Scripture is Sufficient

Sola scriptura teaches that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. This means that the Bible contains everything God wanted to reveal to humanity regarding how we would be saved and reconciled with him. We don't need revelation from somewhere else to complete the Gospel. It is: enough. It's all there.

Scripture is the Only Infallible Authority

There are many sources of authority, but sola scriptura means that the Bible alone is infallible. Biblical infallibility means that the canonical Scriptures cannot fail to accomplish the purpose for which they were breathed out by God. That is, to to reveal God and the way to salvation in Jesus Christ. ie: The Bible is entirely trustworthy and reliable in what God intends it to teach.

Why is this?

Because Scripture is the written Word of God, and God Himself is infallible. God cannot lie, cannot deceive, and cannot err. When God speaks, His words are perfectly trustworthy because He is perfectly trustworthy. The Bible is this way because it is God's own speech written down. Written down by writers inspired by the Holy Spirit.

As we read in 2 Timothy, All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV).

A note wrt Biblical infallibility: When the Bible is called infallible, it does not necessarily mean that Scripture is a science ought be read in a very flat and naieve way, without attention given to historical context, archaeological and textual analysis, the personalities, contexts, feelings and culture of its human authors, etc.

IE: Just because the whole Bible teaches truth, this does not mean that Scripture should be interpreted in an unsophisticated way, without the tools available to us. We should make use of our God-given gifts of reason and tradition in order to better understand Holy Scripture.

Do Anglicans Believe in Sola Scriptura?

Yes. The classical Anglican articulation of Sola Scriptura is in the Sixth Article of Religion of the 39 Articles. Both parts we've discussed above are elegantly stated: Scripture's sufficiency, and Scripture's infallible authority.

Article VI

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. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church...

Why Article VI is Sola Scriptura

Article VI teaches both major elements of sola scriptura: Scripture's sufficiency, and its unique, infallible authority. Put together, and it is clear that the Bible is the infallible Anglican rule of faith.

1. Scripture is Sufficient

“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation.”

This means that Scripture is enough. Everything God intends us to know in order to be saved and reconciled to Him is already in the Holy Bible. Nothing essential is missing, and no other revelation is needed for us to have the Gospel.

2. Scripture is the Only Final (Infallible) Rule of Faith

“…so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required…”

This means that Scripture has exclusive authority in matters of salvation. It means that nothing may be imposed on the believer as necessary for salvation unless it can be either found inside the Bible, or proved with it.

Tradition, reason, the witness of the Church, writings of Fathers and Saints etc. have real authority, but they are all fallible. They may aid us in our understanding, and indeed, they MUST, but they cannot overrule it. Scripture alone can bind the conscience absolutely.

Why this Necesitates Scriptural Infallibility

For Scripture to be the final judge of doctrine in the Church, as Article VI has, it has to be incapable of teaching error in what it judges. A fallible authority is a very poor and arbitrary final authority, and if Scripture could err in what it teaches us about salvation then we couldn't possibly rely on it as our rule of faith.

Therefore: even though the word infallible is not used, its logic only makes sense if Scripture is completely trustworthy in the things God intends it to teach us. These are the things concerning salvation, faith, the Christian life, and about Him. This is precisely as Anglican Divines have understood it.

Does The Episcopal Church Affirm Sola Scriptura?

Yes. The canons explicitly declare the Scriptures to be the Word of God (implied infallibility) and repeat the formula of the Sixth Article of Religion, saying:

"I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of The Episcopal Church." This formula is used in the Ordinal in the 1979 BCP in its Rites for the Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. This is called the Declaration of Consent.

Doesn't Anglicanism Affirm Prima Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura?

It is very common today amongst Anglicans (and those part of the so-called North American Mainline churches) to be told that our tradition does not teach sola scriptura, but actually something called prima scriptura. Often this is said to mean that Anglicans (or Methodists, or what have you) put Scripture first, whilst also valuing reason and the traditions of the Church. Sometimes it is said that this is always been the doctrine. Sometimes it has even been attributed to Richard Hooker! (We shall shortly speak of him again) As this is written, the Wikipedia page for prima scriptura does so.

The trouble is that prima scriptura is actually an incredibly recent idea. As in, late 1990s recent. The earliest use I could find was in 1997!.

Another complication for this idea is that people who say this fundamentally misunderstand what sola scriptura means. The idea of sola scriptura meaning a "Bible-only" anti-tradition, anti-reason, fundamentalist doctrine of megachurches has exactly nothing to do with what the Protestant Reformers taught and believed. If one actually reads the likes of Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, Luther, even Calvin, or any classical Magisterial Protestant theology, you will find

What About the Three-Legged Stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason?

This is a similar case to the previous. Perhaps more damaging. Many Anglicans speak of a so-called "three-legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, as the basis of Anglican theology, usually with all three standing as equal sources of authority. For instance (the non-canonical) An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church makes this wildly revisionist statement:

The threefold sources of authority in Anglicanism are scripture, tradition, and reason. These three sources uphold and critique each other in a dynamic way. Scripture is the normative source for God's revelation and the source for all Christian teaching and reflection. Tradition passes down from generation to generation the church's ongoing experience of God's presence and activity. Reason is understood to include the human capacity to discern the truth in both rational and intuitive ways. It is not limited to logic as such. It takes into account and includes experience. Each of the three sources of authority must be perceived and interpreted in light of the other two.

The Anglican balance of authority has been characterized as a "three-legged stool" which falls if any one of the legs is not upright. It may be distinguished from a tendency in Roman Catholicism to overemphasize tradition relative to scripture and reason, and in certain Protestant churches to overemphasize scripture relative to tradition and reason. The Anglican balancing of the sources of authority has been criticized as clumsy or "muddy." It has been associated with the Anglican affinity for seeking the mean between extremes and living the via media. It has also been associated with the Anglican willingness to tolerate and comprehend opposing viewpoints instead of imposing tests of orthodoxy or resorting to heresy trials.

