What do you think?
Rate this book
The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today
What defines the Church of England? Are the Thirty-nine Articles of any relevance today? Anglicanism, according to Jim Packer, possesses "the truest, wisest and potentially richest heritage in all Christendom" with the Thirty-nine Articles at its heart. They catch the substance and spirit of biblical Christianity superbly well, and also provide and excellent model of how to confess the faith in a divided Christendom. In this Latimer Study, Packer aims to show how the sixteenth century Articles should be viewed in the twenty-first century, and how they can enrich the faith of Anglicans in general and of Anglican evangelicals in particular. He demonstrates why the Articles must once again be given a voice within the church, not merely as an historical curiosity but an authoritative doctrinal statement. A thought-provoking appendix by Roger Beckwith offers seventeen Supplementary Articles, addressing theological issues which have come into prominence since the original Articles were composed. This booklet, first published more than twenty years ago, remains much in demand and as timely as ever. It has proved on of the most popular and enduring Latimer Studies, and is now issued in a second edition. Jim Packer is Board of Governors' Professor of Theology at Regent College, Vancouver. Amongst his many best-selling books are 'Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God' (1961), 'Knowing God' (1973), 'Keep in Step with the Spirit' (1984), and 'Among God's Giants' (1991). Roger Beckwith was librarian and warden of Latimer House, Oxford, for more than thirty years. His recent books include 'Elders in Every City' (2003) and 'Calendar, Chronology and Worship' (2005).
104 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2006
3 people are currently reading
108 people want to read
About the author
J.I. Packer
447 books933 followersWhat do J. I. Packer, Billy Graham and Richard John Neuhaus have in common? Each was recently named by TIME magazine as among the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.
Dr. Packer, the Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology at Regent College, was hailed by TIME as “a doctrinal Solomon” among Protestants. “Mediating debates on everything from a particular Bible translation to the acceptability of free-flowing Pentecostal spirituality, Packer helps unify a community [evangelicalism] that could easily fall victim to its internal tensions.”
Knowing God, Dr. Packer’s seminal 1973 work, was lauded as a book which articulated shared beliefs for members of diverse denominations; the TIME profile quotes Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington as saying, “conservative Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists could all look to [Knowing God] and say, ‘This sums it all up for us.’”
In a similar tribute to Dr. Packer almost ten years ago, American theologian Mark Noll wrote in Christianity Today that, “Packer’s ability to address immensely important subjects in crisp, succinct sentences is one of the reasons why, both as an author and speaker, he has played such an important role among American evangelicals for four decades.”
For over 25 years Regent College students have been privileged to study under Dr. Packer’s clear and lucid teaching, and our faculty, staff and students celebrate the international recognition he rightly receives as a leading Christian thinker and teacher.
(https://www.regent-college.edu/facult...)
Dr. Packer, the Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology at Regent College, was hailed by TIME as “a doctrinal Solomon” among Protestants. “Mediating debates on everything from a particular Bible translation to the acceptability of free-flowing Pentecostal spirituality, Packer helps unify a community [evangelicalism] that could easily fall victim to its internal tensions.”
Knowing God, Dr. Packer’s seminal 1973 work, was lauded as a book which articulated shared beliefs for members of diverse denominations; the TIME profile quotes Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington as saying, “conservative Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists could all look to [Knowing God] and say, ‘This sums it all up for us.’”
In a similar tribute to Dr. Packer almost ten years ago, American theologian Mark Noll wrote in Christianity Today that, “Packer’s ability to address immensely important subjects in crisp, succinct sentences is one of the reasons why, both as an author and speaker, he has played such an important role among American evangelicals for four decades.”
For over 25 years Regent College students have been privileged to study under Dr. Packer’s clear and lucid teaching, and our faculty, staff and students celebrate the international recognition he rightly receives as a leading Christian thinker and teacher.
(https://www.regent-college.edu/facult...)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 19, 2017
Dr. Packer is right to insist on a return to thorough reflection on the Articles and their relevance and authority to today's clergy and laity. He is right to point out the goodness of the Articles and the goodness to be found in wrestling with them and submitting to their authority as formularies of the Anglican Communion, and I would add, as authoritative under the primacy first of Scripture and then secondly under the Tradition of the undivided Catholic Church. In the last statement I betray my hand and fundamental gripe with Dr. Packer.
His hermeneutic of the Articles is entirely Puritan, Reformed and Calvinist. Having already assumed the veracity of this hermeneutic, Dr. Packer ensues to show how truly Reformed the document is as a conclusive containment of an Anglican confession of faith.
