Bray, Gerald. The Faith We Confess: An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles. London: Latimer Press, 2009.
This handy little 229-page volume is serviceable to get oriented, briefly, to the Thirty-nine Articles. That's the charitable view. More realistically, why are we reading "this thing?" Save your money. Get Griffith Thomas on the Articles, not this "thing." The use of the term "Exposition" in the title is a bit over-stated too.
The volume is available at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Faith-Confess-Exposition-Thirty-Nine/dp/0946307849/ref=pd_sim_b_2
"I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
Prof. Bray gives a 3-page discussion of this article, dreary and shallow, entirely unexpected from this scholar. ??? Huh??? But, perhaps, it is workable for a new join or high school level? A few notable comments amidst widespread misses:
• Akin to the Augsburg Confession of 1530. More copying by Cranmer? After all, Cranmer was a great "compiler" if not more. Effort at unity with Lutheran Churches? To show catholicity? Prof. Bray offers nothing much here. One difference, the Augbsurger names heretics while Cranmer didn’t.
• A brief note on “passions.” One will need other volumes for inquiry
• A large claim that this article helped steer Anglicanism away from Deism. Did it really?
• A brief note on homoousia, the iota-controvery of Nicaea.
• After telling us that there is a “vast array” of literature on the “Doctrine of God,” he offers two book recommendations. Unsatisfactory. This book needs a radical re-working.
• As Prof. Bray should have done, we add the Augsburg here for comparison: “Article I: Of God.
"1] Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; 2] that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and 3] yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" 4] they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.
"5] They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil: also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. 6] They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that "Word" signifies a spoken word, and "Spirit" signifies motion created in things."
Back to the English Articles.
"II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men."
• A dreary and unhelpful discussion about the Logos, Lογος. We get a brief note on Arius and Nicaea. I rather suspect these are Prof. Bray’s Sunday School notes upon which he’d naturally expand more fully (as he is able)? But, that expansion is not here. So why write a 4-page brief on Article 2? Why not just some bullet-points with an bibliography for each bullet than an Exposition that really isn't very expository.
• We get brief notes on Cyril of Alexandria and Monophysites vis a vis Chalcedon of 451. Also, Theodore Mopsuestia and Nestorius.
• Then, he throws in the satisfaction view of the atonement.
• He recommends two (2) books. Scratching the head here. "That's it folks, move along."
"III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell.
As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell."
• This was dropped in the 1563 “rendition” and, in 1571, was put back into the “revised” Articles.
• 1 Peter 3.18 is the text wherein Christ went to hell and “preached.” Prof. Bray apparently accepts one sense of it, but in 2 pages, one gets little.
• He offers three (3) books. "Move along now, not much here."
"IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ.
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day."
• 3 pages here with a forlorn comment that the Ascension is neglected. Well, allow liberals and Bultmannians in the land and you’ll get more than a rejection of the Ascension. (This reminds me of the Episcopal cleric at Trinity Episcopal, Fredericksburg, VA.) Nothing much here—again—not much to see. Move along.
• No wonder folks don’t engage the Articles with a vanilla-volume like this. Why am I reading this “thing?” It’s like going on a long-road trip in a ancient VW-bug with all four tires near out of air...and that’s being charitable.
"V. Of the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God."
• Allegedly, was not in Cranmer’s 42 Articles, but was re-inserted in 1563
• We then get a reminder of the Filioque controversy between the East and West. The Third Council of Toledo added it. Charlemagne included the revised creed in the liturgy. The East didn’t like the move, but, by the time of the division in 1054, this issue was raised when, we believe, the issue was more political than theological. Rome was flexing her mighty muscles at the expense of Constantinople and the East was not in the mood for Roman supremacism. It’s still an issue.
• The double procession was defended again at the Council of Florence, 1439
• All this in a few pages with the standard recommendation of a few books. He rounds it out with a brief note on charismania, ergo, the abiding relevance of the Article. "Move along folks, just a few items by Prof. Bray.
