FAQ: What is Sola Scriptura?

By Serene Leyba

Do Anglicans believe in Sola Scriptura?

Yes. The principle of Sola Scriptura is excellently articulated, in the Anglican context, in the Sixth Article of Religion of the 39 Articles. It says:

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation..."

Does The Episcopal Church affirm Sola Scriptura?

Yes. The Ordinal in the 1979 BCP references the Sixth Article of Religion (pg. 513, 526, 538) in its Rite for the Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

Why is Sola Scriptura important?

There are many reasons, but a very important one is that the principle protects Christians from the imposition of man-made doctrines and practices as prerequisites for salvation. This is a wonderful thing! It means that nobody can invent a reason that we have to do unbiblical thing to be reconciled with our Saviour, or that we are damned unless we follow a set of rules that aren't found in the Bible.

By adhering to Sola Scriptura we are safeguarded against attempts to undermine the fundamental truths of the Gospel, and the sufficiency of Christ's work on the cross.

Sola Scriptura is also dearly important because it sorts out clearly how we should rely on the true words of God that have been Apostolically passed down to us through the church and our Lord the Holy Spirit's guidance, helping to ensure that our faith is rooted in divine revelation rather than human invention.

There are more reasons yet, but these are some central ones.

Does Sola Scriptura imply Biblical infallibility?

Yes, in the sense that the terms meanings overlap considerably. Biblical infallibility is the idea that the Bible is completely useful and true in what it teaches about God and our salvation in him. It is precisely because Scripture is infallible, trustworthy, and sufficient, that we can use it as a rule of life.

As we read in 2 Timothy, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness... (2 Timothy 3:16).

Does this mean we don't need reason, historical context, etc. to understand Scripture?

No. The Bible is indeed clear and accessible, intended by God to be understood by believers. However, this does not mean that we must (or should) read Scripture in a very flat and naieve way, without attention given to historical context, our God-given reasoning ability, knowledge of Biblical languages, etc.

The Reformers and Patristics both used very many exegetical tools to understand what it was that Scripture was teaching, and God gave us the ability to reason and learn and understand things for a reason.

This isn't to say that Scripture isn't graspable by us, and that everyone must become a scholar in order to read the Bible. It's true that God has gifted some people with the ability to study and teach Scripture with yet more insight than most, but whoever we are it is profitable for us to read and engage with Scripture.

Isn't Prima Scriptura better than Sola Scriptura?

Prima Scriptura is Sola Scriptura. Prima Scriptura is a term people sometimes use to mean that they believe in the primacy of the Scriptures, in their final authority, but whilst making use of the traditions of the church, the writings of the Saints and Fathers and decisions of Ecumenical Councils. The trouble with this is that is very precisely the approach of the Protestant Reformers and Anglican Divines.

So, when people say the Reformation believed in Sola Scriptura and that we should instead embrace Prima Scriptura, they are misunderstanding Reformational (and so Anglican) theology.

Which gets us to our next question...

Does Sola Scriptura mean the Tradition of the church is unimportant?

No. A glance at the writings of Protestant Reformers and Anglican Divines will reveal immediately their constantly appealing to the writings of Church Fathers and Saints, to Ecumenical Councils, to our Catholic creeds, etc. and affirming their authority.

Likewise very many Fathers of the Church, those gathered in councils, etc. emphasized the ultimate authority of Scripture, and used it as their means to prove their doctrines.

Truly, one must rely on Tradition and basic faith in the work of the Holy Spirit in the church to get to our canons of Scripture in the first place. So Sola Scriptura doesn't mean we don't make use of Tradition. Anglicans particularly (of various churchmanships) have always valued the Traditions of the church.

The idea that faithfulness to the Bible means rejecting Tradition as a tool for our understanding and edification is a later one that comes from mistakes of the Radical Reformation as well as more recent nondenominational type places. It would be a very alien idea to the Reformers and Divines, who always considered themselves firmly Catholic and in line with the ancient faith.

At the same time, Scripture is the authority by which Tradition is judged. Indeed, it's by Scripture that we are more able to discern good and true Holy Spirit guided Tradition from human invention!

What about the three-legged-stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason?

The idea of the "three-legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as sources of church authority has been around since the late 19th century, though it's often misattributed Richard Hooker. It's absolutely true that these are three very wonderful sources of God-given insight for us, but the term can be easily misused to argue that Tradition and Reason are on the very same level as Scripture, rather than being tools for our understanding of Revelation that we must nevertheless test against Scripture.

To be clear, Hooker and the other Anglican Divines did often speak of Tradition and Reason. The contended with Dissenters of various stripes who rejected church Tradition. But they maintained always that Scripture was our final authority.

That said, the idea isn't always misused or flawed. It can be a beautiful notion that does help to represent the complexities and nuance of the Anglican to theology, but only if it is clear that Scripture stands above Reason and Tradition.

Isn't this somewhat cyclical? If the church put together the Bible?

Somewhat, but not in a way that poses a particular threat to Sola Scriptura as a doctrine.

Yes, the church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, recognized and canonized the Scriptures, discerning with God's help what works were inspired by God. The churches job was to recognize the Scriptures, but their authority comes from God, not the church just saying so.

Once canonized, Scripture is our authoritive tool for learning about God and our salvation and discerning doctrine. With it we can help keep the church on the path of righteousness and faithfulness to our Lord, and correct for heresies and mistakes.

So the relationship between the Bible and the church isn't a problem for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.