This, if I may be so bold, is entirely wrong. If the Articles were a purely Reformed document, then about 100 Puritan clergy would not have been divested of their livings upon the Articles' ratification (a fact that Dr. Packer admits only in a footnote). If the Articles were a purely Reformed document, then the Puritans would not have moved to abolish them and replace them with their own confession. If the the Articles were a purely Reformed document, then the Cromwellian Revolution would not have sought to outlaw both the episcopacy, the Prayer Book, and the Articles and replace them with the Westminster Confession (also of note: Dr. Packer fails entirely to mention this accident of history). If the Articles were a purely Reformed document, King Charles (an ardent Catholic) would never have reprinted the articles and affirmed them by Royal Declaration as "the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's Word."
Dr. Packer also fails to note the multiplicity of points at which the Articles explicitly contravene essential Calvinist doctrines (e.g. the perseverance of the saints, Zwinglian understandings of the sacraments). Dr. Packer's history of the Articles is so thoroughly biased towards the Puritan party that he glosses over any fact of history that contradicts him as though they never happened, going so far as to dismiss early non-Reformed interpretations (such as that of Lancelot Andrewes) merely as "churchy Arminians" (may I remind you that Andrewes predated Jacobus Arminius?) without any further treatment, explanation or comment.
The above historical points emphasize that a Reformed hermeneutic, upon which Dr. Packer's entire interpretation of the Articles rests, is thoroughly inappropriate and does violence to the Articles themselves. It is illogical at best to approach a document in an attempt to vindicate it by taking on the hermeneutic of the party which most sought its destruction.
A much more sound approach to the Articles would be framed by a hermeneutic which is less radically Reformed, but that takes on a lens that is of the reformed Catholicism that the English Reformers and their immediate predecessors sought. In doing so, we shirk the confessional lens by which Dr. Packer sees the text, and see the Articles in the plain, literal, specific and grammatical sense in which they were written.
To the point: I mean, that the Articles are in no way meant to be a conclusive statement or confession of Anglican doctrine, but are instead a statement of what Anglican doctrine is NOT (e.g. it is not Unitarian, Arian, Docetist, or Anabaptist, nor Roman, Lutheran, or - I might add - Calvinist). When the articles state that we DON'T believe X, and does not go further to say that we therefore believe Y, then we take the article in its literal, grammatical sense: "We DON'T believe X," period. Full stop. The same is true vice versa.
For example, while Dr. Packer insists that Article 31 precludes the doctrine of the sacrificial quality of the Eucharist as anamnesis as stated in Lambeth 1958, what the article actually, literally says is, "Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits." The keys words here being "in the which it was commonly said:" the article is here denouncing a very specific, contemporary and common misunderstanding of the Mass, an understanding which is NOT identical with the understanding of Lambeth 1958. In other words, the article is not and cannot be taken in its literal sense as a conclusive denunciation of any and all understandings of the Mass as a sacrifice. If we are to read the Articles in their literal, grammatical sense, then we must take seriously the qualifications the authors provide, as in the example above (as well as in Article 22: it is not any and all doctrine of purgatory and invocation of the saints that are denounced, but specifically "The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory ...").
All this to say, while Dr. Packer's laud, respect for and treatment of the Articles is absolutely well-intentioned and while he is absolutely right in his insistence upon their goodness and relevance to us today, his actual interpretation thereof is ill-founded and inappropriate.
Ye Reader be warned.
(Clarifying Note: A friend of mine has pointed out that I throw around the terms 'Puritan,' 'Reformed,' and 'Calvinist' rather indiscriminately in this review, so I hope to clarify my usage of those terms here. If this is of no interest to you feel no obligation to continue.)
All Puritans are Calvinist (and therefore Reformed), but not all Calvinists are Puritan. This is a helpful distinction but should not be drawn too definitively; the Calvinist Puritans who opposed the Prayer Book and Articles were Englishmen and women who had escaped the slaughter under Mary by voluntary exile in the Continent, most of whom were either in Geneva or areas under Geneva's influence. All of them were influenced by Genevan ideas and therefore were essentially Calvinist and Reformed. My use of the word "Reformed" in the above review is in contrast to my use of the word 'reformed.' The capitalized use refers to the specific group of Calvinist views and persons, whereas 'reformed' refers simply to churches, persons and ideas undergoing the project of reforming the thought and practice of the medieval church.
