The Spirit, the Scriptures and the Creeds

Scripture and authority

How God's word comes to us, where the Bible came from, and the real disagreement about who reads it.

You are reading the brief version. Switch the depth control to Complete for the full treatment.

All four traditions hold that Scripture is God's word, true, inspired, and the supreme witness to what He has revealed. None of them treats it as a merely human record of religious experience. The disagreement is not about whether the Bible is authoritative. It is about how its authority is exercised - by whom, alongside what, and who decides when readings conflict.

Three facts set the problem.

The Church existed before the New Testament. Christians were preaching, baptising and celebrating the Eucharist for two decades before the first epistle was written, and for three centuries before the canon was settled.

Scripture does not contain its own table of contents. No book of the Bible lists which books belong. The canon was recognised by the Church, gradually, using criteria - apostolic origin, use in the churches, agreement with the rule of faith - that were exercised by human judgement under the Spirit.

Scripture requires interpretation. Every heretic in history quoted it. The Arians had verses; so did the Gnostics. A text that can be read in incompatible ways needs something beyond itself to adjudicate, or the disagreements never end.

From those three facts, the four traditions draw different conclusions.

Catholic

Scripture and Tradition form one deposit of faith; the Magisterium, the Church's teaching office, interprets it authentically.

Orthodox

Scripture is the supreme expression of Holy Tradition, read within the Church and interpreted by the mind of the Fathers, the councils and the liturgy.

Lutheran

Scripture is norma normans, the norm that norms all others; the Confessions are authoritative because and insofar as they agree with it.

Anglican

Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation; tradition and reason are genuine but subordinate guides in reading it.

What all four affirm

Before the differences, the common ground, which is larger than most arguments suggest.

Scripture is inspired. All scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16) - the Greek is theopneustos, God-breathed. This is not dictation: Luke researched, Paul argued, the psalmists complained, and the human authors' styles and personalities are all over the text. But God is its author through them.

Scripture is true. It teaches without error what God intends to teach for our salvation. All four affirm this, with different formulations of scope.

Scripture is unique. It is not one source among several of the same kind. The Church never supposes she may add to revelation; Tradition, on any account, is a handing on of what was given once for all, not a supply of new content.

Scripture is to be read. All four traditions read it publicly at every service, and all four have translated it. The idea that any of them keeps the Bible from the laity is historically false, and worth saying plainly: the Church copied it by hand for a thousand years at enormous cost before printing existed.

Pause and thinkPause: the New Testament itself says something about how God's word was transmitted before any of it was written. Can you recall a text that speaks of oral apostolic teaching as binding?

Where the Bible came from

This history is not a debating trick; it is simply what happened, and knowing it changes the shape of the conversation.

The New Testament documents were written between roughly AD 50 and 100. They circulated among the churches, were read at worship, and were copied. There was broad agreement early about the core - the four Gospels, Paul's letters, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John. There was extended disagreement about the edges: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation were disputed in some regions for centuries, while other books - the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement - were read as Scripture in some churches and rejected in others.

The first surviving list matching our twenty-seven exactly is Athanasius's Easter letter of 367. Regional councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) endorsed the same list. The criteria in use were: apostolic origin, widespread and ancient use in the churches, and conformity with the rule of faith - the Church's existing confession.

For the Old Testament there is an additional complication. The Hebrew canon used by Jews after the first century is shorter than the Greek Septuagint used by the early Church, which included Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees and additions to Esther and Daniel. The New Testament authors mostly quote the Septuagint. Jerome, translating the Vulgate, flagged these books as useful but of a second rank; Augustine treated them as Scripture; the Church used them for a thousand years. The Reformation reopened the question.

Where the four traditions stand

Catholic

The Second Vatican Council's Dei Verbum gives the classic modern statement. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, flowing from the same divine wellspring and moving towards the same end. The task of authentically interpreting the word of God has been entrusted to the Magisterium - the bishops in communion with the Pope - which is not above the word of God but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on. The three - Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium - are so connected that none stands without the others. The Council of Trent fixed the canon definitively in 1546, including the deuterocanonical books, in response to their removal by the Reformers. The Church teaches that the books of Scripture teach firmly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation - a formulation that focuses inerrancy on the saving purpose rather than on incidental matters. Catholic exegesis distinguishes the literal sense from the spiritual senses (allegorical, moral, anagogical), and Dei Verbum strongly encourages the laity to read Scripture: ignorance of Scripture, Jerome's line runs, is ignorance of Christ.