This handy little 229-page volume is serviceable to get oriented, briefly, to the Thirty-nine Articles. That's the charitable view. More realistically, why are we reading "this thing?" Save your money. Get Griffith Thomas on the Articles, not this "thing." The use of the term "Exposition" in the title is a bit over-stated too.
The volume is available at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Faith-Confess-Exposition-Thirty-Nine/dp/0946307849/ref=pd_sim_b_2
"I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
Prof. Bray gives a 3-page discussion of this article, dreary and shallow, entirely unexpected from this scholar. ??? Huh??? But, perhaps, it is workable for a new join or high school level? A few notable comments amidst widespread misses:
• Akin to the Augsburg Confession of 1530. More copying by Cranmer? After all, Cranmer was a great "compiler" if not more. Effort at unity with Lutheran Churches? To show catholicity? Prof. Bray offers nothing much here. One difference, the Augbsurger names heretics while Cranmer didn’t.
• A brief note on “passions.” One will need other volumes for inquiry
• A large claim that this article helped steer Anglicanism away from Deism. Did it really?
• A brief note on homoousia, the iota-controvery of Nicaea.
• After telling us that there is a “vast array” of literature on the “Doctrine of God,” he offers two book recommendations. Unsatisfactory. This book needs a radical re-working.
• As Prof. Bray should have done, we add the Augsburg here for comparison: “Article I: Of God.
"1] Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; 2] that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and 3] yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" 4] they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.
"5] They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil: also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. 6] They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that "Word" signifies a spoken word, and "Spirit" signifies motion created in things."
Back to the English Articles.
"II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men."
• A dreary and unhelpful discussion about the Logos, Lογος. We get a brief note on Arius and Nicaea. I rather suspect these are Prof. Bray’s Sunday School notes upon which he’d naturally expand more fully (as he is able)? But, that expansion is not here. So why write a 4-page brief on Article 2? Why not just some bullet-points with an bibliography for each bullet than an Exposition that really isn't very expository.
• We get brief notes on Cyril of Alexandria and Monophysites vis a vis Chalcedon of 451. Also, Theodore Mopsuestia and Nestorius.
• Then, he throws in the satisfaction view of the atonement.
• He recommends two (2) books. Scratching the head here. "That's it folks, move along."
"III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell.
As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell."
• This was dropped in the 1563 “rendition” and, in 1571, was put back into the “revised” Articles.
• 1 Peter 3.18 is the text wherein Christ went to hell and “preached.” Prof. Bray apparently accepts one sense of it, but in 2 pages, one gets little.
• He offers three (3) books. "Move along now, not much here."
"IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ.
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day."
• 3 pages here with a forlorn comment that the Ascension is neglected. Well, allow liberals and Bultmannians in the land and you’ll get more than a rejection of the Ascension. (This reminds me of the Episcopal cleric at Trinity Episcopal, Fredericksburg, VA.) Nothing much here—again—not much to see. Move along.
• No wonder folks don’t engage the Articles with a vanilla-volume like this. Why am I reading this “thing?” It’s like going on a long-road trip in a ancient VW-bug with all four tires near out of air...and that’s being charitable.
"V. Of the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God."
• Allegedly, was not in Cranmer’s 42 Articles, but was re-inserted in 1563
• We then get a reminder of the Filioque controversy between the East and West. The Third Council of Toledo added it. Charlemagne included the revised creed in the liturgy. The East didn’t like the move, but, by the time of the division in 1054, this issue was raised when, we believe, the issue was more political than theological. Rome was flexing her mighty muscles at the expense of Constantinople and the East was not in the mood for Roman supremacism. It’s still an issue.
• The double procession was defended again at the Council of Florence, 1439
• All this in a few pages with the standard recommendation of a few books. He rounds it out with a brief note on charismania, ergo, the abiding relevance of the Article. "Move along folks, just a few items by Prof. Bray.
No comments:
Post a Comment