So, while there are distinctions between Puritans, Calvinists and Reformed persons, the distinctions are blurred: Puritans were Calvinists in England, simply put, those who wanted to see the Church in England reformed according to Genevan ideals. In this sense they were radicals in comparison to the more moderately reformed English Reformers (even Bp. John Jewel, having been influenced by Reformed ideals while in exile in Geneva, insisted that “We have returned to the Apostles and the old Catholic Fathers. We have planted no new religion, but only preserved the old that was undoubtedly founded and used by the Apostles of Christ and other holy Fathers of the Primitive Church.”)
For a more thorough treatment on the distinction between Catholic and Calvinist influence of the Articles, see http://frnovak.blogspot.com/2012/08/c...
His hermeneutic of the Articles is entirely Puritan, Reformed and Calvinist. Having already assumed the veracity of this hermeneutic, Dr. Packer ensues to show how truly Reformed the document is as a conclusive containment of an Anglican confession of faith.
This, if I may be so bold, is entirely wrong. If the Articles were a purely Reformed document, then about 100 Puritan clergy would not have been divested of their livings upon the Articles' ratification (a fact that Dr. Packer admits only in a footnote). If the Articles were a purely Reformed document, then the Puritans would not have moved to abolish them and replace them with their own confession. If the the Articles were a purely Reformed document, then the Cromwellian Revolution would not have sought to outlaw both the episcopacy, the Prayer Book, and the Articles and replace them with the Westminster Confession (also of note: Dr. Packer fails entirely to mention this accident of history). If the Articles were a purely Reformed document, King Charles (an ardent Catholic) would never have reprinted the articles and affirmed them by Royal Declaration as "the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's Word."
Dr. Packer also fails to note the multiplicity of points at which the Articles explicitly contravene essential Calvinist doctrines (e.g. the perseverance of the saints, Zwinglian understandings of the sacraments). Dr. Packer's history of the Articles is so thoroughly biased towards the Puritan party that he glosses over any fact of history that contradicts him as though they never happened, going so far as to dismiss early non-Reformed interpretations (such as that of Lancelot Andrewes) merely as "churchy Arminians" (may I remind you that Andrewes predated Jacobus Arminius?) without any further treatment, explanation or comment.
The above historical points emphasize that a Reformed hermeneutic, upon which Dr. Packer's entire interpretation of the Articles rests, is thoroughly inappropriate and does violence to the Articles themselves. It is illogical at best to approach a document in an attempt to vindicate it by taking on the hermeneutic of the party which most sought its destruction.
A much more sound approach to the Articles would be framed by a hermeneutic which is less radically Reformed, but that takes on a lens that is of the reformed Catholicism that the English Reformers and their immediate predecessors sought. In doing so, we shirk the confessional lens by which Dr. Packer sees the text, and see the Articles in the plain, literal, specific and grammatical sense in which they were written.
To the point: I mean, that the Articles are in no way meant to be a conclusive statement or confession of Anglican doctrine, but are instead a statement of what Anglican doctrine is NOT (e.g. it is not Unitarian, Arian, Docetist, or Anabaptist, nor Roman, Lutheran, or - I might add - Calvinist). When the articles state that we DON'T believe X, and does not go further to say that we therefore believe Y, then we take the article in its literal, grammatical sense: "We DON'T believe X," period. Full stop. The same is true vice versa.
For example, while Dr. Packer insists that Article 31 precludes the doctrine of the sacrificial quality of the Eucharist as anamnesis as stated in Lambeth 1958, what the article actually, literally says is, "Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits." The keys words here being "in the which it was commonly said:" the article is here denouncing a very specific, contemporary and common misunderstanding of the Mass, an understanding which is NOT identical with the understanding of Lambeth 1958. In other words, the article is not and cannot be taken in its literal sense as a conclusive denunciation of any and all understandings of the Mass as a sacrifice. If we are to read the Articles in their literal, grammatical sense, then we must take seriously the qualifications the authors provide, as in the example above (as well as in Article 22: it is not any and all doctrine of purgatory and invocation of the saints that are denounced, but specifically "The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory ...").
All this to say, while Dr. Packer's laud, respect for and treatment of the Articles is absolutely well-intentioned and while he is absolutely right in his insistence upon their goodness and relevance to us today, his actual interpretation thereof is ill-founded and inappropriate.
Ye Reader be warned.
(Clarifying Note: A friend of mine has pointed out that I throw around the terms 'Puritan,' 'Reformed,' and 'Calvinist' rather indiscriminately in this review, so I hope to clarify my usage of those terms here. If this is of no interest to you feel no obligation to continue.)