Orthodox

Orthodoxy does not set Scripture and Tradition side by side as two sources. Scripture is understood as the supreme and normative expression within Holy Tradition - the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, which also includes the councils, the Fathers, the canons, the liturgy and the icons. The Bible is the Church's book: she wrote it, recognised it, and reads it, and it cannot be correctly understood outside the community that produced it. Interpretation is guided by the consensus patrum, the mind of the Fathers, and above all by the liturgy, where Scripture is not merely read but enacted - the hymnography of a feast is exegesis. Authority is conciliar: the seven ecumenical councils are received as binding, and a council's authority rests finally on its reception by the whole body of the faithful, which is why Orthodoxy has no single office equivalent to the Magisterium. The Orthodox Old Testament follows the Septuagint and is wider than both the Protestant and the Catholic canons, though the exact status of the additional books has never been defined with Tridentine precision - a characteristic Orthodox reticence.

Lutheran

Lutheranism confesses sola Scriptura, and the phrase means something more precise than it is usually given credit for. The Formula of Concord states that Holy Scripture alone remains the only judge, rule and norm, according to which all doctrines are to be judged. The Confessions themselves are then subscribed because (quia) they agree with Scripture, not merely insofar as they happen to - a distinction confessional Lutherans take seriously. Scripture is the norma normans, the norming norm; the creeds and confessions are norma normata, norms that are themselves normed. This is not an appeal to private judgement. Luther kept the creeds, the ancient councils, the liturgy, the church year and much ceremonial, and the Book of Concord quotes the Fathers constantly. The claim is that all of it stands under Scripture and can in principle be corrected by it. Central to Lutheran reading is the distinction between law and gospel - the word that demands and condemns, and the word that gives and forgives - which Lutherans regard as the key to reading the whole Bible rightly. The Apocrypha are printed and valued as good and useful reading but are not Scripture.

Anglican

Article 6 is the foundation: 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. Note the precise scope - necessary to salvation. The Article does not say that nothing may be practised unless commanded in Scripture, which leaves room for ceremonies, structures and customs the Church may order. Article 20 states that the Church has authority in controversies of faith and power to decree rites, but may not ordain anything contrary to God's word nor expound one place of Scripture so that it contradicts another. Article 21 says general councils may err and sometimes have. Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity gave Anglicanism its characteristic account: Scripture first, then the Church's tradition, then reason, as a hierarchy rather than three equal legs - a point often lost when the so-called three-legged stool is invoked. In practice the evangelical wing presses Article 6 in a nearly Lutheran direction; the Anglo-Catholic wing gives tradition much heavier weight; the liberal wing gives reason and experience a larger role than Hooker allowed.

The real question

Strip away the polemics and the disagreement reduces to one question: when Christians read the same text and reach contradictory conclusions, what settles it?

The Catholic answer: the living Magisterium, which can speak definitively.
The Orthodox answer: the mind of the Church, expressed conciliarly and received by the whole body over time.
The Lutheran answer: Scripture itself, read according to its own clear centre - law and gospel, and Christ - with the Confessions as the agreed public statement of that reading.
The Anglican answer: Scripture, as read with the Church's tradition and sound reason, with the formularies and the Prayer Book as the settled standard.

Each answer has a known difficulty, and it is more honest to name them than to pretend otherwise. The Catholic and Orthodox answers must explain how a teaching authority avoids becoming a source of new content. The Lutheran and Anglican answers must explain why, if Scripture is sufficiently clear, sincere readers have divided so persistently.

Where modern denominations differ

Who differs: Baptist, Pentecostal, non-denominational and much of Reformed Christianity hold sola Scriptura in a form considerably stronger than the Lutheran or Anglican one, often amounting to what critics call solo or nuda Scriptura: the Bible alone, read by the individual believer, with no binding interpretive authority above private judgement.

What they hold: That Scripture is clear enough that any sincere reader can determine its meaning; that creeds and confessions are useful summaries with no authority of their own; that the Church's role is to teach the Bible, not to interpret it authoritatively; and that appeals to tradition are how error entered in the first place. Many would add that the canon is self-authenticating - the sheep hear the Shepherd's voice - so no ecclesial judgement was needed.

How to answer: Be careful whom you are answering, because confessional Lutherans and evangelical Anglicans hold sola Scriptura too and are not the target. The target is the version that removes every interpretive authority.

