What is the history of “Sola Scriptura?”

[ctobola]

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.

Hence the reason I cited from a senior member of this forum -- with whom I exchanged posts. Our exchange appears under the thread "The ECUSA, the ELCA, CCM and CF."

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.

Lutheran scholars make no such distinction. I forsee this area will become more of a point of contention between the ECUSA and the ELCA as CCM moves forward -- particularly in the Midwestern U.S. where lay presidency is fairly common.

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. As I noted, I find his work challenging and enlightening -- and certainly in line with my understanding of grace -- but I would argue that his denial of the human need for atonement stands in direct opposition to what I believe most Christians would hold as a central teaching for the Gospel.

And, frankly, for a visitor to this forum to declare that one of our Bishops should be "booted out" is offensive.

I apologize -- my intent was not to offend. However, I did not declare that he should (or could) be "booted out" of the Episcopal hierarchy; but that would likely be in the case in the Lutheran system. My point was simply that in the Lutheran tradition all ecclestiastical structures and roles are subservient to our understanding of Scripture.

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?

The Swedish episcopacy was an issue that was we looked at in discussions of CCM. My reading of the issue -- which is quite nicely presented on the Church of Sweden web site -- is that the Swedish HE is much more of an administrative tradition than a spiritual one. They seem to hold it as a historic gift rather than a ecclestiastical necessity.

Thanks again for your posts. Once again, sorry for any misunderstanding or offense.

-Cloy

 

[pmcleanj]

Hence the reason I cited from a senior member of this forum -- with whom I exchanged posts.

Just a heads-up, then. A "senior member" refers to the person's posting experience at CF in general, not to their ecclesial experience in a particular congregation. And quoting one Anglican to another doesn't constitute citing authority.

If you hang around in Anglican circles long enough, you'll come to realize what we are already very aware of: that we have many different perspectives on the same issues, and are able to respect our differences without feeling pressured to change.

 

[ctobola]

You raise a good point... what is adiaphora and what isn't. And when do you apply the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law?
-Cloy

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.

 

[CEV]

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.

Is the Deuterocanon the book of Deuteronomy?

And what does it mean to canonize something? What is the "canon?"

 

[gtsecc]

Is the Deuterocanon the book of Deuteronomy?

No.
For Catholics and Anglicans:
Tobit (Tobias), Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.
For Orthodox churches:
Tobit (Tobias), Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 MaccabeesWisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.
It also includes additions to the books of Esther, Daniel, Job, and Psalms.

And what does it mean to canonize something?

It means decreeded by the Church to be true or authoritative.

What is the "canon?"

The Bible or the Priest

 

[Wigglesworth]

Is the Deuterocanon the book of Deuteronomy? And what does it mean to canonize something? What is the "canon?"

The canon is the collection of books received as authoritative by the church. Just about the entire global church accepts at least the sixty-six books of today's King James Version as being canonical. Some Christians, like the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, and some of the Anglicans lurking in this forum, accept additional books as canonical. The Roman Catholics call these additional books the deuterocanon, which means second canon. The first sixty-six were formally received as the canon in ecumenical councils by the end of the fourth century A.D. The deuterocanon was formally received by the Roman Catholics at the Council of Trent in the 1500's.

Deuteronomy is a book that is canonical to all Christians, I suppose, and to Jews. It is included in the Hebrew canon, which does not include some of the books in the Roman Catholic version of the Old Testament. Deuteronomy is not deuterocanonical. It's in the group of sixty-six that everybody likes.

 

[PaladinValer]

In reality, when the Anglican Church was instituted as a Christian Tradition (we're talking only decades after Jesus' death), they never rejected any canonized book. Even when the Anglican Church renounced its ties with the Vatican Church (for, IMO, good and legitamit reasons), they never disavowed the Deuterocanon! You can thank (as I keep bringing up) the Calvinistic insurgancy for that little number.

The Anglican Church has historically and traditionally always thought of the Deuterocanon as fully canonical Scripture. This is how it was in the Early Church and this is therefore how I shall believe. Who am I to argue with the Holy Spirit-inspired Councils?!

 

[gtsecc]

In reality, when the Anglican Church was instituted as a Christian Tradition (we're talking only decades after Jesus' death), they never rejected any canonized book. Even when the Anglican Church renounced its ties with the Vatican Church (for, IMO, good and legitamit reasons), they never disavowed the Deuterocanon! You can thank (as I keep bringing up) the Calvinistic insurgancy for that little number.