All Puritans are Calvinist (and therefore Reformed), but not all Calvinists are Puritan. This is a helpful distinction but should not be drawn too definitively; the Calvinist Puritans who opposed the Prayer Book and Articles were Englishmen and women who had escaped the slaughter under Mary by voluntary exile in the Continent, most of whom were either in Geneva or areas under Geneva's influence. All of them were influenced by Genevan ideas and therefore were essentially Calvinist and Reformed. My use of the word "Reformed" in the above review is in contrast to my use of the word 'reformed.' The capitalized use refers to the specific group of Calvinist views and persons, whereas 'reformed' refers simply to churches, persons and ideas undergoing the project of reforming the thought and practice of the medieval church.
So, while there are distinctions between Puritans, Calvinists and Reformed persons, the distinctions are blurred: Puritans were Calvinists in England, simply put, those who wanted to see the Church in England reformed according to Genevan ideals. In this sense they were radicals in comparison to the more moderately reformed English Reformers (even Bp. John Jewel, having been influenced by Reformed ideals while in exile in Geneva, insisted that “We have returned to the Apostles and the old Catholic Fathers. We have planted no new religion, but only preserved the old that was undoubtedly founded and used by the Apostles of Christ and other holy Fathers of the Primitive Church.”)
For a more thorough treatment on the distinction between Catholic and Calvinist influence of the Articles, see http://frnovak.blogspot.com/2012/08/c...
April 2, 2024
4.5/5
An exceptional apology for the 39 Articles as the confession for Anglicanism. Packer makes a solid case that the Articles were not only intended as such, but also are just Biblical. To relegate them to the past would be like relegating the creeds to the past as the Articles, like the creeds, expound Scripture.
The one quibble I have is that Packer makes it seem as if the only way to interpret the Articles is through a Calvinistic/Puritan lens. He’s not 100% wrong. As he says early on, Thomas Cranmer (the primary author of the Articles) and the Articles themselves were/are deeply, abidingly Lutheran except on the Lord’s Supper. But even on the Lord’s Supper, a Lutheran perspective is possible while remaining faithful to the Articles and Scripture.
An exceptional apology for the 39 Articles as the confession for Anglicanism. Packer makes a solid case that the Articles were not only intended as such, but also are just Biblical. To relegate them to the past would be like relegating the creeds to the past as the Articles, like the creeds, expound Scripture.
The one quibble I have is that Packer makes it seem as if the only way to interpret the Articles is through a Calvinistic/Puritan lens. He’s not 100% wrong. As he says early on, Thomas Cranmer (the primary author of the Articles) and the Articles themselves were/are deeply, abidingly Lutheran except on the Lord’s Supper. But even on the Lord’s Supper, a Lutheran perspective is possible while remaining faithful to the Articles and Scripture.
January 12, 2023
J.I. Packer makes a great case for why the Articles of Religion should be seen as authoritative in the Anglican Church today; mandated for both clergy and laity. However, it would seem that he places them as equal with the creeds and councils of the undivided church. This would seem to be problematic as there should exist a hierarchy between that which has catholic consensus and that which has only local consensus. For Anglicans, the 39 Articles form the basis of Anglican doctrinal distinctives, but they, like other documents, must fall under the ultimate authority of Scripture—something Packer acknowledges—but also the creeds and councils of the ancient Church. Only then can the Articles show themselves to be truly catholic, as Packer (and I) claim them to be.
June 9, 2025
This was an excellent little book, and is something of a call to action for evangelical Anglicans to take seriously, value, and make use of our confessional document, the 39 Articles. Packer captures beautifully the value he places on the Articles when talking about the fact that he is still an Anglican: "One factor that holds me steady at this point is my veneration (the word is not too strong) for the Thirty-nine Articles, which seem to me not only catch the substance and spirit of biblical Christianity superbly well, but also to provide as apt a model of the way to confess the faith in a divided Christendom as the world has yet seen."
Packer begins with two preliminary chapters. One is on the silence of the Articles in Anglican life today, as they have no voice in Anglican theology: "If they are referred to at all in theological colleges, it is as historical memorials, not as bulwarks of Anglican faith or challenges to our present day waywardness." This is seen in the attitudes of Anglican theologians, who affirm all sorts of unbiblical notions without apparently having grappled with the articles (or Scripture, for that matter). Clerical assent was also supposed to ensure a basic soundness of teaching from Anglican pulpits, but again, this has self-evidently not materialised. The Articles also have no voice in Anglican liturgy. They should both underlie the beliefs that the liturgy expresses, and also provide a framework for interpreting the liturgy, but this is not seen in the development of contemporary Anglican liturgical forms. Finally, they don't have a voice in the Anglican community as they rarely, if ever, provide a focus of unity within the Anglican communion, and play no part at all in the conception of that unity. This combines to create a problem of Anglican integrity as we "celebrate the Articles without listening to them; we affirm them while stopping our ears to them; we tip our hats to them while we gag them." Anglicans often claim that Anglicanism is to be a dialectical communion (or as Ryle memorably described it, a "kind of Noah's ark"), where Reformational (Reformed and low church), Romanising (Catholic and high church) and Radical (Latitudinarian and broad church) factions battle it out while the institution itself stands aloof and doesn't take a strong position in anything. This, of course, is historical nonsense, as the Articles place the Church of England firmly among the Reformed churches. The Articles are undoubtedly in the Reformed mainstream on every point except the form of the church-state link (Article 37) and the acceptance of episcopacy (Article 36). This can be seen in the following summary of the Articles and where they line up theologically:
- 1-5 God - Catholic.
