Sola Scriptura 101

I'm not sure why this escaped my attention until now, but Halloween is the anniversary of Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg door. Churches in the Reformed tradition hold Reformation Sunday this weekend in honor of that event.

In honor of that, Jollyblogger is running a inaugural Carnival of the Reformation on a Sola Scriptura theme [Update 11/1-Here's the Carnival link.]; he just got a long-overdue permalink. My lack of knowledge of that date may make me lose Reformed street cred, but consider me a Reformed fellow traveler as I take a look at Sola Scriptura.

My practical application of Sola Scriptura (scripture only) is that we look to the Bible as our primary authority of Christian doctrine; if it goes against what the Bible says, it's a no-no. That's not to say that traditional teachings aren't useful or even authoritative, but they must mesh with the Bible. An interesting application from my Church of Christ days is Barton Stone's line when asked if he accepted the Westminster Confession; his comeback was that he accepted in to the extent that it was "consistent with the word of God." That bought Stone a few years (if it didn't conform, it wouldn't be much of a Reformed church) before the Presbyterians forced him out.

In my view of Sola Scriptura, the Bible holds the place analogous to the Constitution, and other teachings are mere laws that have to conform to the Constitution. If a law runs counter to the Constitution, it's deemed unconstitutional and thrown out. If a teaching runs counter to the Bible, it can be deemed heretical and thrown out. The trick in theology as in jurisprudence is to have "strict constructionists" who won't let their desired hermeneutics get in the way of solid exegesis of what the Bible is saying.

Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that we don't look to the teachings of the past or present; we merely hold them up to a Biblical standard before using them. Different traditions will have different sets of authoritative teachings (or lack thereof), but all flow (if they are orthodox theology) from a solid interpretation of the Bible.

Catholic critiques of tradition-oriented Reformed churches as not being Sola Scriptura don't quite get the difference between the Bible and post-Biblical teaching; post-Biblical teaching can't veto the Bible and can be changed as long as the change itself meshes with Scripture. Conversely, Catholic teaching can be (depending on its status) treated as equal to scripture in its authority. That doesn't work for Reformed teaching; only the Bible is truly authoritative and other documents merely comment on that authority.

Comments

[David M.]

My pastor used precisely this analogy in a sermon some time ago. It's here, if you're interested: http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/gvcc/sermon_trans/2001/Is_It_Constitutional.html

[Jay]

By this logic, the Bible must then teach Sola Scriptura, right? Otherwise it must be thrown out as an invalid doctrine. I would appreciate you letting me know of any verse that teaches sola scriptura is valid - - I don't mean a verse that says that Scripture is "profitable" or good, but a verse that specifically teaches that "Scripture is the primary authority of Christian Doctrine" as you argue above.

It's funny, but for 1500 years, Scripture was only believed because of the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther managed to throw out this authority, but somehow keep people believing in the infallibility of Scripture (even though he removed some of the books he didn't like).

The Bible, as an FYI, never teaches Sola Scriptura. Rather, it teaches that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and through the Church, the "wisdom of God is made known" (Eph 3:15). There are also numerous passages in Scripture that suggest the oral teaching (Tradition) is equal to the written word (Scripture). I recommend reading this article on sola scriptura.

If the Bible was so important - essentially the foundation of your faith - why didn't Jesus order it written? Or write at least a chapter Himself? Shouldn't He have at least picked out the authors? He didn't have to - Jesus knew the Church He founded in Matthew 16:18 would do it infallibly.

How do you know the Bible is true? Without recognizing the authority of the Church, you can't be sure.

God bless,
Jay

[Jeremy Pierce]

Jay, did you even read the post? Mark's main point is that Sola Scriptura does not mean something has to be in the Bible to be true or to be known. It just means that if something in the Bible contradicts it it's false.