From time to time Anglicans make claims about the early church in support of one or other of the various churchmanships we ‘enjoy’. Even Peter Toon, an Evangelical from the C of E who taught for a while at Nashotah House (a short while, as you might expect), was fond of referring to ‘One God, two Testaments, three Creeds, four Councils, five centuries’ as providing the standard to which the church should be held accountable in its teaching and practice.
It won’t do, you know. ‘From the first of the fathers to the last of the popes, a succession of bishops, of saints, of martyrs, and of miracles, is continued without interruption; and the progress of superstition was so gradual, and almost imperceptible, that we know not in what particular link we should break the chain of tradition. Every age bears testimony to the wonderful events by which it was distinguished, and its testimony appears no less weighty and respectable than that of the preceding generation, till we are insensibly led on to accuse our own inconsistency, if in the eighth or in the twelfth century we deny to the venerable Bede, or to the holy Bernard, the same degree of confidence which, in the second century, we had so liberally granted to Justin or to Irenæus.’
Our Articles of Religion make it very clear that there is only one authority on which we can rely, and that is the authority of Scripture. If it can’t be found there, it can’t be necessary, no matter who said it, or when. Even things ordained by the first four Councils ‘have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.’ Even the creeds are only to be believed because ‘they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture’.
If we were to discover a new manuscript quoting Peter, or Paul’s missing letter, it would have no more authority for us—less, actually, in the light of Romans 13—than a pastoral letter from our own bishop (although it might in some cases be a lot more interesting). To quote William Chillingworth again (from here), ‘The BIBLE. The BIBLE, I say, The BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants! Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion, but as matter of Faith and Religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others.’
So why bother with anything else?
Still an Evangelical in the Episcopal Church 
May 19, 2013 at 8:15 pm
How do you recommend we address our brethren who hold the idea of the Bible as part of the Great Tradition, “the Church created the canon of Scripture,” and so on?
May 19, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Depends on what you mean by ‘address’. I don’t expect them to modify their views any more than I expect to modify my own, and prefer to focus such energy as I have for evangelism on those who aren’t part of the Christian community. I’m confident the people you mention will come to their senses eventually. If the subject came up in conversation, I suppose I’d say ‘I’ll send you a link to an interesting comment on that’, and refer them to this post!
May 20, 2013 at 5:53 am
I’d like to know more about your evangelism to those who aren’t part of the Christian community, and if you are able to do it here in Pittsburgh–perhaps in your work at Pitt? Much more common to find people in the U.S. who don’t know much about the Christian community, or at least have what we might think is a distorted view of it, now than it was 50 years ago. I remember the Rev. Sam Shoemaker’s saying that he really didn’t learn, himself, what it meant to be a Christian until he was in China and had to witness for Christ to people who were from a completely different culture. Perhaps that’s the situation we are in in the US today.
May 22, 2013 at 8:00 pm
I bother with other things because I understand Christianity to be a religion of the word made flesh, not the word made book.
May 23, 2013 at 1:23 pm
It’s God’s word written that teaches us that great truth. The Word became flesh only in Jesus, and in Him alone. So I could rephrase my question, ‘Why bother with anyone else?
May 22, 2013 at 9:47 pm
For many, “the book” is as meaningful as music. It’s not something cold and hard. It is “flesh” in the sense that it fleshes out our understanding of our faith, our sense that God is speaking to us through what’s written in those texts. It inspires us to have confidence in the God who loves us, who cares about us, and how we treat others and live out our lives.
May 23, 2013 at 10:49 pm
“Solo Jesus” and “Sola Scriptura” are complementary, I think. –Dr. Wainwright, how would you answer our PB as she’d quoted in this link? I read it hoping her words were taken out of context, but they don’t seem to have been. It seems to me it might fit in this discussion, because for scripture to be strengthening to the church, to be our source of knowledge of Jesus and of those who made him known, I think, depends on not having it twisted by people in various times and places to completely change the meaning. I’d love to see a vigorous discussion between the PB and those who are loyal to her and TEC, but disagree with some of her theological takes.
http://anglicanink.com/article/diversity-not-jesus-saves-says-presiding-bishop#.UZp43NrKnS8.facebook
May 24, 2013 at 6:15 am
The full text of her sermon is at http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2013/05/13/presiding-bishop-preaches-in-curacao-diocese-of-venezuela/.
The way other people twist the scriptures and change their meaning is beyond my control. All my energy goes into the effort not to do that myself. Generally speaking, the less said about the PB the better, I think.
May 23, 2013 at 10:53 pm
To clarify: the part I don’t agree with was the part about the slave girl, with the PB faulting Paul for not recognizing that she had a “spiritual gift.”
May 24, 2013 at 6:57 am
Thought this was worth a smile, on the topic of the PB’s sermon: http://livingchurch.org/st-paul-speaks
May 24, 2013 at 7:22 am
Thank you! I guess that WAS Doug LeBlanc. The tone and content were right on.
May 24, 2013 at 11:16 am
Sola Scriptura yes. In my own experience, the Word then came alive when I met Jesus and He baptized me in His Spirit, then the Bible became a Living Word. I always loved David duPlessy’s analogy about the steak still being the steak when it is frozen or when it is sizzling hot off the charcoal grill, then asking “But which one do you want to eat–the one on ice or the one on fire?”
May 24, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Maybe not “on fire” (as far as steak is concerned), but definitely cooked and hot (and I prefer medium rare). Of course, there are those who like steak tartare (but of course it’s not simply raw, it’s “prepared” with thought). :-)