- 6-8 Bible - Protestant and Evangelical.
- 9-18 Sin, grace, faith and repentance - Augustinian on freewill, sin and grace; - Protestant and Evangelical on justification, faith and good works, Reformed and moderately Calvinistic on predestination.
- 19-24 Church - Protestant and evangelical.
- 25-31 Sacraments - Reformed and moderately Calvinistic.
- 32-39 Discipline and ethics - Protestant and distinctly Anglican.
The second preliminary chapter provides a brief history of the articles, beginning with their establishment as the authorised doctrinal standard of the Church of England, acting as terms of communion for the laity who were forbidden to speak against them, and a confession of faith for the clergy who were obliged to subscribe to them. This was followed by the development of different traditions of interpretation (Reformed, Catholic and Latitudinarian), and finally a subsequent devaluing of clerical subscription. Packer makes two other important points here.
The first is that "The Thirty-nine Articles are sometimes accused of ambiguity and equivocation, but the charge is both misguided and untrue. They are not in the least ambiguous in the answers which they give to the central theological questions of the conflict with Rome....Nor are the Articles at all indefinite in their counter-statements to Anabaptist eccentricities." Rather, they are "studiedly minimal in their requirements, and conscientiously leave many secondary questions open....at certain points the Articles decline to decide against any of the possible alternatives. Though sharp -edged against the intolerable-seeming errors of Rome and the Anabaptists, and full and exact on all the central issues of the gospel, the Articles are nowhere narrower or more exclusive than they have to be, and their definitions were, it seems, always made as broad and comprehensive as was thought consistent with theological safety."
The second important point has to do with context. As the articles are 400 years old, he takes it as a matter of common sense that they should be interpreted historically and taken to mean what they meant when written.
Packer then moves on to two chapters containing his main argument on the place for, and use of, the Articles today. In terms of the place that the Articles should have, he asks three questions:
- What authority may the Articles claim?
In short, the authority proper to a creed. Looking in order at the historical creeds we see, "a tendency to elaboration, to a fuller theological statement, and to an explanation of what is involved in the original summary of belief. The confessions of faith in the sixteenth century are really only an extension, prolongation, and development of this process." The Articles themselves explicitly claim positive agreement with both the historical creeds and with scripture itself. In other words, the authority of the Articles, like that of the creeds, is not inherent but is a derived authority, a "faithful echo, exposition, and application of God's Word written." Creeds and confessions are written at times of crisis, as a tool to help safeguard a true and orthodox understanding of the apostolic faith. The creeds and the Articles challenge every Anglican to consider whether they are an accurate summary of orthodox teaching, and if they are to affirm them as such in our day. They claim the authority of a faithful witness, that is, a true reflection and application of the biblical message, tested by previous generations and by the subscribers themselves against the Scriptures. To ignore them, says Packer, "is no more warrantable than it is to treat them as divinely inspired and infallible."
- What functions can the Articles fulfil?
Packer identifies four:
- To act as Anglicanism's theological identity card among the various denominations in the church.
- To safeguard the truth of the gospel for the good of souls, the welfare of the church itself, and the glory of God.
- To bring unity and order in the realms of doctrine and discipline, and to guard the pulpit against anti-evangelical heresy.
- To set bounds to the comprehensiveness of Anglicanism.
- What response do the Articles require?
In short, wholehearted and sincere clerical subscription and lay affirmation.
In terms of a use for the articles today, Packer summarises this in three words: assimilate, apply, and augment.
First, by assimilation, he means studying and analysing the gospel message as the Articles define, display, and delimit it.
Second, by application, he means bringing the Articles to bear on current thought and on present-day living. As long as our theological thinking is centred on the gospel, the Articles provide valuable guidance, as clarifying the gospel was both their main aim and supreme achievement. Furthermore, the Articles do deal in principle with many questions and issues that had not arisen when they were drafted. As an example, Packer considers the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, recommended to the whole Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference in 1958, and which can be easily refuted by an appeal to the Articles.
As an aside, this section contains some wonderful material on the nature of the sacraments, particularly the following. The sacraments "function as a means of grace precisely because God makes them a means to faith. The essential sacramental action is his coming to us sinners to call forth our faith through the sign and through that faith to impart to us the benefits of Jesus' death." That is about the clearest explanation of this subject that I've read, and it's a real shame that Packer never got round to writing a systematic theology.
Third and finally, by augment, Packer means supplementary statements and declarations to the creeds and confessions that build on them and provide a detailed response to and position on contemporary issues. In the Appendix, Roger Beckwith provides a valuable sample of what this would look like, and I suppose the GAFCON's Jerusalem Statement would also fall under this heading.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book, brief as it was, and feel encouraged to study the articles more thoroughly. Particularly in our day, when Christianity in the West is under such sustained pressure from the surrounding culture, we need tools like the Articles to anchor us to a historic and orthodox understanding of the faith once delivered, and to help us effectively ground ourselves in the truth that we profess.
I leave the last word to Packer himself. The articles should be reinstated, "not only as a standard of belief on specific doctrines, but also as a model of theological method, a challenge to confess the faith of the gospel today, and a constant partner in the Church's theological life. It is my firm conviction that the Articles are true enough, profound enough, biblical enough, evangelical enough, and magisterial enough to sustain such a role amid the babel and bustle of present-day theological work, and that we greatly need to have them fulfilling it among us. They have been silent too long."
Packer begins with two preliminary chapters. One is on the silence of the Articles in Anglican life today, as they have no voice in Anglican theology: "If they are referred to at all in theological colleges, it is as historical memorials, not as bulwarks of Anglican faith or challenges to our present day waywardness." This is seen in the attitudes of Anglican theologians, who affirm all sorts of unbiblical notions without apparently having grappled with the articles (or Scripture, for that matter). Clerical assent was also supposed to ensure a basic soundness of teaching from Anglican pulpits, but again, this has self-evidently not materialised. The Articles also have no voice in Anglican liturgy. They should both underlie the beliefs that the liturgy expresses, and also provide a framework for interpreting the liturgy, but this is not seen in the development of contemporary Anglican liturgical forms. Finally, they don't have a voice in the Anglican community as they rarely, if ever, provide a focus of unity within the Anglican communion, and play no part at all in the conception of that unity. This combines to create a problem of Anglican integrity as we "celebrate the Articles without listening to them; we affirm them while stopping our ears to them; we tip our hats to them while we gag them." Anglicans often claim that Anglicanism is to be a dialectical communion (or as Ryle memorably described it, a "kind of Noah's ark"), where Reformational (Reformed and low church), Romanising (Catholic and high church) and Radical (Latitudinarian and broad church) factions battle it out while the institution itself stands aloof and doesn't take a strong position in anything. This, of course, is historical nonsense, as the Articles place the Church of England firmly among the Reformed churches. The Articles are undoubtedly in the Reformed mainstream on every point except the form of the church-state link (Article 37) and the acceptance of episcopacy (Article 36). This can be seen in the following summary of the Articles and where they line up theologically:
- 1-5 God - Catholic.
- 6-8 Bible - Protestant and Evangelical.
- 9-18 Sin, grace, faith and repentance - Augustinian on freewill, sin and grace; - Protestant and Evangelical on justification, faith and good works, Reformed and moderately Calvinistic on predestination.
- 19-24 Church - Protestant and evangelical.
- 25-31 Sacraments - Reformed and moderately Calvinistic.
- 32-39 Discipline and ethics - Protestant and distinctly Anglican.
The second preliminary chapter provides a brief history of the articles, beginning with their establishment as the authorised doctrinal standard of the Church of England, acting as terms of communion for the laity who were forbidden to speak against them, and a confession of faith for the clergy who were obliged to subscribe to them. This was followed by the development of different traditions of interpretation (Reformed, Catholic and Latitudinarian), and finally a subsequent devaluing of clerical subscription. Packer makes two other important points here.
The first is that "The Thirty-nine Articles are sometimes accused of ambiguity and equivocation, but the charge is both misguided and untrue. They are not in the least ambiguous in the answers which they give to the central theological questions of the conflict with Rome....Nor are the Articles at all indefinite in their counter-statements to Anabaptist eccentricities." Rather, they are "studiedly minimal in their requirements, and conscientiously leave many secondary questions open....at certain points the Articles decline to decide against any of the possible alternatives. Though sharp -edged against the intolerable-seeming errors of Rome and the Anabaptists, and full and exact on all the central issues of the gospel, the Articles are nowhere narrower or more exclusive than they have to be, and their definitions were, it seems, always made as broad and comprehensive as was thought consistent with theological safety."
