The Authority of Holy Scripture: A Rookie Anglican Guide

By
9
Print

Anglicanism is deeply committed to the authority of Holy Scripture. It seeks to uphold the authority of Scripture in doctrine and to apply its authority in practice. This double dynamic of orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right practice) is reflected in Cranmer’s lovely Collect for the Second Sunday in Advent:

Blessed Lord, who caused all Holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and the comfort of your holy Word we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

BCP 2019, p. 598

The Authority of Holy Scripture in the Old Testament

The case for the authority of Holy Scripture begins in the Scriptures themselves. The Old Testament understands itself as the word of God, delivered by God to his prophets who faithfully recorded it. For example, God explains to Moses how he will use prophets to deliver his word. He uses prophets just as he had used Moses to deliver his law:

10 Ways to Preach Landscape Ad

Sponsored

I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.

Deuteronomy 18:18-19

Thus, the prophetic texts that were included in the Old Testament canon were those acknowledged as God’s Word. Similarly, the Davidic psalms and Solomon’s wisdom literature are included not as human song and advice but as divine prophecy and wisdom. In their poetic way, these texts contain passages that speak to the authority of the scriptures. For example, see Psalm 19:

The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.

Psalm 19:7-9

The Authority of Holy Scripture in the New Testament

Jesus situates himself in the prophetic tradition of Moses. He is the future prophet that God has raised. Jesus declares that he has not come to “abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). Thus, Jesus upholds the authority of Scripture. He insists that “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18).

At first, the disciples do not understand such a great mystery. Peter can only think of building booths when, at the Transfiguration, Jesus stands alongside Moses and Elijah. He is conversing with the law and the prophets (see Matthew 17). However, in time, and through his death and his resurrection, Jesus instructs the disciples in the holy scriptures. He demonstrates the point to him and how “everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44).

With new understanding, Peter at Pentecost makes use of the authoritative scriptures. He appeals to Joel and to the Davidic Psalms to explain the Holy Spirit that has come (see Acts 2). Moreover, Peter speaks explicitly to the authority of the scripture in his second epistle:

No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:19-20

Similarly, Paul explains to Timothy that “All scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). In Hebrew, the word for breath, ruah, is the same word for Spirit. Thus, Paul, like Peter, ties holy scripture to the work of the Holy Spirit. This same idea we confess in the Nicene Creed, when we say that the “Holy Spirit… has spoken through the prophets.”

We Do Not Subtract From Holy Scripture

Because Holy Scripture is the Word of God, we do not add to it. We do not take away any of its teachings. In other words, we acknowledge the holy scriptures to be true.  We will not say that any part of the scriptures is false. To be sure, we may say that specific interpretations of the scriptures are false, but even then,

…we may not so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.

39 Articles, Article 20

This is why, when Scripture speaks clearly on a topic, such as the definition of marriage, Anglicans accept its teachings. We do not abandon scriptural teaching in a misguided attempt to be relevant. Additionally, we do not forsake scriptural truth when it offends social sensibilities.

We Do Not Add To Holy Scripture

Just as we do not subtract from scripture, neither do we add to it. Anglicans believe in the sufficiency of scripture; the scriptures contain everything we need for salvation. As our Articles of Religion put it: 

Holy Scripture contains 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.

39 Articles of Religion. Article 6

The sufficiency of Scripture is one of the key differences between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics accept the authority of the pope and his teaching office, above and beyond the teachings of Scripture. Roman Catholicism requires belief in extra-biblical doctrines, such as the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption.

While Anglicans do accord authority to the Church and its clergy, this authority is always subsidiary and rests upon the authority of Scripture. Thus, while Anglicans accord authority to the Church and its clergy, this is always subordinate to the authority of Scripture. When clergy teach contrary to Scripture, as they have and will, Anglicans believe the authoritative scriptures call the people to correct them.

Joy in the Authoritative Scriptures

The scriptures have authority, not only for high-level controversies in the church and society, but also to bring joy to our daily lives. Here, the word “authority” can sometimes give the wrong impression, as if the scriptures are nothing but a stony obelisk, a legal code, or a dead letter. In this mode, the apostle Paul expressly denies, teaching that the “letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Instead, the scriptures are a constant source of joy and peace in daily life. They give us the gospel of Christ by which we may rest in him. It is as John Jewel writes:

The Holy Scriptures…are the bright sun of God, which bring light unto our ways, and comfort to all parts of our life, and salvation to our souls: in which is made known unto us our estate, and the mercy of God in Christ our Savior. (Treatise on the Holy Scriptures, 5).

This is why Anglicanism has always emphasized not only the correct doctrine of Scripture but also the proper interpretation and application of Scripture. Even if we accept the authority of the Scriptures, what use would it be to us if we left our Bible on the shelf collecting dust?

