Article 2. The Holy Scriptures (Part Two)
By the Reverends Ron Offringa and Brandon LeTourneau
This is Part Two of a two-section series on Article Two: The Holy Scriptures. Click HERE to read the first part.
Article 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.
Editor’s Note: When “reason” is used in this article—specifically in relation to Augustine or Hooker’s works—the intended meaning is that which predates the Cartesian revolution and Enlightenment. Therefore, it does not refer to a subjective interior thought process; but rather our participation—through the divine logos—in the rational order of the creation. Or in other words: natural revelation and natural law. It is an empirically objective faculty.
A Consistent Hermeneutic
The Church in all ages and all places has consistently given the prime position of authority to the Holy Scriptures because, in its plain sense, it is the clearest and irrefutable articulation of God’s self-revelation to man. But what about when the text can be interpreted in multiple ways? Who is the interpretative authority? God has revealed himself both through the Holy Scripture and also in his created order; through what we call natural revelation and the natural law. This natural law can be apprehended by our reason as a participation in the Image of God. St. Augustine helpfully articulates this approach:
I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error…[And I only accept other teachings as true] because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.1
Richard Hooker draws upon this traditional approach to the Scriptures in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity and derives from it a simple hermeneutical principle which has been the mainstay of Anglican hermeneutics ever since:
Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other [doctrine or church practice], 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. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.1
This classic hermeneutical principle forms the bedrock for the concluding section of Article Two of the Jerusalem Declaration and it can be summarized as such:
- What Scripture plainly delivers (“plain and canonical sense”), that is what we obey (“the Bible is taught and obeyed”).
- This plain and canonical sense is deduced through our reason and the divine revelation’s coherence with natural revelation.
- Our obedience then is given to the Church and her Tradition as our interpretative lens (“respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading”).
This threefold interpretive rule, as Hooker says, must overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever—or as the Article says: must be obeyed.
With this interpretive framework in place, let us explore more deeply each of these concepts:
Plain & Canonical
The Jerusalem Declaration expects us to exegete the text of Scripture in the plain and canonical sense. This means that we seek to read the text according to its genre and the author’s intent. As St. Augustine teaches, “the chief thing to be inquired into, therefore, in regard to any expression that we are trying to understand is, whether it is literal or figurative.” 2
Having determined the intention of the text, we may still find difficulty in understanding it. In this case, Augustine teaches that “it is far safer to walk by the light of Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the application of testimonies sought out in every portion of the same Scripture.” 3 In principle, then, we allow clear texts to interpret obscure texts, recognizing the diverse authors are inspired by the same Spirit throughout the canon of Scripture.
To read the Scriptures canonically means we do not pit one Testament against the other, but allow the Testaments to inform one another. The Scriptures have one subject in mind: Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 24; John 5:30-47). The Old Testament looks ahead to the revelation of God in his Son while the New Testament, inspired by his Spirit, testifies to his saving work. As Richard Sibbes put it: “Christ is the pearl of the ring, Christ is the object, the center wherein all those lines end: take away Christ—what remains? Therefore, in the whole scriptures let us see that we have an eye to Christ; all is nothing, but Christ.” 4 Because every text shares the same Christward orientation, there is an assured salvific perspicuity in the Holy Scriptures. The plain and canonical sense of the Scriptures combine together in perfect harmony, as St. Irenaeus says: “all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things.” 5
The Church’s Historic and Consensual Reading
We rightly hear, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the Holy Scriptures through our respect for the church’s historic and consensual reading. In other words, we read Scripture in the same way that the saints before us and the Bishops in council have read it. This principle of subsidiarity, not only to the Church Militant but to the Church Triumphant, is expressed not only in the succession of our Orders but in the succession of our Doctrine.
E.L. Mascall once pointed out that in the strictest sense, there isn’t an “apostolic succession.” Rather, there is an apostolic expansion.6 These defenders of the Faith have not perished and been substituted, but rather concurrently rule and reign with Christ. There is a great heavenly college of bishops who still stand in judgement and authority over us; every bishop who has ever followed them is not a replacement, but a new addition to their number. The Church’s refusal to deviate from what has been delivered is not borne out of affection for the dead, but out of a charitable duty to those still living in fellowship with the “God of the living” (Matthew 22:32).
In addition, accompanying the canonized text of Holy Scripture are the many canonized interpretations within the text—the negligence of which is the negligence of the Scriptures themselves. Whether or not Isaiah prophesied a virgin birth is not a matter of Christian debate. The “seed of the woman” promised to our first mother is Christ. The identity of the suffering servant is not up for grabs, but Christ is the one who was crushed for our iniquities.. To read these passages otherwise is to no longer engage in the reading of Christian Scripture. Irenaeus warns as early as the Second Century about those who are capable of taking the text of scripture and fashioning all manner of abominations—the end result being no longer a presentation of the Biblical Faith.7
St. Jude exhorts all Christians to contend for the Faith “once delivered” (Jude 3). If the Faith has been deposited once—completely and finally—then there ought to be a demonstrable continuity between that Faith and the faith of the contemporary Christian. If the belief and practice of the Church today is contrary to that of the Church of the first few centuries, the deviation lies with the Church of today. Such persons have not followed St. Jude’s exhortation. This continuity applies to all aspects of Christian Faith and Practice, but especially the Church’s engagement with the Holy Scriptures which are themselves the source material of all the rest. The historic and consensual reading of the church, as Hooker said, overrules all other inferior judgments whatsoever. To stand, then, in incongruity with the historic reading of the Scriptures is to remain out of step with the Faith “once delivered.” We must maintain a posture of reception towards this Faith, not of revision.
This is not to say that the Patristic and Conciliar witness is above that of the Scriptures, for we hold both that councils “may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God” (Article XXI) and that the Creeds themselves are received not on their own authority but because “they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture” (Article VIII). Indeed, this principle is made clear throughout the witness of the Fathers. Athanasius could have responded to Arius’ heresies by insisting the Church had spoken in Council at Nicaea, but instead he answers the heretic out of the pages of Sacred Scripture.
While we do not elevate tradition over the Holy Scriptures, we do seek to read the Scriptures in accord with the ancient writers and councils. Indeed, the history of the Patristic, Medieval, Reformed, and Modern eras demonstrate our need to receive the historic and consensual reading in order to continue to banish all erroneous and false doctrine from the Church. No era is without its challenges, but we further buttress those challenges when we neglect the doctrinal discipline of our Fathers and fight heresy with heresy.
If we would free ourselves from error we must submit once again to the yoke of the Church’s historic and consensual reading of Holy Writ. Therein we find wisdom and freedom, not only from falling into the errors of the past, but for us to continue to proclaim the gospel of God today.