The second important point has to do with context. As the articles are 400 years old, he takes it as a matter of common sense that they should be interpreted historically and taken to mean what they meant when written.
Packer then moves on to two chapters containing his main argument on the place for, and use of, the Articles today. In terms of the place that the Articles should have, he asks three questions:
- What authority may the Articles claim?
In short, the authority proper to a creed. Looking in order at the historical creeds we see, "a tendency to elaboration, to a fuller theological statement, and to an explanation of what is involved in the original summary of belief. The confessions of faith in the sixteenth century are really only an extension, prolongation, and development of this process." The Articles themselves explicitly claim positive agreement with both the historical creeds and with scripture itself. In other words, the authority of the Articles, like that of the creeds, is not inherent but is a derived authority, a "faithful echo, exposition, and application of God's Word written." Creeds and confessions are written at times of crisis, as a tool to help safeguard a true and orthodox understanding of the apostolic faith. The creeds and the Articles challenge every Anglican to consider whether they are an accurate summary of orthodox teaching, and if they are to affirm them as such in our day. They claim the authority of a faithful witness, that is, a true reflection and application of the biblical message, tested by previous generations and by the subscribers themselves against the Scriptures. To ignore them, says Packer, "is no more warrantable than it is to treat them as divinely inspired and infallible."
- What functions can the Articles fulfil?
Packer identifies four:
- To act as Anglicanism's theological identity card among the various denominations in the church.
- To safeguard the truth of the gospel for the good of souls, the welfare of the church itself, and the glory of God.
- To bring unity and order in the realms of doctrine and discipline, and to guard the pulpit against anti-evangelical heresy.
- To set bounds to the comprehensiveness of Anglicanism.
- What response do the Articles require?
In short, wholehearted and sincere clerical subscription and lay affirmation.
In terms of a use for the articles today, Packer summarises this in three words: assimilate, apply, and augment.
First, by assimilation, he means studying and analysing the gospel message as the Articles define, display, and delimit it.
Second, by application, he means bringing the Articles to bear on current thought and on present-day living. As long as our theological thinking is centred on the gospel, the Articles provide valuable guidance, as clarifying the gospel was both their main aim and supreme achievement. Furthermore, the Articles do deal in principle with many questions and issues that had not arisen when they were drafted. As an example, Packer considers the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, recommended to the whole Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference in 1958, and which can be easily refuted by an appeal to the Articles.
As an aside, this section contains some wonderful material on the nature of the sacraments, particularly the following. The sacraments "function as a means of grace precisely because God makes them a means to faith. The essential sacramental action is his coming to us sinners to call forth our faith through the sign and through that faith to impart to us the benefits of Jesus' death." That is about the clearest explanation of this subject that I've read, and it's a real shame that Packer never got round to writing a systematic theology.
Third and finally, by augment, Packer means supplementary statements and declarations to the creeds and confessions that build on them and provide a detailed response to and position on contemporary issues. In the Appendix, Roger Beckwith provides a valuable sample of what this would look like, and I suppose the GAFCON's Jerusalem Statement would also fall under this heading.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book, brief as it was, and feel encouraged to study the articles more thoroughly. Particularly in our day, when Christianity in the West is under such sustained pressure from the surrounding culture, we need tools like the Articles to anchor us to a historic and orthodox understanding of the faith once delivered, and to help us effectively ground ourselves in the truth that we profess.
I leave the last word to Packer himself. The articles should be reinstated, "not only as a standard of belief on specific doctrines, but also as a model of theological method, a challenge to confess the faith of the gospel today, and a constant partner in the Church's theological life. It is my firm conviction that the Articles are true enough, profound enough, biblical enough, evangelical enough, and magisterial enough to sustain such a role amid the babel and bustle of present-day theological work, and that we greatly need to have them fulfilling it among us. They have been silent too long."
December 14, 2023
This book definitely succeeded in its attempt to peak interest in studying the Articles. My interest was certainly peaked and I hopefully can do some more deep-dives in the future!
