This one's a real poser. 

Struggling to find anything to connect with -- maybe "God revealing Herself in nature, in history and in the heart of humanity" (I changed those pesky gendered terms)  and the "sure witness of Christ".

I just realized that the post I posted after I posted the initial post didn't - well - post!

So, I'll try again. *grin*

The first statement makes sense to me - God reveals Godself in a variety of ways and people (happily noting that there is nothing in those first two clauses that suggest that God speaks only through us Christian-types.)

The statement that God 'perfectly revealed [Godself] in Jesus Christ' also works for me. I don't believe that humankind (including - and perhaps, especially - the church) has done a particulary good job of understanding that perfect revelation. But we do keep trying!

I do find the "express image of [God's] person" to be interesting. I wish I had a chance to chat with some of the authors of this section, to have a better understanding of what they meant by 'person'. I get the feeling that it must be different than 'image' (Gen 1).

Receive the Holy Scriptures - ok. Given by inspiration (breathing into! in-Spiriting! cool!) - ok.

"Containing the only infallible rule of faith and life" - now we've got a problem. Well, to be fair, I've got a problem The texts we've got in the library we call the Holy Scriptures contain a whole bunch of rules for faith and life, many of which stand in contradiction to one another. We don't follow the Deuteronomic code, or the Levitical one. I mean, not even our most stringently scripture following siblings in Christ live many of those out.

I have some difficulty with "a faithful record". My understanding (and belief) is that the Scriptures are not particularly good recording of history, rather a good recording of testamony. Again, if I read the last line as speaking to human witnessing of the Christ moment - of Jesus' life and all that came with it - I can read it as "witness of Christ".

Christ's peace - rb

Ok so here it goes:

"We believe that God has revealed Himself in nature, in history, and in the heart of man"

  I'm ok with that as I believe that God reveals himself/herself to us all the time

"that He has been graciously pleased to make clearer revelation of Himself to men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; and that in the fullness of time He has perfectly revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, who is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person."

   I don't even mind that too much as all it is really saying is that the Holy Spirit moved within this particular person and revealed herself in that person.  I don't think that it is an exclusionary clause, ie I don't think that one has to read this clause to say that the Holy Spirit has only in the history of the world come within Jesus.  The express image of His person.  I have no idea what that means.  Just flowery words to me.

"We receive the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, given by inspiration of God"

I think that this is true.  I think that the writers of the OT and NT were writing inspired by God mostly - though sometimes the voices in ones heads may not be God's voice.

"as containing the only infallible rule of faith and life, a faithful record of God's gracious revelations, and as the sure witness of Christ"

This I don't think is correct.  Unfortunately I think that we know now that the Bible is full of errors and mistranslations, that it was written for propaganda/political purposes and that it is just the books that were popular at the time that the Bible was bound into one "book".   I have to say though with all of its failings there is so much wisdom contained in the Bible that I do look to it for answers when I am confused at questions that life gives to me.

However, I guess the fact that I can live with most of it means that I am in "essential agreement".

This phrase made me wonder, too. Maybe the "express image" is the version of God's image suited to these days of instant everything. 

Also, the use of the male pronouns for God has expanded into the use of the term "men" when meaning (maybe?) everyone. It's hard for me to disregard this as this document comes from a time when women were not recognized as persons under the law of this land. It comes from 1925 and women were given recognition as persons in 1929. I say that the time to revisit this language is long overdue. At one time, I would have had no problem with saying that I am in essential agreement but can no longer do so.

What does "containing the only infallible rule of faith and life, a faithful record of God's gracious revelations, and as the sure witness of Christ" mean?

DOes it mean the words themselves, all of them?  OR does it mean that within the stories and prayers and poems God is revealed and GOd's "rule" for life is revealed?  THis makes a big difference.  "Containing" is open to interpretation and that is why I can be in essential agreement.

YEs teh gender issue is going to be present in all of these.  ANd if they were written in the last 20 years (and only the last 20 years within specific communities) they would be written with different pronouns.  Mind you they would then be written with a different syntax that would be more understandable to current readers too.  I just translate the gender stuff as I read it. 

