Replies

Tax Relief,

Sola Scrptura is indeed Anglican. Here's an article I wrote about the subject a few weeks ago:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/comments/is_sola_scriptura_anglican/

I was informed this week that "true Anglicans" do not hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura (scripture alone) and what is more; that the very idea of sola scriptura is antithetical to everything Anglican. This came as a great surprise to me as I both hold quite firmly to sola scriptura and, at the same time, consider myself to be a fairly true Anglican, if a bit on the evangelical side.

Moreover, I am not alone. I think there are a lot of Anglicans who hold to the same doctrine, some consciously and some unaware.

How can this be?

First I think I should explain what sola scriptura is not. It does not mean that the bible negates tradition, reason, science, or common sense.

As even a cursory glance at the orthodox side of the magisterial Reformed movements (Calvinism and Lutheranism) will show, classical teaching and human reason is highly treasured. There is a rich and multifaceted “tradition” of Reformed scholars from Calvin and Luther to the present, each generation building on the other. Some even refer to the Calvinist tradition as a sort of “reformed scholasticism” likening it to the intricacy and depth of medieval scholasticism.

Now that we know what sola scriptura is not we ought also to ask: what is it and is it rightly placed within the sphere of Anglicanism?

The doctrine of sola scriptura holds that the bible is the only infallible source of revealed truth. “Scripture alone” is infallible.

This assertion does not carry the corollary; that God has limited his revelation to the scriptures. One can both hold firmly to sola scriptura and at the same time believe that God speaks through the Church, the councils, holy tradition, nature, reason etc.

In other words, sola scriptura does not assert that the scriptures are the only source of revelation. It does assert that the scriptures are the only infallible source of revelation. Therefore, because it is the only infallible source of revelation, the bible is the sole norm by which all other authoritative norms are normed. Another way to say this is to say that because the bible is the lone infallible source, tradition and reason must be judged in light of the scriptures.

The best way to understand this doctrine and to understand how it fits within the realm of Anglican thought is to compare it with the Roman Catholic doctrine on the one hand and that of the radical reformers on the other.

At Trent the Roman Catholic Church embraced formally the two source theory of special revelation that she still holds today. Both holy writ and holy tradition are considered infallible sources of divine revelation. The teaching office of the Church, the magisterium, is charged with interpreting these two infallible sources for the faithful. Sometimes, like when the pope speaks from the chair of Peter or “ex-cathedra,” the Church interprets these two infallible sources infallibly and adds to infallible tradition. My Roman Catholic readers are invited to correct me if I have missed something here.

The Reformers objected that the Church can err and has erred in the past. While God does reveal his will to the Church, no human being, no council, no magisterium can infallibly define doctrine.

On the other side of the divide stand the radical reformers. These took sola scriptura to extremes. Not only does the bible stand as the norm by which all other norms must be normed, but it stands as the definitive precedent and model for all institutions, secular and religious. In other words, for many of the radical reformers nothing could be permitted or established in Church or state unless a biblical model or precedent could be found. Many of the Puritans followed this extreme form of sola scriptura.

Anglicans, especially evangelical and/or reformed Anglicans, have embraced a more moderate form of sola scriptura as a “via media” between Rome and the radical reformers. All things must be tested in light of the biblical witness, but not all things must conform to biblical precedent. In other words, change is possible, "new things" can happen in the church, so long as the new things do not contradict the eternal Word of God.

All other sources of revelation must be tested in light of the bible, the one infallible source, but there is room for dynamic change within biblical limits. Whatever does not contradict the scriptures is not forbidden by them.

Within this framework, tradition and reason stand as secondary sources of revelation and thus, secondary sources of authority. They are not negated, but they are subject to the biblical witness. As Richard Hooker wrote:

What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth... (Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14),

Likewise, we read in article 20 of the Articles of Religion:

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in the Controversies of Faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of the Scripture, that it be repugnant to another…

And in article 34:

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries , times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposefully, doth openly break the Tradition and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority ought to be rebuked openly…

Both articles and the passage from Hooker show that sola scriptura; the dogma that scripture alone, as the infallible source of revelation, is the norm by which all other norms must be normed, stands at the center of classic Anglican thought and teaching.

It is not correct, therefore, to label contemporary efforts to test the most recent ecclesial novelties by the bright light of the biblical revelation as an emergence of “neo-Puritanism.” Rather, a more correct and appropriate label might be, “mere Anglicanism.”