I chatted with AI about paradoxical Anglican core teachings concerning essentials of salvation, canon of scripture, and Trinitarianism.
See
https://chatgpt.com/share/68d3abf0-9344-8005-8817-f51b5f40bb03
I began by asking whether the Church of England is bound by the Westminster Confession, and we established that it is not; the Church of England relies on the Thirty-Nine Articles, while Westminster governs Presbyterian churches. I then asked if the Church of England therefore does not adopt the canon implied by Westminster. The discussion clarified that the Thirty-Nine Articles define the canon and distinguish the Apocrypha, meaning the Church of England’s scriptural basis is distinct from Westminster’s. We explored whether the Articles themselves canonize Scripture and concluded that they don’t create a canon but delineate which books are authoritative for doctrine.
We then considered whether the Articles mandate Sola Scriptura. Article VI affirms that only Scripture is sufficient for salvation, but the Articles also uphold the Creeds and the Church’s authority for rites and interpretation, creating a form of prima scriptura where Scripture is supreme but tradition and creeds play a subordinate role. This led to discussion of whether only doctrines provable from Scripture can be essential, noting that the Articles themselves act as arbiters of what is required to be believed, even though they are extrabiblical. We explored how conciliar rulings, like those from Nicaea, cannot strictly be considered essential because Scripture alone does not compel assent, which exposes a tension between Articles VI and VIII.
I highlighted that historical divergences, such as the persistence of Arianism, show that Scripture alone does not enforce Nicene formulations. This demonstrates that the Articles enforce certain doctrinal positions as essential even though Scripture could support alternative interpretations, meaning the Articles act as arbiters of essentials. Further, the Articles paradoxically define the canon and require assent to Creeds, even though these are extrabiblical, intensifying the contradiction between the principle of Scripture alone and the practical enforcement of doctrinal conformity. Finally, I pointed out that certain gospel passages emphasize the Father as supreme and the Son as eternally subordinate, which could support a Biblical Unitarian reading. This creates a direct tension with the Creeds, which assert coequality and consubstantiality of the Trinity. Overall, the Thirty-Nine Articles both contain internal paradoxes and, in practice, enforce interpretations that may conflict with Scripture, revealing a structural contradiction in their logic.
AI worded this summary.