We encourage all Anglicans, clergy and laity alike, to read the scriptures daily. One reason Thomas Cranmer published an English Bible and the English Book of Common Prayer was to bring the richness of daily Bible reading to the whole church. At Anglican Compass, we’ve created a Daily Office Booklet as a convenient starting point for those new to daily prayer.

In his preface to the Great Bible, Cranmer referred to the scriptures as “the fat pastures of the soul.” Picking up on the culinary metaphor, John Jewel called the scriptures:

The true manna…the bread which came down from heaven…the key of the kingdom of heaven…the savor of life unto life (Treatise on Holy Scriptures, 7).

Therefore, let us not only trust and believe the scriptures but also enjoy them. Let us come to them with hunger and thirst, believing that there we will find the righteousness of God, even our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Appendix: Anglican Documentary Foundations on Scripture

Jerusalem Declaration, #2

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

ACNA Fundamental Declaration, #1

We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for the Christian faith and life.

Photo by: Steve Bennett, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Published on

February 1, 2023
, , , , ,
View 9 Comments
Peter Johnston

Author

Peter Johnston

The Ven. Dr. Peter Johnston is the Ministry President of Anglican Compass. He is a priest and archdeacon in the Anglican Diocese of All Nations and the rector of Trinity Lafayette. He lives with his wife, Carla, and their nine children near Lafayette, Louisiana.

View more from Peter Johnston

The ACNA’s 2019 Book of Common Prayer (BCP): A Rookie Anglican Guide

Posted on June 22, 2019
|
By

In 2019, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) released its official edition of the Book of Common Prayer. As we explain in the Rookie Anglican Guide to the Book of Common Prayer (AKA “BCP”), the Book of Common Prayer is the comprehensive service book for Anglican churches (churches that trace their lineage back to…

Annunciation (Leonardo)

The Annunciation: A Rookie Anglican Guide

Posted on March 21, 2025
|
By

The Annunciation refers to the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary and the announcement of this pregnancy by the angel Gabriel to Mary. The Church celebrates the feast on March 25, which is easy to remember when you realize it is precisely nine months before Christmas! This day reminds us…

Comments

Please comment with both clarity and charity!

Subscribe to Comments
Notify of
9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is a nice, concise summary of the historical Anglican position on the authority of Holy Scripture for Christians of any tradition. I’m forwarding this to everyone in the church I serve as pastor.

Reply

Thank you Geoff for your words of appreciation and for sharing the article. I pray it is helpful to your congregation!

Reply

With respect, doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary are not unbiblical. They simply aren’t mentioned in the Bible (but neither is the word ‘Trinity’). There’s a huge difference between being unbiblical and simply not being mentioned in the Bible. Traditional Anglicanism also has Holy Tradition.

It should give the Reverend some pause to know that ALL of the ancient apostolic Churches (Roman Catholic Orthodox and non–Chalcedonian Churches) teach that Mary was sinless (through God’s grace) and taken into heaven body and soul at the end of her life. Even many Anglo-Catholics hold these ancient beliefs.

It’s only Protestants who believe Mary was buried and that her holy body was left to rot in a grave. No Christian believed this prior to the Reformation. Not one (even some Reformers believed in the traditional Marian doctrines).

Very sad and it shows a truly deficient understanding of the Incarnation and Mary’s role in that great miracle.

Remember…in Catholic, Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic teaching anything said about Mary is to protect and promote the sublime holiness of Christ. This is much better than the Protestant approach of thinking that belittling or ignoring Mary somehow elevates Christ.

Reply

Hi Andrew! And thanks for the comment.

I described the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary as “extra-biblical,” meaning that they are not in the Bible. Whether they are also against Biblical teaching is another question (I’d argue that at least the Immaculate Conception is contrary to the Biblical witness, since it teaches that Mary was sinless when the scriptures identify Jesus as the only human who lived without sin).

From an Anglican perspective, then, the problem is not necessarily that these doctrines are false, but rather that these doctrines cannot be proved from scripture, and therefore lack any authoritative warrant for belief. In other words, Anglicans are free to believe in certain extra-biblical ideas, but they cannot be required to believe in them. That is why we say the Scriptures “contain all things necessary to salvation.” This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church, which requires belief in such extra-biblical doctrines, on the authority of the Pope’s teaching office.

A final note on the Trinity. The Trinity does not at all fit into the category of extra-biblical doctrines that we are discussing. Though the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, what it describes – the unity of the three persons of the godhead – certainly is. Thus the word “Trinity” is just a shorthand for a doctrine that has a clear Biblical basis.

Reply

Dear Rev. Johnston,

Thanks for much for your response. These issues are way too big to discuss in this forum, but I would humbly ask what does “full of grace” (Luke 1:28) mean if not fully redeemed by Christ (which Catholics and Orthodox believe)?