WHat bothers me is that the ARticle doesn't seem to to talk about God's ongoing revelation.  It all talks about how it has happened in the past.

This is one article I would have no problem saying I am in essential agreement with.  Though the "express image" is a bit confusing, and I would be grateful to have this defined.  The language being gender-neutral would be preferrable, but obviously that's a criticism that will be applied to all the articles.  So I won't keep repeating that.

I think that by revealing God's Self in nature and in the heart of humankind, we can see that God will be continually revealing throughout the future.

I can do "essential" agreement to this article, very similarly to what everyone else said.  "Infallible" as a word has a way of making fools of people - as used here, though it can be 'truth' as in 'heartfelt wisdom' rather than fact where we are 'essentially' able to discover wonderful spirited truth about faith & life that rules over/surpasses our other avenues.  Well- we might find truth & rules elsewhere, but these ones as our tradition speak closely to us and we can essentially live into them....

are you convinced of my 'essential agreement'?  (related to another post for article 1 - who gets to decide my 'essential agreement' when it counts?)

Hi RichardBott,

The following is also from an old blog:

Here is how I break it down.

"We believe that God has revealed Himself in nature, in history, and in the heart of man"

It is the understanding of The United Church of Canada,or so I interpret, that God reveals God's self in a variety of different ways. Firstly, through nature also known by theologians as the third Testament and that bit of revelation which is most accessible to human observation and scientific study. So, I do not take as given that science and religion must be at odds with each other and find that as in most areas where conflict rears its ugly head the problem is how we communicate with each other.
 

Once upon a time science and religion used to speak the same language and it was easier then for both to speak with each other. Somewhere along the way it was decided (pig-headedly I believe) that the two should not influence each other and the ability to communicate has been more or less lost.
 

History is another avenue by which we can see the hand of God at play in human events because for the most part history, like theology, is a matter of interpretation.
 

As we study past events we have to be careful how we read them so as not to consider the past in the light of today. If we move beyond a literalist approach to history we can ponder on the theological underpinning that brought Communism to an end in Europe or how the German war machine could start with a surge and die with a whimper and understand the rotten mechanisms that world power trusted in.
 

We also have "in the heart of man" (sorry to all you inclusively mined folk--I will not willingly change the words of the Basis of Union without a remit) a hint of how God has placed the law of God in the human heart and from there we can arrive at an understanding of how much similarity we can find between faith families at the same time we come to understand how there can be such dissimilarity among them.
 

So to sum up. God does not rely on scripture alone as the sole method of our coming to a knowledge of God. The invitation is built into the world we live in, it is writ large in the times we move in and even if we were blind to all of that it has been pressed into our heart in someway.
 

"He has been graciously pleased to make clearer revelation of Himself to men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"
 

Note that it is clearer revelation and it springs out of an understanding that God has already been hard at work revealing to any and all who will look.
 

In that regard the authors of scripture are like those annoying people who can look at those magic pictures and see instantly what is hidden in the squiggles that distract the rest of us.
 

"and that in the fullness of time He has perfectly revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, who is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person"
 

This takes God's graciousness one step further. Building on the magic picture metaphor Jesus is the guy who paints the picture that the annoying people see and describe while others just see squiggles.
 

All the beauty of the picture is contained in Jesus who lets it out in ways that we can, with some help sometimes, see more clearly.
 

"We receive the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, given by inspiration of God"
 

Please note that we use the word inspiration and not dictation although there clearly are some moments in the grand narrative of scripture where God says "Write this down." There are also moments where at least one author takes the writing pad and stylus from his amenuensis and writes in his own hand so that the recipients of the letter can be certain that it is from him and not some pretender.
 

"as containing the only infallible rule of faith and life, a faithful record of God's gracious revelations, and as the sure witness of Christ."
 

Some glossary work.
 

Infallible does not mean without error (that would be inerrant) what it means is that it cannot fail.
 

So, the Bible contains a rule which cannot fail. Meaning that if you follow it you hit the bull's eye every single time you notch and arrow, draw back upon the bowstring and release the same.
 

It does not say that only the Bible contains the infallible rule of faith and life it says as containing the only infallible rule of faith and life. To my mind that leaves the door open for other faiths and their scriptures to also contain a record fo the only infallible rule of faith and life.
 

If you are wondering what that only infallible rule might be I will direct you to my friend GoldenRule.
 

For those unwilling to chat the guy up I'll throw out the term agape.
 

"a faithful record of God's gracious revelations,"
 

These would be those special revelations given to those annoying magic picture interpretting type people.
 

They see what God reveals and they do the best they can to help us to see likewise. If you cannot see past the squiggle you could do the easy work and insist that these special people are just liars or you could do the hardwork of examing why it is that your perspective hides more than it reveals. 
 

"and as the sure witness of Christ"
 

Confidentially, if it weren't for Jesus allegedly quoting passages from the Old Testament and apparently applying them to himself I wouldn't be so confident that the authors of the Old Testament are sure witnesses of Christ.
 

And there will be raised the spectre of the years between the writing of events and their actual occurance and the documents rejected and the conspiracy of orthodoxy and all that stuff as if that in someway proves that there were absolutely no witnesses or that there were witnesses but they never talked about it.
 

I would put the entire bulk of manuscript evidence for the reliablility of the Old and New Testament up against any other piece of literature that exist from the same time period. And the accuracy of transmission which is always presented as some kind of defeating argument, I'd put all of the manuscript evidence up against that too.
 

At any rate, I think that the Biblical authors have no doubt recorded a reliable and competent history of God's action of redemption in the life of God's people.
 

Is it a history of the Medo-Persian empire? It doesn't make any such claim to be.
 

Is it a history of any Egyptian dynasty? It doesn't make any claims of such either.
 

In fact, I am confident that had neither ever crossed paths with the people of God they would never have been mentioned in the text.

So that is my take on Article 2.

Grace and peace to you. 

John

So much has been said, I'll only touch on the two points that stand out most for me, and give my final verdict.

1) I particularly like the "contains the only infallible rule of faith" part.

Like RevJohn, I note that it doesn't say only the Bible contains this. For me, that infallible rule of faith revolves around the overarching theme of the Bible... love... and Jesus' commandments to love are central. It is the greatest treasure I find in the Bible, and I think it is why I find Biblical exploration so alluring. I just can't get enough of it. And it's a bit like digging for treasure. It's in there, along with a whole bunch of other stuff, but when you find it, it can reap rewards that were previously unimagined. And it has different faces- love, trust in the God who is Love, loving neighbour as self, surrendering to the Spirit which is Love's Power... and so many more.

2) Gord W, thanks for highlighting the lack of reference to God's ongoing revelation. I am with you in being a bit uneasy with that. I must admit I hadn't picked up on that before. It outlines the kind of revelation I know, through my own experience and others' reports, to be ongoing. But while it describes the kind of revelation that is continually unfolding, it does, as you pointed out, only refer to it in the past tense. 

- All in all, this is my "favourite" article of faith... so I affirm my essential agreement with a very solid nod of the head.

This one seems quite a bit easier, for me.  It merely requires understanding gendered language has evolved and not limiting myself to other people's theology regarding phrases, much like others have highlighted. (ie infallable)

I think I'm in the same place as Richard - God has revealed Himself to the world, and most clearly through Jesus, who we may fall short of understanding and emulating but continue to try. In terms of the wholehearted endorsement of the bible as the 'only guide to faith and life' and 'a faithful account' of the early church/Jesus' life etc. goes too far with a good concept - the idea of being compelled to faith by a wonderful, Divinely-inspired document. I think it simply reflects the time that union occured - the early 20th century - and I doubt any mainline church of today would deny that there are other texts which also provide (a) guidance and (b) further, even faithful, biography of those in the Bible and their times.