This balanced understanding of authority is based in the theology of Richard Hooker (c. 1554-1600). It may be further traced to the teaching of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Urban T. Holmes III (1930-1981) provided a thorough and helpful discussion of the sources of authority in his book What is Anglicanism? (1982).

It is very important to know that this is an extremely modern development, just like the prima scriptura situation, and it isn't the teaching of the English Church or its descendents, or any of the English Reformers or Divines, and despite its popularity, it is not a canon in any Anglican Church.

What the Modern View Claims

Modern articulations generally will say things like:

• Scripture, tradition, and reason "uphold and critique one another"
• All three must "be balanced" lest the stool "fall over"
• Each must be interpreted in light of the other two
• Anglicanism evades "over-emphasising Scripture"

The idea is that all three "legs" of Anglican doctrinal authority are of equal length and mutually correct one another. But this is wrong.

Why This is Not a Classical Anglican Teaching

The three-legged stool:

• Is completely alien to the Reformation.
• Is not taught in the 39 Articles, the classical 1662 BCP, the Books of Homilies, or the 1662 Ordinal.
• Is not taught by Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, Davenant, Andrewes, Cosin, Taylor, anyone.
• It is contradicted by Article VI, which makes Scripture the final and infallible rule of faith.
• Hooker explicitly ranked the authorities: Scripture first, reason second, and the Church/tradition third.
• Hooker's statements and theology on this matter are not unique to Anglicanism, and are simply a classical Magisterial Protestant expression of Sola Scriptura. Ie: Lutherans, Presbyterians, other Reformed churches, all make extremely strong use of Tradition and Reason. Every Protestant group properly does, save the most extreme charicature of modern fundamentalist evangelicals.

Richard Hooker, whilst being credited as the originator of the "stool", never articulated an equal set of Authorities. His words are clear.

The Anglican Divine Richard Hooker put it this way:

Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of 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. - Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 5, VIII

Why This is Not a Modern Anglican Teaching

1. It does not exist in any formal Anglican doctrinal statement. No official Anglican doctrinal statement, either the Articles, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, or various Provincial canons, or any edition of the Book of Common Prayer, teaches that Scripture, tradition, and reason are coequal authorities. Where they do speak on the topic, they always place Holy Scripture first, and afford it final authority in matters of salvation.
2. It is an extremely late historical development. It is a modern construction, that is alien entirely to historic Reformed Catholic theology.
3. Its alleged origin in Hooker is false. This creates confusion and misunderstanding.
4. Anglicanism shares its embrace of tradition and reason with all major Reformational churches. By claiming the use of reason and tradition is an Anglican (and often framed as an anti-Protestant one) distinctive, the stool model brings confusion and damages potentially relationships with fraternal Protestant churches.
5. Even if it were insisted on tha the legs were not of equal length, the "stool" analogy creates confusion and encourages poorly catechised laity to regard their own thoughts and the various traditions of the Church as equal with the Bible (which has catastrophic consequences).

Where the "Three-Legged stool" Actually Comes From

The popular modern version was popularised by Urban T. Holmes in the latter half of the 20th century, though it's likely the idea had been floating about for some time before that.

It is ultimately a retroactive, revisionist and anachronistic reading of Anglican history motivated, I suspect, by:

• The strong turn mid-century toward "innovation" in the Church, and away from established doctrines and liturgies.
• The post-Vatican II and liturgical movement drive to define Anglicanism identity as being strongly set against evangelicalism.
• The need to legitimise theologically liberal Anglicanism via "reason".
• The desire to make Anglicanism less distinctly Protestant.

A Better Version

If it is too late, and one must view things in such a way, a truly Anglican version of the three Authorities is easy:

• Scripture is the only infallible and final authority, God-breathed and sufficient for our salvation.
• Reason helps us interpret Scripture faithfully.
• Tradition gives us wisdom, from which we may better interpret Scripture.

Scripture is above the other two, and this is totally in common with a classically Protestant Reformed Catholicism.

What's The Big Deal?

The notion of a "stool" with equal legs must:

• Lower the authority of Holy Scripture, given to us by God to effect out salvation unto everlasting life.
• Burden the free Grace of the Gospel with extra-Scriptural demands on the soul.
• Allow fallible, fallen sinners to impose man-made doctrines and practices as prerequisites for salvation.
• Always lead us astray.

Anachronisms and the burial of classical theology have done much damage to Churches, with the longtime dominance of theology wherein the Gospel of our perfectly loving Lord Jesus is not shared, or is distorted.

For now, canonically churches like The Episcopal Church remain in a real sense Anglican, even if that is in spite of the efforts of many. It is high time this trend be corrected, by resourcement and retrieval of a theology that's more orthodox, Christ and Bible-focussed, by those in The Epsicopal Church, Anglican Church of Canada, and others, to the end that we may evangelise and bring to people the Good News of Christ, crucified and risen for Sinners.

Why Sola Scriptura Is Truly Good News

Sola Scriptura is incredible comfort to us. It is a wonderful thing, that protects us. It means that nobody can say we are damned unless we follow a set of rules that aren't found in the Bible. It means that our Salvation is between us, and God, and not the edicts and dictates of the Holy buy fallible Catholic Church.

Sola Scriptura protects us from false doctrine, from the false prophets who would more easily twist the church to wickedness and draw people away from Jesus.

Sola Scriptura says that GOD HAS SPOKEN, and that it be enough.

For that I say,

Amen.