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.”
9 Comments •
Comments:
Christianity is a religion of the Bible. Spong and his ilk can create a new religion that is not of the Bible, but they will have to give it another name (something they do not for some very odd reason, want to do).
God has revealed Himself to us through the Holy Scriptures—the Old and New Testaments and Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all the law and the prophets. Holy tradition as you well point out, Matt+, has carried on Biblical truth through the ages and delivered the apostolic faith to us 2,000 years later. If we are going to follow Jesus, to give our lives to him as his disciples, to be sanctified by him and be available to him, he tells us his Word is the way to be guided and fortified for the life of faith. The apostles including and especially Paul give us the wisdom we need for our lives living the Christian life in communities of faith in a hostile world. (Nothing has changed on that account.)
The Episcopal Church, with many notable exceptions thank goodness, has not taught Biblical truth for the past 30-40 years, so we should not be surprised that so many in it do not even know the wisdom and truth they need in their lives is in the Holy Scriptures, and that the beauty of our liturgy and prayers in The Book of Common Prayer is due to the fact that it has all rested so solidly and completely on Biblical truth.
When I read the comments of the posters on orthodox web sites who come to question why we need to listen to the wisdom of the Bible, it is obvious how far so many are from understanding the very basics of the Christian faith. And they are hostile to even the suggestion of the centrality of the Holy Scriptures to the Christian life. This is the reason this conflict is unresolvable and that the two world views in the Episcopal Church cannot be reconciled.
Thanks so much for explaining this so well, Matt+. What you have said cannot be said too often.