Start with the canon, which is the strongest move and should be made gently. Ask how they know which books belong. There is no inspired list. The twenty-seven were recognised over three centuries by the visible Church, with real disagreement about Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation, and real candidates that were excluded. If that process was reliable, then the Church's judgement was reliable at least once, on the most consequential question in Christian history. If it was not reliable, then the contents of the Bible are uncertain. The self-authenticating answer runs into the fact that sincere, Spirit-filled Christians disagreed about these books for centuries - and that Luther himself doubted James.

Then ask about the creeds. Do they confess the Trinity? Almost all will. Ask where the words Trinity, person, substance and two natures come from. They come from councils, using vocabulary not found in Scripture, to settle disputes in which both sides quoted Scripture fluently. Arius had verses. So did Nestorius. If Scripture alone, read by sincere individuals, is sufficient to settle doctrine, it is not clear why the fourth century took a hundred years and several councils.

Finally, point to the evidence on the ground. The doctrine predicts convergence - sincere readers of a clear text should agree. What has actually happened is continuous division, to the point where the number of distinct Protestant bodies is now counted in the tens of thousands. That is not a cheap jibe; it is the prediction of a theory being tested against the result.

And concede what deserves conceding. The Reformers were not inventing individualism

they were responding to real abuses, and the principle that the Church's teaching

must be answerable to Scripture is one all four traditions accept in some form. Catholics hold that the Magisterium is not above the word but serves it. Nobody in this conversation thinks the Church may contradict the Bible.

Work with it

Check yourself

Which of these is the strongest historical difficulty for the claim that Scripture alone, with no interpretive authority, is sufficient?

Check yourself

What does Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles actually claim for Scripture?

Check yourself

How does the Orthodox tradition relate Scripture to Tradition?

Objection drill

Your churches added books to the Bible that the Jews themselves never accepted, and then invented doctrines like purgatory out of them. Jerome knew they were not Scripture and said so. The Reformers simply restored the Hebrew canon that Jesus himself used.

Write your answer first. You will remember it far better than one you only read.

A model answer

Several claims here, and the history is more interesting than either side's slogan.

Did Jesus use the Hebrew canon? The honest answer is that there was no settled Jewish canon in the first century. The Sadducees accepted only the five books of Moses. The Essenes at Qumran preserved Tobit and Sirach among their scrolls. The Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria used the Septuagint, which included the disputed books. The shorter rabbinic canon was consolidated later, in the period after the temple fell - that is, after the Church and the synagogue had separated. So "restoring the canon Jesus used" assumes a fixed article that did not exist.

It is also worth noticing which text the New Testament writers quote. Overwhelmingly the Septuagint, including in places where its wording differs from the Hebrew, and the epistle to the Hebrews contains a probable allusion to 2 Maccabees 6-7. The apostles were not working from the later rabbinic list.

Jerome. True, and worth granting cleanly: Jerome distinguished the books of the Hebrew canon from the others and called the latter useful for edification rather than for establishing doctrine. He is the strongest witness the objection has. But he also translated them, included them, and quoted them as Scripture on occasion - and he lost the argument at the time. Augustine held them canonical, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 390s listed them. The Church used them for eleven hundred years before anyone removed them.

Purgatory from Maccabees. This one needs precision. The Catholic doctrine is not derived from 2 Maccabees 12, though that passage - where Judas Maccabeus makes atonement for the dead - shows that praying for the dead was already a Jewish practice before Christ, which is the historical point it is usually cited for. The doctrine is argued from 1 Corinthians 3:15, the man saved yet so as by fire, from Matthew 12:32's implication that some sin may be forgiven in the age to come, and from the practice of the early Church, which prayed for its dead from the beginning - the inscriptions in the catacombs do it, and they predate any controversy.

And note what the Reformers actually did, since it is often misremembered. Luther did not delete these books. He translated them and placed them between the Testaments with a preface calling them useful and good to read, which is very close to Jerome's position and to Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. The King James Bible of 1611 printed them. They were dropped from most printed Bibles in the nineteenth century, largely by decision of the Bible societies, for reasons that were as much commercial as theological.

Where that leaves the argument. Two defensible positions exist here, and they are held by serious people. What is not defensible is the claim that the four traditions added books to a settled Bible. The disputed books were in the Church's Scriptures from the beginning, questioned at the edges by some, and removed only much later. The burden of explaining a change lies with whoever made one.

Memory work

Turn each card over, then say honestly whether you knew it. Cards you miss come back sooner.

I have worked through this section