What is the history of “Sola Scriptura?”

[gtsecc]

To what canon was it applied?
Has the idea of Sola Scriptura changed?

 

[J-Tron]

What do you mean "to what canon was it applied?" As far as I know, Anglicanism has never been a sola scriptura tradition. We've always held scripture in a high place, believing that it contains all things necessary for salvation. Richard Hooker enshrined the early Anglican theology in writing, laying out what we commonly refer to as "the three legged stool" (except I don't think Hooker used that term). The metaphor is a false one though. Hooker wasn't saying that scripture, tradition, and reason are of equal weight. He was saying that of necessity one uses reason and tradition to discern the truth of scripture. Scripture does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot understand scripture without interpreting. And while all things necessary for salvation are contained therein, there are other things necessary to learn in order to understand what scripture tells us. The bible will not teach us how to read.

As far as I understand, sola scriptura has always been a reference to the belief that scripture stands alone as a source of spiritual wisdom and that all things can be found there. Like Hooker, I believe that it would be very difficult to make that case since the bible is a document of specific parameters, not a how-to manual for every aspect of living.

 

[RobNJ]

If you want to examine Sola Scriptura, check in over at the Reformed forum, it's one of their core doctrines...they can give you a good rundown, or give you a few links

 

[gtsecc]

As far as I know, Anglicanism has never been a sola scriptura tradition.

As far as I know also.

What do you mean "to what canon was it applied?"

Well, ML came up with it, correct?



So, did he mean the Zondervan 66 Cannon plus Tobit, minus James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation?

Did He mean the Protestant Canon?

Catholic Canon?

Orthodox Canon?

?????

 

[Wigglesworth]

To what canon was it [Sola Scriptura] applied?

I believe that those who accept the doctrine would apply it to the Hebrew canon plus the 27 book New Testament. Luther did not accept what we know as the Apocrypha or the Deuterocanon as canonical.

 

[gtsecc]

If you want to examine Sola Scriptura, check in over at the Reformed forum, it's one of their core doctrines...they can give you a good rundown, or give you a few links

No response from them so far.

 

[RobNJ]

No response from them so far.

As a former(?) R.C.A. Elder...I can probably find some links, after I dig up my old laptop

 

[gtsecc]

As a former(?) R.C.A. Elder...I can probably find some links, after I dig up my old laptop

What made you change your mind?

 

[julian the apostate]

you were rca?

 

[PaladinValer]

Luther, although rejecting the Deuterocanon as canonical, held them to be useful in instruction, but not as a source of doctrine.

The Anglican Church never really (until the Calvinists invaded) said that the Deuterocanon was anything but canon. When the Calvinists were ousted and the Church "restored," the Deuterocanon (and the rest of which was lost) was returned to its rightful place.

 

[CEV]

the bible is a document of specific parameters

Could you further explain what you mean here?

not a how-to manual for every aspect of living.

I have been taught in church and at home for all of my childhood and teen life that is is a how to manual (but not so sure if it can be used like that in every way anymore)...

What I have heard so far from the Anglicians and Catholics is making a lot of sense to me, all the sudden.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The problem with the Bible as a "how to" manual, or indeed a textbook of systematic theology, is it doesn't read like one - not even one of those motherboard manuals translated from Taiwanese - "Is careful not connector wrongly fitting or perhaps computer not up boot".

It's full of complementary and contradictory images, stories, myths, legends and goodness knows what else. It's a real rag-tag collection of things. Doesn't make it unimportant, or non-inspired, but it simply isn't an instruction manual. It can't even tell you (though both sides will argue it can) whether to baptise babies or leave 'em until they're adults.

 

[J-Tron]

Could you further explain what you mean here?


I have been taught in church and at home for all of my childhood and teen life that is is a how to manual (but not so sure if it can be used like that in every way anymore)...

What I have heard so far from the Anglicians and Catholics is making a lot of sense to me, all the sudden.

Why not split the difference and go Anglo-Catholic? j/k...sortof...

Karl's point is well taken with respect to what I said before. The bible is not a how to manual in the sense that you can't just open it up and have it tell you how to live your life. It doesn't say "1) Brush your teeth, 2) go to the store because you are running low on milk, 3)..." Rather, it is a collection of books written by different authors over a period of centuries. Thinking of it as being completely seemless would be a bit like reading a novel that was half written by Tolstoy and half written by Stephen King and expecting there to be no difference between the halves.

This is not to say that the bible is without instruction or that it is uninspired. There is a scriptural witness to truths that pervade the text. But we do not worship the text. We worship God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We believe that God communicates to us through the text and that we must use our God given reason and the church's witness as tools to understand how to find God's voice amidst the jumble of information in the bible and the din of noise that crowds our lives.

Hopefully I didn't just make my original point even more confusing.


peace.

 

[ctobola]

Sola Scriptura is integral to the Lutheran faith.... In that faith community, we believe that all things -- including tradition and religious leadership -- must be held up and judged in light of Scripture. It's presented quite clearly in the the writings and actions (e.g., teaching peasants to read so they could read the Bible) of Luther.

One of the practical upshot of this can be seen in continued teaching of Bishop Spong. In the Lutheran demonination, he would have been booted out years ago... and would probably be a college professor somewhere. In the Episcopal denominiation he continues to speak on behalf of "the Church."

-Cloy

 

[julian the apostate]

one thing that has always bothered me about sola scriptura

where in the bible do you guys find a list of the books that constitute scripture?

 

[pmcleanj]

One of the practical upshot of this can be seen in continued teaching of Bishop Spong. In the Lutheran demonination, he would have been booted out years ago... and would probably be a college professor somewhere. In the Episcopal denominiation he continues to speak on behalf of "the Church."

