In fact, as you continue to clarify, what constitutes the Bible is actually derived from the undivided community – not the other way around. I am also in agreement with you that there is value in diversity. But diversity does not need to stand in opposition to unity. I would expect and hope for a diversity of embodiment of the Christian tradition to the culture and context in which it finds itself. What I would not expect, however, is animosity between those diverse manifestations – even within the same culture and context. Which is what we actually encounter both in doctrine and practice in the sola scriptura approach. And not merely with fringe issues.

Sola scriptura leads to one group baptising all, another group baptising only believers, another group not baptising at all, and so forth – each claiming that the plain reading of scripture leads to their position alone. Sola scriptura leads to worship traditions that appear not just as adaptations to a new context, but are discontinuous from our Jewish roots, and from the practice of the undivided church.

Indeed, I am confident that others have brought arguments to bear which solidify more books as in or out of the OT canon than my few arguments here suggest, so that effectively the core is larger and the fringe smaller than I have been able to imply. Debates may never wholly settle, but I am confident the church can happily survive, and the more so with a lesser fringe and a larger core.

I am encouraged by the last paragraph of your most recent rejoinder, but I might be mystified by the one immediately preceding:

“Removing the canon from the community’s ongoing life, does not result in “maintaining unity” as per your first comment it actually causes disunity, hence my point that the relatively recent experiment with sola scriptura has been demonstrated a failure.”

Of course, you allude again to your original post. There, for example, you wrote, “Luther’s own high degree of confidence in the sole sufficiency of individualised Biblical reading was soon shattered …” because divergent and atomistic readings developed. Indeed, I think we would both agree that the history of the Reformation has been marked by an ever-expanding doctrinal and practical divergence (yes, often with old themes and motifs weaved back in).

(As an aside, divergence seems characteristic of western culture of the last many centuries.)

And the divergence of English translations (and their marketing) in many cases has seemed evidence of this divergence. No other language has been so heavily blessed and cursed.

If this is your point, I agree. But there is a flip side, I think. History gives examples of convergence which are arguably more politically driven than ecclesiastically or spiritually. At least Constantine’s stated motivation was political, if I recall correctly (however much I appreciate Nicea and Athanasius). And James I, known for favoring “divine right of kings,” saw fit to provide an Authorized Version to the church (however much I appreciate that translation and William Tyndale).

Indeed, unity of the church may be and has been based on something other than Christ and His teaching. Luther rightly found fault with some church tradition of his day at least in part based on his individual reading of the Bible. In practice, divergence has its problems, unity its own also. There are no easy answers, though there is hope and trust in Providence … and gratitude. I would prefer to call “the puritan experiment” a highlight of church history despite its failures rather than characterize the whole as a failure.

Further, judging from the NT, the Psalms of David seemed equally received (perhaps Sadducees aside), and various prophets. And for apparent canon considered in sections, note for example, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms,” “the law or the Prophets” (Luke 24:27,44; Matt 5:17, respectively).

And what about Septuagint manuscripts? Or Josephus’s claim that the Scriptures consisted of 22 books (partly by merging the Samuel’s, King’s, and Chronicles or whatever)?

The above seems to imply virtually that the idea of a “Tanakh” may be placed in Jesus’ day. The idea of canon and the reception of many books in what we call the Old Testament is not necessarily anachronistic for the first century.

Of course, this does not answer all questions, e.g. whether a majority of Jews received all of what we call the Old Testament or whether to include Ecclesiastes and exclude 1 Maccabees or whether some books were considered “deutero-canonical,” etc. But are conclusions about fringes necessary to make my point about a core? And granting that one cannot “establish the Old Testament canon from the words of Jesus in the New Testament alone,” yet the evidence is suggestive in general and in some cases regarding specific books.

In this sense, and referring back to my first comment, Old Testament canon and Christology are linked. However vital the practice and reading of Scripture is to the church (I think your point is excellent), her Christology, as “theological theory,” makes or breaks her in the long haul.

In practical terms, following the Ascension of our Lord and of the death of His eyewitness disciples … and of their disciples … a written collection of writings about the Jesus-tradition became vital in the passing of the religious baton between generations and in maintaining unity. So too did a trained and professional hierarchy.

Doctrinal differences among the people of God are distressing, and of course long predate A.D. 1531 or 1517 or 1054, but I for one see the Scriptures themselves as anticipating and recording such phenomena, for example in part because of the blindness of sin and in part because there may be a difference between God speaking and God revealing to the heart (“not given them a heart to understand” Deut 29:4). That and various ambiguities and interpretive cruxes in some, but not all areas.

Of course, one such as myself who holds to a high view of Scripture also follows a tradition. In part, I view certain Western and Reformed confessions as in keeping with the way I interpret the Scriptures. I part, I trust a body of professionals in that tradition who have done more homework than I have. That tradition confesses the Scriptures as having final veto power over doctrinal claims where it comes to that.

Members of the people of God who are in some sense outside my confessional tradition differ with me and with my tradition about what the Bible says about such-and-such, but in confession not about the authority of Scriptures or the nature of Christ. To which alternate epistemological authority then would you have us turn? And if I alone do, will God’s church be one wit closer to unity?

I think it’s also vital to remember that from Luther and his fellow Reformers, “Scripture alone” was not alone, but also accompanied by sola gratia, sola, fide, and sola Christus. They belong together. All too often cries of “sola scriptura” isolate that one slogan from the others.

Understood literally, as a close to complete sum of the doctrine in just those two words, the notion of sola scriptura becomes very problematic, as you’ve pointed out quite well. Hooker reacted in an appropriate way to this misunderstanding of the phrase. But if understood well, I think there is plenty of room for both Hooker’s three legged stool and for sola scriptura.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/rdbook/1930/religion_is_not_about_belief:_karen_armstrong%E2%80%99s_the_case_for_god

But irregardless…. some, maybe many, will continue to believe that the Bible is the “direct” word straight from the mouth of God to the ears of …. well, how would we know whose ears to trust? But that question never occurs to them.

I find that some people need ‘certainty’ and are ready to view the Bible as holding that ‘certainty’. Others of us can live with questions and uncertainty and MYSTERY. That takes faith and discernment. Not everyone can tolerate uncertainty, the need to grope in the darkness, the humility of not knowing for sure, of having to make your best stabs at living – on the basis of weighing and considering – using your best informed spiritual, intellectual, and emotional gifts – along with reality testing through consulting others via direct or indirect means.

I’ve said nothing here. But thanks for a chance to say it nonetheless. I love this site!

So, what might be sufficient for Christian groups who do not have bishops (well, to clarify – who have denominational leaders without the power of a bishop)? – especially congregationalist denominations?

Would you encourage us to submit primarily to the creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian) plus the 7 ecumenical councils? Are these items sufficient for orthodoxy?

Any other comment for Christians without the benefit of bishops in regards to this idea of sufficiency for belief?

Great post!