Precursor to Sola Scriptura
February 18, 2008 | By: Jon BloomCategory: Commentary
Last week I pointed to an article by an Eastern Orthodox professor describing how 2nd century church leaders struggled to determine who had the authority to determine doctrinal orthodoxy. In his descriptions I saw an early precursor to what the Reformers in the 16th century termed “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone is authoritative), namely that fidelity to the apostles’ teaching, not holding a position that claimed an apostolic succession, was the gauge of authority. But some readers accurately pointed out that the author isn’t making that assertion. That’s true. The author doesn’t hold to Sola Scriptura and that’s not the main point of his article. So why did I find it helpful?
In the 2nd century, a consensus for what writings were authoritative was still being established—finalizing the New Testament canon would continue for another couple of centuries. A growing number of documents were circulating claiming authority. What was becoming increasingly important was whether or not it could be shown that what was being taught by a leader was faithful to the apostles’ teaching. 2nd century church leaders were recognizing the dangers inherent in bestowing on an office of bishop the authority to declare doctrinal truth by virtue of claiming some kind of apostolic succession. It was the doctrines of the apostles, not a title bestowed on a leader, that mattered most.
By the 16th century, the NT canon had been established for well over a 1,000 years. And the subsequent doctrinal distortion and corruption of church leaders resulting from claims of apostolic succession and tradition so horrible that the Reformers were compelled to declare Sola Scriptura, because Scripture was the only clear, objective record of apostolic teaching that existed. They did that because of their conviction that it was the doctrines of the apostles, not a title bestowed on a leader, that mattered most.
So in this article on the issues that faced 2nd century church leaders I saw the precursor to Sola Scriptura. In my original post I should have been more clear on that point.
In the 2nd century, a consensus for what writings were authoritative was still being established—finalizing the New Testament canon would continue for another couple of centuries. A growing number of documents were circulating claiming authority. What was becoming increasingly important was whether or not it could be shown that what was being taught by a leader was faithful to the apostles’ teaching. 2nd century church leaders were recognizing the dangers inherent in bestowing on an office of bishop the authority to declare doctrinal truth by virtue of claiming some kind of apostolic succession. It was the doctrines of the apostles, not a title bestowed on a leader, that mattered most.
By the 16th century, the NT canon had been established for well over a 1,000 years. And the subsequent doctrinal distortion and corruption of church leaders resulting from claims of apostolic succession and tradition so horrible that the Reformers were compelled to declare Sola Scriptura, because Scripture was the only clear, objective record of apostolic teaching that existed. They did that because of their conviction that it was the doctrines of the apostles, not a title bestowed on a leader, that mattered most.
So in this article on the issues that faced 2nd century church leaders I saw the precursor to Sola Scriptura. In my original post I should have been more clear on that point.
Tools
Related Resources