The Anglican Church has historically and traditionally always thought of the Deuterocanon as fully canonical Scripture. This is how it was in the Early Church and this is therefore how I shall believe. Who am I to argue with the Holy Spirit-inspired Councils?!

Yes, and further more we included it when we translated and made the Authorized Version of the Bible, King James!

 

[CEV]

In reality, when the Anglican Church was instituted as a Christian Tradition (we're talking only decades after Jesus' death), they never rejected any canonized book. Even when the Anglican Church renounced its ties with the Vatican Church (for, IMO, good and legitamit reasons), they never disavowed the Deuterocanon! You can thank (as I keep bringing up) the Calvinistic insurgancy for that little number.

The Anglican Church has historically and traditionally always thought of the Deuterocanon as fully canonical Scripture. This is how it was in the Early Church and this is therefore how I shall believe. Who am I to argue with the Holy Spirit-inspired Councils?!

Amazing. The Baptist churches never taught anything like that. I never heard them mention the word "canon" or deuterocanon or anything like that. Much less that, as you said, the Anglican and Catholic churches date way back, much farther than Baptist churches. My churches have always kept me in the dark about church history, never mentioning it.

By the way, are church officials in the Catholic and Anglican churches educated beyond high-school? Do they hold Theology degrees (that required at least four years of education)? Perhaps my pastors simply never studied church history.

...so you are saying that the Calvanists are the ones who took out the deuterocanon? Are they also the ones responsible for sola scriptura?

 

[PaladinValer]

Anglicans hold and believe in "apostolic succession," also known as the "historic episcopate." Our ordained clergy can trace their ordination from the bishop(s) that ordained them to those bishops' bishops, and to those bishops' bishops, to the original bishops, the Apostles themselves, whom were ordained by God Himself.

Most (nearly all or all?) Anglican clergy do have post-HS education, which is separate from their divinity school (roughly 3 or 4 years). Because Anglicanism is such an ancient Church and tradition in the Christian faith and also because we hold to all the historic Councils, Creeds, and ancient orthodoxies of the Church, learning Church History is of critical importance, especially do to our historic episcopate and, to quote the Nicene Creed, our belief that we are part of the "One Holy Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church" that was founded on Pentecost.

Edit: Luther's view of "sola scriptura" was simply that Scripture should be the primary basis of our faith, doctrine, and knowledge of all things necessary for salvation. He never, as far as I know, said that Truth and such knowledge cannot be found in Holy Tradition (or Holy Reason). It was the Calvinists and the Anabaptists (and, later, Pentecostals, the Non-denominationalists, the Fundamentalists, etc), who took it as popularly believed: that if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't Truth.

 

[pmcleanj]

By the way, are church officials in the Catholic and Anglican churches educated beyond high-school? Do they hold Theology degrees (that required at least four years of education)? Perhaps my pastors simply never studied church history.

When I was discerning a call to the priesthood, many years ago (and eventually discerned that I probably didn't have one) admission to an Anglican M.Theol. programme required a Masters degree as a pre-requisite. Most Anglican priests I know have a baccalaureate and two masters degrees (one being their M. Theol); several have a PhD in Theology.

Doubtless it differs from Province to Province. But the tradition of scholarship is very strong in our Communion, and especially so among the Celtic church.

The Baptist churches never taught anything like that. I never heard them mention the word "canon" or deuterocanon or anything like that.

Literally, the word "canon" means a 'rule'; that is, a standard procedure or technique by which some pattern can be determined:

• A musical "canon" is a melody, together with a simple rule that helps you 'decode' the harmonies hidden in the melody. The simplest example (like the Tallis Canon) is for a second voice to begin a set number of measures after the first. Or, for the second voice to play the inverse melody to that played by the first voice. Or the second voice plays the melody backward.
• "Canon" Law is the set of rules that regulate our internal life as a Province in the Anglican Communion: our government, ministry, doctrine, liturgy, rites and property
• Canon, as a title, is a priest on the staff of a Cathedral, who acts as a "living rule" to the other priests in the diocese in the same way that a "Rector" is an example or "rule" for his/her parishioners to measure themselves against. (Recognizing that pastors are just as human as the rest of us, but the titles "Canon" and "Rector" encourage them to set a higher standard).
• The "canon" of scripture is a rule that lets you determine what's included in holy scripture. The Vatican church has as its rule a list that was published at the council of Trent. Prior to that, the actual list of what should or shouldn't be counted as Scripture was a matter of debate, with considerable weight going to Jerome's list. Jerome, however, didn't have just one list, hence the "primary canon" (first rule or list) and "deutero canon" (second rule or list). Not second in precedence or importance, just second as in on a different list. Anglicans have Article VI, but as has been stated before the Articles are non-binding and are open to discussion. Protestants didn't have a central authority to proclaim a "canon" of what's in and what's out; they have a consensus. Canonicity of scripture is really a post-Trent concept, and only gained popular relevance issue in the 19th century with the introduction of the literal inerrancy heresy.