-Cloy

No, Bishop Spong does not speak on behalf of the church. He speaks on behalf of +John Spong: a deeply devout and insightful man who is often misrepresented as impious -- misrepresentations usually based either on misunderstandings of his poetic and symoblogical language, or on a fundamental distrust of any perspective other than the well-rehearsed pietisms of our times.

Lutherans, with your non-sacramental ordinations and non-historic episcopacy perhaps can trivially "boot out" a consecrated Bishop. We, however, do not hold that the oil of chrism will 'wash off'.

 

[julian the apostate]

and a body that is actually in communion with us - and has stood by the ecusa

god bless the elusa,, or whatever the acronym is sorry

must have been so much easier in the good old days
i am of appolos i am of paul and so on

but still,,

one thing that has always bothered me about sola scriptura

where in the bible do you guys find a list of the books that constitute scripture?

 

[gtsecc]

Cloy - I don't think any Anglican would disagree with the definition of Sola Scriptura which you posted. However, more and more "Christians" have the false belief of Sola Scriptura that if it is not in the Bible, it is against the Bible.

 

[ctobola]

No, Bishop Spong does not speak on behalf of the church. He speaks on behalf of +John Spong: a deeply devout and insightful man who is often misrepresented as impious -- misrepresentations usually based either on misunderstandings of his poetic and symoblogical language, or on a fundamental distrust of any perspective other than the well-rehearsed pietisms of our times.

Thanks for your post. I have read Spong and find him quite insightful; but he certainly is not orthodox; and I would argue that when he uses the title of bishop he speaks on behalf of the organization that bestowed that title, and presumably the ECUSA is a part of the Church. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. ) His work I read most recently had to do with the idea that Christ's work should be understood as empowerment, not atonement. Interesting, informative and challenging, but certainly not in line with the teachings of Scripture, the Creeds or the Church.

Lutherans, with your non-sacramental ordinations and non-historic episcopacy perhaps can trivially "boot out" a consecrated Bishop. We, however, do not hold that the oil of chrism will 'wash off'.

You are correct -- we only recognize the sacraments of communion and baptism, because they are the only ones we see presented in Scripture (Sola Scriptura); but presumably Episcopalians don't hold ordination as a sacrament either. As noted by an Episcopalian in another thread:

Article XXV of the ECUSA articles of religion:
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

Additionally, we don't have the episcopacy, historic or otherwise (except the few who have been brought into the Episcopal HE under CCM) because we hold the "priesthood of all believers," which we draw from the book of Hebrews. (SS again) Moreover, since we don't believe any ontological change happens to the individual in ordination or consecration to the bishopric, the individual ceases to be a bishop once the call or a dioscese or synod ends.

Jubelate Deo! -Cloy

 

[pmcleanj]

... presumably Episcopalians don't hold ordination as a sacrament either. As noted by an Episcopalian in another thread:

Article XXV of the ECUSA articles of religion:
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

See the little celtic-cross symbol next to my name? See the little rose-and-heart-with-cross symbol next to yours? You may ask what Episcopalians believe; you may tell me what you interpret from what you have heard about, or from, Episcopalians; but please have the grace not to tell me what I, as an Episcopalian, believe -- certainly not here in my home forum.

The "39 Articles" from which that quote was taken are not a doctrinal statement. They were never in the history of the Church required belief or required teaching. Although during some of the Church's history in some jurisdictions clergy (not laity) were required to "submit" to them, Church scholars interpreted submission to mean only that they refrain from teaching anything directly contrary to them. The role of the 39 articles (or the original 42 articles) has been more to define proposals for consideration, than to define the answers to the theological questions being considered, as can be seen most clearly in the article on predestination which nicely states both sides of the debate in the same article. Understand that Anglicanism (as has been said several times already in this forum) is not so much a defined theology, but a way of thinking theologically.

But even if the articles were doctrinal statements, article 25 simply distinguishes between the "Sacraments of the Gospel" which are requisite of every Christian believer, and the "Commonly-called Sacraments" which are available to those whom God calls.

Thanks for your post. I have read Spong and find him quite insightful; but he certainly is not orthodox; and I would argue that when he uses the title of bishop he speaks on behalf of the organization that bestowed that title, and presumably the ECUSA is a part of the Church. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. ) His work I read most recently had to do with the idea that Christ's work should be understood as empowerment, not atonement. Interesting, informative and challenging, but certainly not in line with the teachings of Scripture, the Creeds or the Church.

Whether +John uses the title of "bishop" or not -- he usually 'goes by' "John", actually; I've never heard him introduce himself as "Bishop" -- he nonetheless is a Bishop, which title indicates the particular ontological changes that do occur during the sacrament of Ordination to the episcopacy. When he speaks, he speaks as a Bishop of the Church. But we, too, have the concept of the priesthood of Melchizidech, which we all inherit as members of the Body of Christ. That is, of course, completely distinct both liturgically and etymologically from the presbytery, which is the priesthood defined and mandated in the New Testament. The word "priest" is in fact a contraction of "presbyter" -- it's merely been borrowed as a descriptor for the sacerdotal priesthood since English has no other word available. Since we all share in Christ's eternal priesthood as members of the Body, no one person can ever "speak on behalf of the Church".

+John's writings and preaching are often not overtly and simplistically in line with orthodoxy. At another level however they are indeed in line with the message of the Bible and the Tradition of the Church. And, frankly, for a visitor to this forum to declare that one of our Bishops should be "booted out" is offensive.

Incidentally, how do you explain the Swedish Lutheran churches around here who seem to be labouring under the impression that they do have the historic episcopacy?