From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Nigel: 39 Articles.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:52:35 GMT

Hi, Darren,

I may have made a rod for my own back by quoting the 39 articles
earlier. You referred to the 39 articles, and said that my ideas on
scripture were contradictory to the teaching of my Church. I replied
that, so far as I can see, my ideas are in keeping with the spirit of
article VI.

Most of the Bibles I own include the canonical books of the Old and
New testaments with the apocryphal books bound in between the
testaments or after the NT. The whole book is my bible. I do not
exclude the apocrypha, Maark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11 or any other
passages when I describe my bible as 'scripture'. I beleive that the
authors of the 39 articles expected that all Anglican bibles would,
and should, contain the OT, the NT, and the 'other books', which I am
happy to refer to as a 'second canon'.

But in regard to the 39 articles, in keeping with the oaths I took at
ordination and upon licensing as a Priest in this and other dioceses
of the Anglican Church of Australia, I assent to the articles. There
is nothing in them which is contrary to the faith, but (and it is a
huge BUT), I also recognise that they are a 16th century political
document as much as they are a statement of Christian faith. The 39
articles do not describe, limit, or constrain my faith. I am not bound
to preach them nor to abide by them. They are historical documents of
the Church, like the Nicene and Apostle's creeds. I assent to them,
but there are some things which, though they may have been true or
necessary in the climate of 16th century England, are quite wrong
and/or pointless in 20th century Australia.

I will illustrate this in relation to the OT law, but please forgive
me if I do not respond to every part of your post, or try and defend
my ideas in relation to the 39 articles. Reason and the tradition of
the Church (which includes the scriptures) are the standards against
which Christian faith should be tested, not definitive statements of
the 16th or any other century.

In <35d3fc7d.0>, "Darren R Middleton"
<> wrote:

>G'day Nigel,

>since you posted on the 39 articles and quoted Article 6 it raised a few
>questions for me on congruity of your position and on some recent debates we
>have had.. now not so long ago your rejected my threefold handling of the
>O.T law and said there was no support.....
>Moral Law (Binding)
>Civil or Judicial Law (helpful but not binding)
>Ceremonial Law (Abolished)
>Yet read what your own Articles teach

>Article VII
>Of the Old Testament
>"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 there 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
>(Ceremonial Law), do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts (Civil
>law) 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 (Moral Law)."

What I said in that discussion is that these divisions are convenient
for Christians who hgold a partricular view of law and scripture, but
they are not compatible with the Jewish understanding of the Hebrew
scriptures, and they are not supported by the internal evidence. 

According to Jewish interpreters there are 613 laws in the Hebrew
scriptures, and they all matter. For Christians to try and divide the
laws, as the convocation fathers did in the 16th century, and as you
havd done in this debate, is convenient, but quite artificial. For
Jews, in the ancient world as today, tithing, honouring one's parents,
refraining from work on the Sabbath,  offering sacrifice in the
temple, and wearing phylacteries are all part of the law of God, and
they are all done in response to God's grace. Any Jewish teacher of
the scriptures will tell you this.

Christians need to use our intelligence, and follow Jesus' lead in
recognising that the demands of a situation and the supreme demands of
love qualify, and occasionally override every part of the law. There
are no absoloutes. This is such an important part of the teaching of
Jesus that it always saddens me when people misunderstand or
misrepresent it.

If you want to take this further, I can back this up with scripture
and logical argument, but for now - my response is that in respect to
the division of laws in the OT, article VII is wrong, and so are
people who promote the same views today.

Cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell