At least there is a clear and clean option for those out of sorts with the collective/ individual definitions that they take the risk and plunge and set up afresh rather than become entryists and attempt to divert funds via private trust funds.

Pluralist-- Sorry to mistake your point. It may be that DavidW was agreeing with you below in his comment on the OT and NT. Personally, although I find that there is an aversion to something called "confessionalism" in most Anglicans on both sides of the pond, my actual experience with seminarians and clergy in Lutheran and Reformed churches does nothing to confirm it. To the contrary, even some very free spirits have found it an enriching and civilising experience to master one good corpus doctrinae before moving on to other theological interests in which one might otherwise get lost. And to have a common theological language for governance, ecclesiology, discipline, etc  is priceless for a church. The new presbyterian denomination that I have mentioned on another thread is leaving their parent body mainly because the inability to get a clear conversation about That Topic seemed to prove to them that the theological diversity among the presbyters was making it impossible to do the work of a presbyterian church on many other matters besides. What that may mean for episcopal churches I leave for another day.

I'm only making the point that in these C of E texts the Church is given the whole, right, truth, and then the individual is presented with a demand to be assenting at something of a distance, that is allowing for the view that in precision and detail there is no demand to agree - but to the totality. No comparison is being made other than with the greater precision involved in the individual assent in The Episcopal Church.

Phil-- I do not understand the point you are making with your second paragraph. It is more likely that you would never fall into the error that the Assent adroitly forfends. Some other Reformation churches, in emphasizing the agreement of their confessions with the scriptures, have used divine inspiration language to describe the former. For example, the Wisconsin Synod once held that the Weimar editions of the published works of Martin Luther were inspired by God. That seems to assimilate the confessions to the scriptures, which you would probably agree to be misleading. Yet a Protestant church must have some account of the divine provenance of the truths that so profoundly reshaped its life, because nothing right happens in the Church without God. In the Assent, the Church of England appears to have avoided error whilst affirming that the truth of the Articles, Prayerbook, and Ordinal is from God by asserting that both the scriptures and the formularies are true, but in different ways. The scriptures witness to Christ; the formularies reflect the continuous leadership of the Holy Spirit as they were shaped throughout the English Reformation. The truth of the scriptures is secured by inspiration; the truth of the formularies is secured by indefectibility. Or so it seems prima facie.

Pluralist-- Again, I have no special knowledge of the English canons, but the Assent does not appear to my naive eye to be notably different from the similar statements made by new ministers in other Protestant churches that are invariably reckoned to be confessional, except in the emphasis on "generations" and the apparent distinction mentioned above. The Anglican formularies really do seem to more than friendly suggestions. That said, the Articles lack the systematising ambition of the Book of Concord or the Westminster Standards, whilst the Prayerbook and Ordinal are much richer in exemplars for Christian order, life, and prayer. They are not less authoritative, but they are different.

Bowman,

I agree with Phil Almond.

I am not sure of the point you are making. When the TC says new and old testament and the CofE says scriptures, what scriptures would they be if not the new and old testament?

Bowman

I do not understand the point you are making with your second paragraph. As I see it, in the sentence “Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies” it is asserted that the Church has correctly borne witness in the historic formularies to the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds. How could it be otherwise since, it is asserted, this witness bearing was led by the Holy Spirit? How can there be a difference between “Christian truth” and “the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds”? This view of what is being said is strengthened by what Canon A5 says.

A 5 Of the doctrine of the Church of England

The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy

Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of

the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of

Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

Phil Almond

I think, Bowman, you make a mistake when you ask if this is how the English read the text. The text is deliberately worded to be open - if you want, you can make that loyalty to the inheritance of the details, but also it allows a loyalty to a faith as a whole thrust. It is not a confessional text.

My point was always the whole thrust. At what point did I cease to agree to the whole thrust - the loyalty to the inheritance? (I don't believe in a difference between ministers and lay people as such.) Well, I came to the view that Jesus was not either definitive or unique, that the incarnation was indeed myth and the resurrection was a reworked view of a particular community. Therefore I wasn't loyal to the thrust of the wording, and although not clergy or ministering in any formal role I would not be able to say it. That is when I stopped taking communion, said less in the liturgy, and later on agreed to take a Unitarian service and thus found my way back there again.

At no point was I under the illusion that Anglican ministers were agreeing to assent to every word of creeds, articles and other formularies. However, every week it had been quite a difficulty to recite "We believe" when it also involves "I don't" and then there is the 1662 "I believe" when I don't. So I stopped saying those straight away - and as soon as I did I realised it meant "I" wasn't therefore one of the "we".

The TEC Anglican individual says, specifically: and I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation

The individual says the two Testaments are the Word of God. The C of E Anglican does not. He or she is asked whether the loyalty to the inheritance is to be the person's inspiration and guidance. And he or she does so affirm. So there is no such declaration about the Testaments, none about the creeds or articles. It is inspiration and guidance from loyalty to the inheritance of faith.

Pluralist-- This appears to be the 1979 echo of the words of the ordinal in the 1662 BCP below which were in the 1789, 1892, and 1928 Prayerbooks in the US.

1662

RE you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?
    Answer. I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God's grace.

Hi Phil-- The text is below. I have italicised and boldfaced the passages that appear to refer to the local definitions of the Church of England. Since from the structure this appears to be straightforward branch theory, I take "this inheritance of faith" to refer both to the scriptures and creeds and to the Anglican formularies.

The text draws a notable distinction with "uniquely revealed" and "set forth,"  constrains "proclaim afresh in each generation" with "led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness...," and chooses "historic" rather than "historical." In proclamation of the ancient faith in the present "generation," one does not bypass the Church of England's own formularies, and instead sees them as Spirit-led discernment in a temporal context that has enduring meaning.

Is that the way the English read the text?

Preface

Bishop :       The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?

Declaration of assent

Priest          I, N, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.

Pluralist highlights an interesting point.

"The TEC Anglican individual says, specifically: and I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation"

To rob the poor? To steal from the poor and give to the rich?

Are liberals ok with that as an interpretation of the gospel and thus belief in the Holy Scriptures?

After all Jesus never condemned stealing from the poor, He never said anything about it.

Look forward to responses from liberals.

The TEC Anglican individual says, specifically: and I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation
 

The individual says the two Testaments are the Word of God. The C of E Anglican does not. He or she is asked whether the loyalty to the inheritance is to be the person's inspiration and guidance. And he or she does so affirm. So there is no such declaration about the Testaments, none about the creeds or articles. It is inspiration and guidance from loyalty to the inheritance of faith.

In the declaration you are about to make, will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?

Declaration of Assent

I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness..

Bowman

You posted

"...............Both statements invoke a transcendent origin of doctrine and juxtapose to that a loyalty to the local, living tribe and its chief. The American text suppresses the tension; the English one frames it with care".

I see where you get "...and juxtapose to that a loyalty to the local, living tribe and its chief" in the American statements, but where do you find it in the CofE one?

Phil Almond