Let's do a detailed discussion for each of the Articles of Religion

​

There is a sense in which Article 10 follows naturally on from Article 9. We clearly have again a strong stance against Pelagianism - that we are capable of Good works unto salvation without the mediation of Christ. The basic tenor of this article is that we cannot fix ourselves.

It is the grace of God by Christ working in us, that enables us to do things which are pleasing to God.

One of the things that you may find unusual about this article which is entitled Of Free Will, is that it does not greatly discuss what we might consider a discussion of Free Will, rather it lays before us our incapacity to do good, save for calling upon God, and that any good works we do, we do only by the grace of God in Christ.

Pelagianism, argued that humankind, as moral beings, had the capacity to choose between right and wrong, and that ultimately each person bore responsibility for the outcome of their own decisions. Despite everything that is clearly attractive about the Pelagian position, and where it comes a cropper against right belief is the suggestion that a person can save themselves, pull themselves up by their own bootlaces into heaven without the atoning sacrifice of Christ and the mediation of our brother in humanity the Son of God.

Augustine, argued for the ultimate depravity of man, and the notion of Original Sin. Ultimately if we rely simply on ourselves we will fail. It is the reality of our condition. Cranmer was clearly one of the Augustine's tribe. For some the article in a sense overstates the case, suggesting that none of us can do any good without Christ. In reality what really needs to be said is that none of us can do enough good.

In a sense I think many of us can relate to the Lyrics from Don Mclean's Everybody Loves Me, Baby where he sings ‘I've done some bad, I've done some good. I did a whole lot better than they thought I would’. The truth however for us is that ultimately that is not perfection, and we understand that is only possible through the mediation of our redeemer, Jesus Christ.

However that is not quite the point that the article is making. I think perhaps the point is made in Romans 3.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For ‘no human being will be justified in his sight’ by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:19-20​

This may be criticised by some modern commentators (Michael Fox springs to mind) though perhaps it does ask us to cast our mind to the writings of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury in Cur Deus Homo. Basically the argument is that in creation we owe our all to God, and in any sense where we fail in this there is no way for us to repay this as we owe all to God, so In Christ who owes nothing to God all we owe is accomplished, and by aligning our will to the will of Christ we are afforded the debt repaid and the moral balance of the universe is maintained. In his day this was quite revolutionary theological thought.

Effectively our Free Will is of little use to us, save that we accept the Grace of God that is offered to us the Christ Jesus.

I think what the article is not saying is that no-one can do something good save for the mediation of Jesus Christ, but rather that no one can do enough good. It is like the interview with the neighbour of the mass murderer who says how surprised they were because he was such a nice person and always took cake and flowers to his mother. None of us are all good. None of us are all bad. The problem is that none of us are good enough for heaven on our own.

As a side note, Pelagius was a British Bishop, quite possibly of Scottish Descent, and is thought to be the author of the heresy, and certainly it carries his name. I have a feeling that as heresy goes, it is thought to have a sort of British Flavour - doing the right thing - and British Bishops were accused of it at times (Ancient and Modern). The pen of the writers of the articles are clearly ensuring that this will not be levelled at this newly independent branch of Christianity.

 

​

There is no doubt that in Article 11, the message of Ephesians is ringing loud and clear.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works, so that no one may boast.​

The question I guess that is more open to debate, is how much does the message of Martin Luther, John Calvin and the fathers of the continental reformation rings through here. No doubt some of us would like to think not much, which others would think a great deal.

Luther’s position, as I understand it, is that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone for Christ alone. The rampant sale of indulgences as a fund raising exercise by the Latin Church had been roundly condemned by Luther. The issue was really part of the substance of the Diet of Worms in 1526, and represented the most wholesale challenge to the Pope’s absolute authority over doctrine since the time of the Great Schism in 1054.

I think, whilst the article is no doubt agreeable to the teachings of Luther and Calvin, there has been a determination to look to other (prior) sources, to substantiate the claim as their own. One of those sources is clearly the Ephesians quote above. The other is the Homily of Justification that this article refers to directly.

One of the modest problems that this presents is that we do not have a Homily entitled the Homily of Justification. Most scholars take this to be a reference to Homily 3 in the First Book of Homilies entitled Homily on the Salvation of Mankind. This homily is in three parts and deals with justification quite fully. It begins:

Because all men are sinners and offenders against God, and breakers of his law and commandments, therefore can no man by his own acts, works, and deeds (seem they never so good) be justified, and made righteous before God: but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness or justification, to be received at God’s own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses, in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted and allowed of God, for our perfect and full justification.​

The homily clearly expounds the understanding of faith as is attested to by a number of things, and followed by good works as the fruit of faith rather than a substitute for it.

that we be justified by faith only, does not mean, that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of God, at any time and season. Nor when they say, That we be justified freely, they mean not that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward: Neither they mean not so to be justified without good works, that we should do no good works at all, like as shall be more expressed at large hereafter.​

The third part of the homily expounds that the grace of the sacraments likewise does not express itself in idleness, but in good works. I do commend the homily to you, realising that they are fairly hard to read in the contemporary world as we are not used to such long sentences and paragraphs of more than a page, not to mention an older form of English language.

The Letter to the Romans for some is all about the Righteousness of God, and for others it is all about the Justification of those who believe in Christ. For us these two themes may seem somewhat removed from each other, however in Paul’s letter to the Romans they are very much two sides of the same coin. I suspect we understand Romans a little better when we think about Paul himself. Born a Jew, with a great Jewish pedigree, confronted Jesus and devoted much of his productive life to the mission to the Gentiles. I see much of Romans being something of Paul’s internal dialogue, between everything I am and everything I have done.

Romans 1 16-17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith.’​

And the great climax of this discussion in Romans 8

Romans 8:37-39
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Justification is one of the great salvific metaphors of the New Testament. As a metaphor it find its origins in jurisprudence and is the analogy of being made right or proclaimed in the right, declared innocent, and having the case dismissed on account of the actions of another. The requirements for the matter (the punishment or the debt) to be set to rights have been fulfilled in the actions of another. Some take this to an understanding described as substitutionary atonement, while others have some difficulties with this. The truth is probably more that this view informs but does not constrain our understanding. That may well be more about the limitations of our understanding that it is about the limitations of God’s Justice

The concept of the Righteousness of God, is rooted in all the religions of the Abrahamic tradition. It refers to a sense of moral rightness. God is not not capricious, irresponsible or uncaring. God is a moral being. God is the ultimate moral being, and the alpha point of all that is moral.

The core issue for the article, is that salvation is the benefit the atoning work of Christ available through faith. None of us is good enough to work our way into heaven by good deeds alone, no matter how nice a person we may be.

 

​

It seems that the writers of the articles had a very clear idea of the danger of Pelagianism.

Good works are of great value, flowing as they do as the fruits of faith. God works, as the letter of James attests are the obvious and natural outworking of the inward faith, yet of themselves without being rooted in faith, they wither and die.

Saint Mother Theresa of Calcutta has been very much in the news this week, and for that she did and accomplished in this life, the faith that inspired those good works is worth contemplating. She said “If we do not recognise Jesus in the Blessed sacrament of the altar then we shall never recognise him in the appalling disguise of the poor.”

I have no doubt some of us here fear a busy religion that runs around doing good with seemingly no time for God, no time to build solid spiritual and faithful foundations, no time for theology. no time for prayer, and with just cause. Equally of course we must acknowledge that if all our energy is devoted to the inner life, and it has no blossoming in charity and good deeds, then we become as those who pass by on the other side.

Certainly there is a balance that we need to find. Also and perhaps more importantly there is an order, the faith inspires the good works. You can't work your way into heaven, but you can't sloth your way into heaven either.

 

I like this Eastern Orthodox article on Salvation and the relationship between faith, good works and the sacraments.

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/how-are-we-saved

 

This article and the following debate is interesting - although some of it hard going!

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orth...justification-response-protestant-criticisms/

 

..."as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit", definitely. And if you are of that tree, that's the only kind of fruit you produce, don't you think?

 

For the the money, the best exposition on Article 12 is found in the 1st Book of Homilies: http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom05.htm

And here: http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom04.htm

 

I also never understand why Justification is always singled out. Surely it is an outcome of a life dedicated to Christ and not a cause of our salvation? (considering all my illiteracy to theological matters)

 

The earliest Fathers (first 3-4 centuries) seem to have emphasized faith in Christ and taking the sacraments as members of the Church. Later Fathers and the Reformers got wrapped up in the mechanics of how we are saved, and this led to all the bickering over justification, predestination, etc., issues which the Scriptures are not entirely clear on. I suppose it is human nature; the Scriptures tell us what to do, but we ask "why?" and "how does this exactly work?"

 

Justification is but one of the metaphors for salvation that we find in the Scriptures and in the Fathers, early and Later.

The origins of the metaphor are seemingly in a courtroom, where the accused is set to right. I suspect that we confuse the metaphor a little by trying to make it work in the setting of a 21st century western courtroom, where all sorts of things play out. More logically the setting is a first century courtroom, where more likely the issue is a debt. I said earlier (in discussing article 11 I think) that part of the issue is in how we understand the themes in Romans, which some people see as Justification and others see as Righteousness. It all plays on the same Greek word. It isn't really a conflict, it is about the Righteousness (Rightness) of God and our being set to right with God.

Of course another of the great biblical themes is Sanctification - to be Holy - though more in a sense of process so - to be becoming holy. To me I think that Justification and Sanctification are two ways of talking about the same thing, however the first sounds more like an event and the second more like the process.

Other metaphors used widely include Salvation, Reconciliation, Adoption, and Forgiveness. There are in fact many more of these, including the restoration motif in the account of the encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4). This is a really interesting motif as it is based on the idea of Jesus being not simply the Jewish Messiah, but also the Samaritan Redeemer.

Sometimes I fancy the great concern about how we are saved is reminiscent of the lawyer who stood up to ask and who is my neighbour? and Jesus in reply said A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when ...

There very much is a place for good works in the life of Christians, however article 12 reminds us that we must be grounded in faith.

 

Hello Philip. I grant that these are discussed in the Scriptures. My point was that understanding them is not necessary to an individual's salvation. I would assume that the Good Thief had little understanding of the theological issues which divide many Christians today.

 

Sorry to sidetrack, but I'd just like to express thanks, and joy, really, for this series on the articles. I love these discussions.

 

I think that part of the point of this article, amongst others is that we are not saved by good works. I would take it that good theology is a good work, however that does not accomplish salvation. We are not saved by good works, good theology, good looks, good taste. We are saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and by grace through faith in our response.

Matthew Ayariga it would seem expressed that faith in the words their God is my God on the beach in Libya - no great treatise, no great comprehension, simply conviction and acceptance.

None of that, which I take as absolute, takes away from the value of a proper reflection as we are able. I love this bit from Evelyn Waugh in his book Helena.

​

“This is my day,” she thought, “and these are my kind.”​

Perhaps she apprehended that her fame, like theirs, would live in one historic act of devotion; that she too had emerged from a kind of ουτοπια or nameless realm and would vanish like them in the sinking nursery fire-light among the picture-books and the day’s toys.

“Like me,” she said to them, “you were late in coming. The shepherds were here long before; even the cattle. They had joined the chorus of angels before you were on your way. For you the primordial discipline of the heavens was relaxed and a new defiant light blazed among the disconcerted stars.

“How laboriously you came, taking sights and calculations, where the shepherds had run barefoot! How odd you looked on the road, attended by what outlandish liveries, laden with such preposterous gifts!

“You came at length to the final stage of your pilgrimage and the great star stood still above you. What did you do? You stopped to call on King Herod. Deadly exchange of compliments in which there began that unended war of mobs and magistrates against the innocent!

“Yet you came, and were not turned away. You too found room at the manger. Your gifts were not needed, but they were accepted and put carefully by, for they were brought with love. In that new order of charity that had just come to life there was room for you too. You were not lower in the eyes of the holy family than the ox or the ass.

“You are my especial patrons,” said Helena, “and patrons of all late-comers, of all who have had a tedious journey to make to the truth, of all who are confused with knowledge and speculation, of all who through politeness make themselves partners in guilt, of all who stand in danger by reason of their talents.

“Dear cousins, pray for me,” said Helena, “and for my poor overloaded son. May he, too, before the end find kneeling-space in the straw. Pray for the great, lest they perish utterly. And pray for Lactantius and Marcias and the young poets of Trèves and for the souls of my wild, blind ancestors; for their sly foe Odysseus and for the great Longinus.

“For His sake who did not reject your curious gifts, pray always for the learned, the oblique, the delicate. Let them not be quite forgotten at the Throne of God when the simple come into their kingdom.”

 

Wow, that's powerful. Waugh nails it.

 

​

On the one hand this article seems much to be beating the same drum. It is the grace of Christ working in us that merits the favour of God, not the works done outside of faith. Yet somehow this seems to be a hard teaching. Perhaps it underlines that God’s way of valuing things is different to ours.

In our success oriented society we will often judge based on performance, so a Church with 20 members me might see as having problems, and the Church with 500 members as a great success, yet maybe God is weighing faithfulness not simply numbers.

There are many many secular institutions dedicated to good deeds, in education, healthcare, welfare and social justice. In the west many of these organisations have their origins in log forgotten Church or Christian led initiatives. We all know people full of good deeds who profess no allegiance to God in Christ Jesus. The purpose of this article is not to dismiss the great value that these actions and organisations contribute to life in our society. The point of the article is that these actions, no matter how good they may be on our scale of value, are not a reckoning towards justification, which is found simply by grace through faith is Jesus Christ.

The article then makes reference to the School Authors, whom I think we need take as the fathers of Scholasticism, including Augustine, Boethius, Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc, Alger of Liege, Anselm, Abelard, Thomas Aquinas and others.

We recall Augustine wrote, I found God only to find that he had found me. The point being is that our eternal well being is wholly dependent on the grace of God which we find in faith, and not of our own making. And our little Pelagian bits want to appeal to the equity of God, and the value of Good things done, and the article tells us that it is the source and inspiration of the good deeds that God is looking at.

Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo (Why God became Man) that we owe our all to God, therefore we have nothing to offer him for our failings that we do not already owe him, and that our only course of action is to rely on the grace of Jesus, who became man without sin, that we might have the deficiency made up, so satisfying the need of God for both Justice and Mercy.

Grace of Congruity seems a complex phrase. The root of its meaning is some sense that by doing good works or deeds, we build up some sort of bank and as a result God owes us grace in response to the good deeds we have done. God actually owes us nothing, God is not the debtor here. Grace is unmerited. We have not earned a place in the Kingdom, it has been given to us.

Our primary act of religious observance is not a strike for rights, but the Great Thanksgiving.

We all know this and we all struggle with it from time to time. The writers of the articles wanted us to ensure that we chased every little feeling of entitlement from our spiritual closet and ensure that we determine ourselves to be children of grace through faith.


http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=340812562

​

 

An EO view of whether God had a need for Justice

http://www.antiochian.org/saint-athanasius-and-‘penal-substitutionary’-atonement-doctrine

I would summarise, but it's a short article so please read if you are interested in what may be a slight difference in the EO understanding on this matter.

 

​

I don’t think it has ever struck me before how much of an issue the articles make of good works. In this article we are talking about Works of Supererogation - that is works that go over and beyond what might reasonably be expected. (see how many times you can use that word today!)

In a way the question asks can we do more than is expected or, as in the case of the parable of the Good Samaritan who is my neighbour. There are of course many ways that this question gets asked. Maybe it is understanding the persistence of this niggling suspicion we harbour, that it may be possible to win God around by our own good deeds that the articles hammer this point quite hard.

We have nothing to offer God that we do not already owe to God, because we owe everything to God, in our creation and in our redemption. Whatever we do we are still on the wrong side of the ledger, if we rely on works.

Articles 9 to 14 seem all to touch in some way on the matter of works, however good and numerous they be, will always fall short.

Our hope alone is in Christ, and in our response to him through faith, by grace.

Anselm in his work Cur Deus Homo tells us we were created in the image of God, and that all that we are and all that we have we owe to God. The moment we fail in any way, we have nothing to redress the debt that we do not already owe to God. Therefore God became man that man might pay that which only God could afford. Our being set to right with God is the work, not of ourselves, but of Jesus Christ, and our acceptance of this gift is all that is needed. The fruit of that response is good works which give honour to God.

 

That's a beautiful insight Philip. I hadn't thought of the article from this angle!

 

I always thought this article was a critique of the medieval views on monasticism, pilgrimages, and the like. Acts that somehow made you extra Christian-y.

The truth of the Article lies in the fact that we are all poor hopeless sinners saved by grace and nothing else. The finest we can present to our Lord are but filthy rags. CS Lewis comes to mind when explaoined that self-righteousness was a far more terrible sin than those of the flesh:

"If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither."

 

I agree. Wonderful post Philip.