed an unexpected but most welcome development within the ranks of conservative Protestant theology: the recovery of the classical doctrine of God as expressed in the early church creeds and the great confessions of the magisterial Reformation. For some generations, particularly evangelical Protestant theology has been dominated by biblical scholars who pursue the theological endeavour on the basis of biblical exegesis with little or no engagement with the theological tradition of the church … this is perhaps understandable, given the Protestant commitment to “Scripture alone” as the norming norm of theology … One example of this trend is the redemptive-historical method of interpretation that is now the default in many Reformed and evangelical circles. Building on the important truth that the Bible tells one basic soteriological story culminating in Christ, this approach has done sterling service in saving the Old Testament from both dispensationalism and a reductive moralism. But in focusing on the redemptive storyline, it has also tended to prioritize the narrative economy of God’s actions over the eternal ontology of his being and has thereby collapsed the transcendent into the immanent. It is not that the redemptive-historical approach is incorrect; rather, it is that it does not say enough and tends to ignore questions of metaphysics and ontology that (ironically) the Bible’s own narrative itself raises.This lack is often reflected in the default piety that always worships God for what he has done and rarely or never worships him for who he is. Of course, the former is vital—the Psalms are replete with praise for God’s acts of creation, providence, and salvation. But they also contain references to his intrinsic holiness and glory. Our piety—and therefore the theology on which our piety rests and that motivates it—must also give due weight to God’s glorious, holy, praiseworthy being. It was, after all, exposure to God in his thrice holiness in the temple and not any specific act of God that drove an awestruck Isaiah to the ground in worship.

So Trueman is saying that we must not give up God’s big picture in saving the world and the assurance that brings. Of course not. It is that we also need to focus on God’s holiness and glory and particularly on the person as well as the work of Christ on the Cross, but also as risen King on the throne as Lord of heaven and as the appointed Judge of the world. Of course we must preach and teach Jesus is now working by his Holy Spirit saving the world. But we must not forget that Jesus is the Son of the Father and the Second Person of the Trinity and so pre-existent the incarnation.

What is at stake is the question of the biblical and true traditional Anglican World View versus the current 22nd century World View which is hostile to the Christian faith. And Trueman is worried, when he sees too many biblical people gradually making concessions. When he says:

…in focusing on the redemptive storyline, it has also tended to prioritize the narrative economy of God’s actions over the eternal ontology of his being and has thereby collapsed the transcendent into the immanent…

I think, from what he has written elsewhere, he is seeing too many ignoring what is written in the Old Testament revealing God’s creating and judicial work as well his redeeming work, and, certainly the fundamental message of the Old Testament that God is a Holy God, and utterly transcendent. And, of course, the person of Jesus is the agent in the creation and sustaining of all existence. And he is one day to be the Judge before whom we all have to give and account as well as his work in redemption. This all informs a true Traditional Anglican World View in the context of which the Cross and Resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit and the current heavenly reign with all authority in heaven and earth really Good News or Gospel.

So in terms of evangelism we need to note Paul’s strategy for our culture when evangelizing places like, Lystra, probably Thessalonica, and certainly Athens – places without a strong Jewish World View overlapping the Christian World view, but with hostile World Views. For Paul majored then on creation, judgment and hell. First at Lystra, after Paul healed a man with foot problems, and people tried to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods come down in the likeness of men, they said, reactively and so indicating their convictions (Acts 14-17):

“Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”

Paul being the chief speaker focused on God as living and the Creator; and his creation showed he was good and merciful, even when they were walking in their own ways. But Paul with difficulty restrained the crowds and then hostile Jews stoned him. Thankfully he survived.

The Thessalonians seemed to have responded to such teaching positively – teaching against idolatry, with focusing on our living and true God, the resurrection (after being crucified) and the return of Jesus for believer’s positive judgment. For in 1 Thessalonians 1.9-10 we read about:

…the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

That last relative clause, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come shows Jesus Saviour and Judge. Also, after spending time in Athens on (Acts 17.18) Jesus and the resurrection (which by definition included his death on the Cross) Paul preached majoring on coming judgement and that Jesus was going to be Judge, God’s raising him from the dead as proof of this (Acts 17.29-31):

“Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

So true and traditional Anglicans need to be BBC as John Stott used to say, Biblically Balanced Christians. That is to say be faithful to that philosophy of ministry evidenced in Colossians 1.28-29:

Him [Christ] we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all [not some] wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.