Overall, Packer clearly approaches the articles from a Reformed Calvinistic lens, and thus I am not sure I share some of his specific interpretations of the Articles. Also, I think I have a real problem with him asserting that the Articles have the same level of authority as the historic Creeds of the Church. Yes, the Articles have historically and do currently (at least in the ACNA) have authority, but they have authority only where they affirm what is clearly taught in Scripture and what is upheld in the historic creeds. They have no authority in their own right. I think he acknowledges this, but still insists then that the Articles are to have that same place, and he casually brushes aside the importance of ecumenical consensus.
At the end of the day, the Articles are important for Anglicans and are worth reading, studying and upholding. I look forward to deeper study!
Overall, Packer clearly approaches the articles from a Reformed Calvinistic lens, and thus I am not sure I share some of his specific interpretations of the Articles. Also, I think I have a real problem with him asserting that the Articles have the same level of authority as the historic Creeds of the Church. Yes, the Articles have historically and do currently (at least in the ACNA) have authority, but they have authority only where they affirm what is clearly taught in Scripture and what is upheld in the historic creeds. They have no authority in their own right. I think he acknowledges this, but still insists then that the Articles are to have that same place, and he casually brushes aside the importance of ecumenical consensus.
At the end of the day, the Articles are important for Anglicans and are worth reading, studying and upholding. I look forward to deeper study!
March 29, 2022
This is a brilliant introduction to a creed saturated with gospel truth.
I particularly enjoyed his central chapter on justification, formulating:
"how the sons of Adam, whose sin deserves God's condemnation every moment, after regeneration no less than before, who cannot, in principle, render to God more than he requires of them and in practice render much less, can yet find a relationship of acceptance and peace with God."
He concludes the chapter with a verse from the hymn Rock of Ages. The lyrics of this hymn mean even more to me now than in my childhood as I see Christ's grace in my life more and more.
'True faith is born only when a man learns to confess himself essentially unmeritous and ungodly, even in his religiosity, and to say to Christ, in the words of Toplady [the hymn-writer],
"Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to thee for dress,
Helpless, look to thee for grace;
Foul, I to the Fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die."'
I particularly enjoyed his central chapter on justification, formulating:
"how the sons of Adam, whose sin deserves God's condemnation every moment, after regeneration no less than before, who cannot, in principle, render to God more than he requires of them and in practice render much less, can yet find a relationship of acceptance and peace with God."
He concludes the chapter with a verse from the hymn Rock of Ages. The lyrics of this hymn mean even more to me now than in my childhood as I see Christ's grace in my life more and more.
'True faith is born only when a man learns to confess himself essentially unmeritous and ungodly, even in his religiosity, and to say to Christ, in the words of Toplady [the hymn-writer],
"Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to thee for dress,
Helpless, look to thee for grace;
Foul, I to the Fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die."'
March 9, 2021
I'm not an Anglican but I'm a big fan of J.I. Packer and want to know a lot more about Anglicanism, especially from his Calvinist perspective. This is a well-written, short, yet dense book. As Dr. Packer says in another of his books it's "pregnant with brevity" - which seems to be his style. But it's also a book that I feel that I'll need to circle around and read again when I'm more familiar with the Anglican tradition. I can follow the case being made but I can tell there are points being made that I don't fully grasp the entire depths of them. I don't regret buying the book and look forward to reading it again.
January 30, 2018
An evangelical & Reformed take on the history and use of the Anglican 39 Articles. Packer is, as usual, compelling, thorough, and clear. I don't think you have to buy everything he is selling to realize that his primary contention - that the disregard of the Articles in global Anglicanism has surely contributed to its current state of difficulty. A quick and thoughtful read for anyone interested in the subject.
September 16, 2017
An insightful examination of the 39 Articles and their importance. As a voice for evangelical Anglicanism, Packer is truly a φονὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἑρήῳ; but what an excellent voice indeed.
January 30, 2021
Packer’s view is to read the 39 Articles as a creed - which is clearly a conviction born from his own confidence in the Articles as faithful to Scripture.
May 25, 2023
Excellent exposition of the 39 Articles of the Anglican church.
March 15, 2025
I'm not one to argue with J I Packer. There's more that can be unpacked from the 39 Articles. I find myself referencing it in bible studies, catechism class, ecclesial polity lectures, and in sermons. Obviously every Anglican should read the articles, and I would think most protestants would do well to consider them, too. Great guardrails.
March 27, 2015
This book was certainly not bad, but it did have some shortcomings, especially in its treatment of Anglican history. Thus, I would recommend Oliver O'Donovan's treatment, "On The Thirty-Nine Articles" instead.
February 3, 2010
This is a great book, and needs to be read by all Anglicans, especially whenever they are tempted to ignor, dirregard or dismiss the 39 atticles as not being relevant to their faith today.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews