Being confessionally Anglican on Article VII in light of current Evangelical chíc (part 1 of 4)

Article VII is not one of those articles which gets evangelicals really excited about being confessionally Anglican.  It is the article on the Old Testament, and its tripartite treatment of the law is not very fashionable among Evangelicals today.  Indeed, the tripartite division of the law is considered by many to be one of the last bastions of Medieval Catholicism which the Reformation never properly shook off.  Many think of the doctrine as a twee historical error, and for some it’s not possible to hold to the doctrine today and be a serious biblical theologian.

Here is Article VII of the Church of England’s 39 Articles of Religion in its entirety:

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 the 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.

The most common objection to the tripartite division is that the categories moral, civil, and ceremonial are arbitrary, and being arbitrary, Reformed theologians end up doing exegesis by picking and choosing which category to read particular texts through.

I’m going to try and show you that’s not the case.

First, we’ll look at some biblical foundations for the tripartite division. Then we’ll look two Reformed theologians.  From the 16th century we’ll take a quick look at how John Calvin treats the law in his commentary on Galatians.  From the 20th century we’ll take a look at the breathtaking work of Meredith G. Kline.  Finally, I’ll attempt to illustrate the prima facie reasonableness of the tripartite division.

This post became so incredibly long, that I’m going to publish it as a series.

One Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email is never shared.Required fields are marked *