I've always appreciated the article. It's emphasis on things necessary to salvation are easily found in Scripture allows there to be some room for working through the much harder doctrines as well as allowing some leave-way regarding doctrinal disagreements to a certain extent. We can all develop a very strong foundation of agreement, but we must always acknowledge that some things are not spelt out enough for us to know them fully and there will be slightly different understandings. However, the foundation is always clear and to deviate from that foundation is to deviate from Scripture. I think that that is what makes the 39 articles fantastic. They lay a hefty and strong foundation of doctrine that is clearly laid out in Scripture, but carefully recognize that there are some extension of these doctrines that may get built out slightly differently in different times and places, but those must always go back to the foundation laid out. They give to us a proper "pale of understanding" for where we need to always be when it comes to our understanding of the faith without getting into the weeds of controversial explanations.
the wesleyan quadrilateral seems to me to be the best articulation of authority in life and doctrine. scripture is most important, the church history and reason as secondary lens and experience as the final lens.
I can see that. But making experience one of our lens has always made me nervous as it can so easily take over the whole paradigm. Experience often gets boiled down to feelings and how Scripture makes me feel. Yet, there is an importance to acknowledging the role that experience plays when kept in the right location. I'm not sure I would raise it up to becoming one of the lens through which we view Scripture, but it is certainly an aspect that at least is connected to reason regarding application of Scripture. And how you use experience, I think, is also connected to how you connect textual meaning and application to each other. Is application so wrapped up in meaning that it can never change and is always an inherent part of the meaning of the text or not? I always appreciated on of my seminary profs who said that "meaning is a circle," that is, there is a wide swath of area around the absolute and primary point of the text, the center you might say. Thus you can have tangential meanings that relate back to the primary meaning which helps includes application of the text. These tangential things are what you see coming out of the text and may differ from time to time because of your accumulated experiences, but your goal is always to drive toward the central aspect of the passage. Hence, we can always go back and discover aspects of the text that we never saw before as we continue to study it.
FYI, "The Word of the Lord" is a '79 Prayer Book thing, not used before that.... 1928 (& 1662) BCP doesn't have it. So not exactly an Anglican tradition, except for the last 45 years. It seems the '79 Prayer Book was aping Roman Vatican II usage.
And I speak to that in my previous video called The Word of the Lord. Not all things from Vatican II are horrible changes. The phrase itself is a constant reminder of the inspiration of Scripture since we connect it to every Old and New Testament reading. Thanks for watching and leaving a comment!
Thanks Jeremiah! A very helpful explanation.
Appreciate the watch and kind words Jim! I hope all is well for you and your church. Blessings!
when i was discovering the ACNA, article 6 was a major marker that this was a church rooted in the scriptures and faithful to the historic church
I've always appreciated the article. It's emphasis on things necessary to salvation are easily found in Scripture allows there to be some room for working through the much harder doctrines as well as allowing some leave-way regarding doctrinal disagreements to a certain extent. We can all develop a very strong foundation of agreement, but we must always acknowledge that some things are not spelt out enough for us to know them fully and there will be slightly different understandings. However, the foundation is always clear and to deviate from that foundation is to deviate from Scripture.
I think that that is what makes the 39 articles fantastic. They lay a hefty and strong foundation of doctrine that is clearly laid out in Scripture, but carefully recognize that there are some extension of these doctrines that may get built out slightly differently in different times and places, but those must always go back to the foundation laid out. They give to us a proper "pale of understanding" for where we need to always be when it comes to our understanding of the faith without getting into the weeds of controversial explanations.
the wesleyan quadrilateral seems to me to be the best articulation of authority in life and doctrine. scripture is most important, the church history and reason as secondary lens and experience as the final lens.
I can see that. But making experience one of our lens has always made me nervous as it can so easily take over the whole paradigm. Experience often gets boiled down to feelings and how Scripture makes me feel. Yet, there is an importance to acknowledging the role that experience plays when kept in the right location. I'm not sure I would raise it up to becoming one of the lens through which we view Scripture, but it is certainly an aspect that at least is connected to reason regarding application of Scripture. And how you use experience, I think, is also connected to how you connect textual meaning and application to each other. Is application so wrapped up in meaning that it can never change and is always an inherent part of the meaning of the text or not?
I always appreciated on of my seminary profs who said that "meaning is a circle," that is, there is a wide swath of area around the absolute and primary point of the text, the center you might say. Thus you can have tangential meanings that relate back to the primary meaning which helps includes application of the text. These tangential things are what you see coming out of the text and may differ from time to time because of your accumulated experiences, but your goal is always to drive toward the central aspect of the passage. Hence, we can always go back and discover aspects of the text that we never saw before as we continue to study it.
@@graceanglicangastonia9076 Amen!
FYI, "The Word of the Lord" is a '79 Prayer Book thing, not used before that.... 1928 (& 1662) BCP doesn't have it. So not exactly an Anglican tradition, except for the last 45 years. It seems the '79 Prayer Book was aping Roman Vatican II usage.
And I speak to that in my previous video called The Word of the Lord. Not all things from Vatican II are horrible changes. The phrase itself is a constant reminder of the inspiration of Scripture since we connect it to every Old and New Testament reading.
Thanks for watching and leaving a comment!
@@graceanglicangastonia9076 Yes is isn't a bad thing, only not a longstanding Anglican tradition.