Quickly, the Immaculate Conception makes perfect sense when one considers the fact that Mary provided Christ with his perfect, sinless humanity and his holy body. Could a woman tainted by Original Sin conceive the perfect God-Man in her womb in light of Romans 5:12-19? Of course, whole books have been written about this but I don’t think it’s so easily dismissed.

I would argue that the problem is not the Bible but perhaps how the Protestant tradition interprets it. As I said before all of the ancient apostolic Churches have come to a different conclusion, and no Christian before the Reformation believed the things modern Protestants do regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary. Clearly they had the Bible and came to very different conclusions about these and many other issues. If given a choice I’ll stick with the interpretations and Tradition of the first 1600 years of Christendom.

Reply

Andrew,

I’m sure Fr. Peter will respond, but I would like to jump in as well.

For Luke 1:28, the Greek word used there is more accurately translated as a title, and reading sinlessness into that title is a bit of a stretch.

The argument that Mary had to be born without original sin is a flawed one. Christ is the only human to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit, therefore making him sinless. This is why the Apostles’ Creed says, “He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” Mary was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, but from two sinful parents. Also, the logic that she had to be without sin to conceive Christ falls apart quickly, as the logical conclusion is that then Mary’s parents must have been without sin to conceive her. And then their parents must have been without sin to conceive them. And so on. Once again, the only means by which one can be conceived without sin is by the Holy Spirit, and this only applies to Christ.

We, likewise, would argue that the problem isn’t with the Bible but with how the RCC/EO tradition interprets it. And the witness of the Church Fathers isn’t unanimous on this. For every quote you find that seemingly affirms the Immaculate Conception, there is one that seemingly denies it. So the tradition isn’t as crystal clear on this as Rome often likes to make it.

In reply to your first comment, I cannot recall ever hearing a Protestant belittle or ignore Mary. Even in the Southern Baptist and Non-Denom churches I used to be a part of, Mary was spoken of highly and reverently. We just never ascribed to her more than the Scriptures require. If someone is belittling or ignoring Mary, there are wrong to do so.

Compass has an article that gives an example of a great Anglican understanding of Mary that honors her without going too far. You can view it here.

But this debate is somewhat moot. As Fr. Peter said, we don’t hold back those who want to believe these things (though the Immaculate Conception has problematic implications, as we’ve discussed). People are free to believe them. In fact, there are many Anglicans who believe these doctrines, and many of the Reformers believed them as well. Our dispute is that these doctrines have been made dogma that are necessary to believe. The necessity of these doctrines is the problem. We can find no Scriptural support for their necessity.

Reply

Thanks for the response, Andrew. Just a brief note on Luke 1:28. “Full of grace” is the incorrect translation from the Vulgate, which even Roman Catholic Bibles no longer use. There’s only two persons that the Bible calls “full of grace”: Jesus (John 1:14) and Stephen (Acts 6:8). Jesus we confess to have lived without sin, but not Stephen. So “full of grace” is not Biblically applied to Mary, and even if it was, it wouldn’t mean that she lived without sin.

Reply

Thanks for the response. I suppose the question is what is your interpretative key for Sacred Scripture? Lutherans and Calvinists have the same Bible as classical Anglicans and have come to very different conclusions about a variety of issues. I’m not comfortable leaving these issues to the principal of “agree to disagree”. After all, we are dealing with objective historical and theological reality. For example, either Mary was taken body and soul to heaven or she was not. It’s not something to which a Christian can simply say “meh” (same with her being Mother of God or a perpetual virgin…which is a unanimous belief of the Fathers and even most early Reformers yet many modern Protestants disagree with).

What is the tie breaker in Biblical interpretation? This has always been the problem with Sola Scriptura. We see this now in the wider Anglican Communion where beliefs vary widely (all claiming Scripture backs them). What happens if an issue isn’t clear from the Bible alone? Who interprets or decides on that issue? I was raised Anglican and after watching the Anglican Church of Canada tear itself apart, I came to the conclusion that there must be an authoritative tie breaker outside of Scripture on doctrinal issues. Like a referee in a game of soccer.

If there wasn’t such an authority (be that Pope or Ecumenical Council) how would we even have a Canon of Scripture? If you say Ecumenical Councils are that authority, then who in Christendom has the authority to call such a Council now?

The book “Anglican Difficulties” by C of E clergyman Edward Norman makes the argument that the lack of authority within Anglicanism is what has led to its total fragmentation. I appreciate your article, I also appreciate what your movement is doing for classical Anglicanism, but I worry that if challenged your movement too will crumble because it lacks an authoritative key to interpret Scripture in a manner in keeping with Holy Tradition.

I wish you well, thanks for the discussion. Let’s keep each other in prayer!

Reply

As a layman and church member of 50+yrs I had never considered Mary to be without sin, or that that could have been thought a requirement for being the mother of the Messiah. Mary was without doubt faithful, God fearing and God loving but like all of us humans was tainted with sin, but though her was born the Messiah who was born into sin, God with us, to redeem us and the whole creation.

Reply