Much less that, as you said, the Anglican and Catholic churches date way back, much farther than Baptist churches. My churches have always kept me in the dark about church history, never mentioning it.

The Church (that is, the whole company of all faithful Christian believers) was established way back. Over the centuries, different parts of the Church have ended up doing things differently and having different governance. Baptists will tell you that *they* are the original church; that we, and the Vatican Catholics, have added innovations to the original church; that therefore *we* are the newcomers and *they* are the ones who go 'way back to the original church. Many Baptists will deny being Protestant, because they (they claim) never protested the Diet of Worms, because they were never under the jurisdiction of the (purportedly upstart, innovative) Catholic Church.

History is all in how you spin it. It does help to have some good historical documents to back up your spin. Unfortunately, documents predating the Visigoths and Vandals are few and far between.

 

[Wigglesworth]

Anglicans hold and believe in "apostolic succession," also known as the "historic episcopate." Our ordained clergy can trace their ordination from the bishop(s) that ordained them to those bishops' bishops, and to those bishops' bishops, to the original bishops, the Apostles themselves, whom were ordained by God Himself.

This is something that I never learned about in my fundamentalist church, but that intrigued me and sparked my interest in Anglicanism. It's important and a big difference in how and why various churches do things.

Because Anglicanism is such an ancient Church and tradition in the Christian faith and also because we hold to all the historic Councils, Creeds, and ancient orthodoxies of the Church, learning Church History is of critical importance, especially do to our historic episcopate and, to quote the Nicene Creed, our belief that we are part of the "One Holy Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church" that was founded on Pentecost.

This is enough by itself to turn sola scriptura upside down.

Luther's view of "sola scriptura" was simply that Scripture should be the primary basis of our faith, doctrine, and knowledge of all things necessary for salvation. He never, as far as I know, said that Truth and such knowledge cannot be found in Holy Tradition (or Holy Reason). It was the . . . Pentecostals . . . who took it as popularly believed: that if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't Truth.

Oddly enough, Pentecostals (see icon above) generally believe in prophetic giftings through which men today speak the words of God. Naturally, prophetic words are considered authoritative by some, because God should be in charge after all. The words of any particular prophet are not considered dogmatically authoritative upon entire denominations as the words of John Paul II would be to Roman Catholics, but many believers - especially those who have a high regard for the prophet - accept prophecy to be just as much God's Word as the Gospel of John is.

You won't find many Pentecostal liturgies, but you won't find many Pentecostals who believe God stopped talking after St. John's Revelation was written. Hence, it's not entirely correct to say Pentecostals have the same position on Scripture as Baptists, for example.

 

[CEV]

Anglicans hold and believe in "apostolic succession," also known as the "historic episcopate." Our ordained clergy can trace their ordination from the bishop(s) that ordained them to those bishops' bishops, and to those bishops' bishops, to the original bishops, the Apostles themselves, whom were ordained by God Himself.

Well, that's enough right there. I am going to try out an Anglican church as soon as I can!

Most (nearly all or all?) Anglican clergy do have post-HS education, which is separate from their divinity school (roughly 3 or 4 years). Because Anglicanism is such an ancient Church and tradition in the Christian faith and also because we hold to all the historic Councils, Creeds, and ancient orthodoxies of the Church, learning Church History is of critical importance, especially do to our historic episcopate and, to quote the Nicene Creed, our belief that we are part of the "One Holy Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church" that was founded on Pentecost.

This makes so much sense!

Edit: Luther's view of "sola scriptura" was simply that Scripture should be the primary basis of our faith, doctrine, and knowledge of all things necessary for salvation. He never, as far as I know, said that Truth and such knowledge cannot be found in Holy Tradition (or Holy Reason).

Oh ok.

It was the Calvinists and the Anabaptists (and, later, Pentecostals, the Non-denominationalists, the Fundamentalists, etc), who took it as popularly believed: that if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't Truth.

I am so, so very relieved that not all churches are like that. Now I know which ones to avoid when looking for a new home for my faith.

I would like to thank everyone who has responded to my posts in this thread and the ones I have started. It has helped me so much, and I believe I am ready to compose that letter to my pastor. I'll show it to all of you when I am done.