In the Anglican tradition, the Holy Bible is revered as central to God’s self-revelation to the world. It is the divinely inspired, revealed Word of God, unchanged from the time of the first Apostles. It expresses the unchanging Gospel of the Lord Jesus for ever-changing times ”“ for, though times may change, the Truth does not. The Letter to the Hebrews reminds us, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings.” (Hebrews 13:8) Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, tells us, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.”(John 14:6) When certain bishops deny these words, they are no longer true guardians and defenders of the faith, unity and discipline of the Church, as held by Anglicans around the world. Those who abandon the teachings of the Bible also abandon the Anglican way. Such innovators are free to start a new church, but do not call it Anglican if it does not abide by the clear standards and teachings revealed in Holy Writ.
While being clear that the Bible is basic and fundamental to all that Forward in Faith stands for, that it is the foundation upon which everything stands, we must hasten to add that our faith is not in the Bible, but in Jesus Christ. We believe the Bible, because it is the Written Word that bears witness to the Incarnate Word. We are saved by our faith in Jesus, not the Scriptures. So while we affirm that Anglicanism rests on a firm Biblical foundation, we confess that Jesus Christ Himself is that one foundation upon which the Church of God is built. As St. Paul reminded the Church in Corinth, “No other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (I Cor. 3:11) Historic, orthodox Anglicanism is built upon nothing less than the sure foundation of Jesus Christ, and everything else rests upon Him. In his Epistle to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul states it in a slightly different way: “You are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord.” (Ephesians 2:20)
Very interesting, and indeed, quite impassioned. But not very Anglican.
Oh, how so?
#1 Reid Hamilton,
From the 39 Articles of Religion (a very Anglican formulary):
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
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.
VII. Of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
XI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
XV. Of Christ alone without Sin.
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as Saint John saith) was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
Mr. Hamilton, would you care to try again with a bit more justification, than a verbal drive-by, for your position?
Cheers.
It seems to me that Bishop Iker is claiming too much regarding Hooker’s view of the authority of Scripture. For example, Hooker says in Book II: “For Scripture is not the only law whereby God hath opened his will touching all things that may be done, but there are other kinds of laws which notify the will of God, as in the former book [“The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” Book I] hath been proved at large . . . .” Contrast this with Bishop Iker: “We are committed to the central authority of the Bible as the Word of God. It alone is the basis for all that we teach, believe, preach and practice. ” Bishop Iker’s view of Scripture strikes me as much, much more Puritan than Hooker’s, for example.
Looks pretty Anglican to me… and pretty Catholic, as in the ancient faith of the ancient Church. But it also fits pretty well with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Mr. Hamilton (#4),
As touching Hooker,
“The schooles of Rome teach scripture to be so unsufficient, as if, except traditions were added, it did not conteine all revealed and supernaturall truth, which absolutely is necessarie for the children of men in this life to know that they may in the next be saved.â€
The difference between Hooker and the Puritans is that the latter felt that due to the fall man’s reason was always and ever suspect and that Scripture was always needed to inform reason about everything. Hooker’s view on reason and Scripture was more nuanced. I believe he felt that reason was completely in the dark when it came to salvific matters. On the other hand, reason was sufficiently informed when it came to being among the “civilized”.
Bishop Iker’s view, therefore, is not divergent from Hooker’s.
#4 If the Bible is not the central authority, then what is?
RE: “But not very Anglican.”
Demonstrating yet again that there are two different faiths in one organization, since obviously it is quite Anglican, plus with the happy addition of being Christian.
The paper is very Anglican, quite in tandem with Hooker’s prose and is certainly not the work of a Puritan. For all three things we should give thanks and praise.
Reid Hamilton at #4,
You are citing Hooker out of context. What he is setting out in that passage is the classic protestant understanding of sola scriptura, which does not mean “no authority except scripture”, but “scripture alone as the chief authority”. This was the teaching of many medieval divines, and the protestant reformers took it up as being a sound expression of Apostolic doctrine.
Of course there are other authorities in the world. God commands us to be subject to them all, in accordance with His law – for example, we must obey the leaders of a congregation or diocese in things that they properly direct, and we must obey the civil authorities in things that they properly direct. But Scripture is the highest authority which guides us in how to put the others into proper perspective.
+IKer’s theology is sound, clear and godly. Anglicans in America are very fortunate to have him, as is the worldwide Anglican communion.
My first inclination, Reid+, was to challenge your take on “Anglicanism” as others have already (and may I be the first to throw some kudos your way for being willing to use your name and not a pseudonym). But then you changed the focus: so do you want to talk scripture, or do you want to talk Hooker? Of course, they are not mutually exclusive spheres of conversation. Another cyberworld conversation on Hooker would be very helpful, since most Anglicans don’t have much understanding of his prime position in defining English thought for the looming Anglican reformation. One goal of such a conversation would be knocking out for good the entrenched referencing to the non-existent “three legged stool.”
But if you want to talk scripture, and what defines a scriptural hermeneutic as “Anglican”, I don’t see much use in that with you until you are willing to describe your relational journey, including reliance, on the Word of God (both “Words”, as described by +Iker) as a reliable source of Jewish and then Christian witness and testimony. Of course, by saying that, I am in fact challenging whether you do have such a reliance. And if that is true, as some of your own writings seem to prove, then you are a step ahead of yourself by your comments in this thread in what would be a reasonable progress of thought and argument.
You of all people should know that TECUSA is in desperate need of claiming and proclaiming the basics, instead of debate, and policies and protocols that simply Assume.
RE: “+IKer’s theology is sound, clear and godly. Anglicans in America are very fortunate to have him, as is the worldwide Anglican communion.”
And isn’t it wonderful, too, to know that he is an AngloCatholic.
That is why [despite the frothing and protestations of the revisionist activists in TEC] the AngloCatholics and the evangelical Anglicans were able to unite in alliance while in TEC and now outside of TEC as well in ACNA.
It’s why — here in TECusa where I reside — I have great fellowship with AngloCatholics though I am an evangelical.
We share the same faith and the same Gospel.
RE: Sarah’s comment-
It is, indeed, a great thing to see the ways in which Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals, though divided by certain things, indeed share the same core faith, as Bishop Iker here demonstrates. To be truly Catholic requires us to be truly Evangelical, and vice versa. The genius of Anglicanism is that it not only makes room for but encourages this kind of comprehensiveness.