SOLA SCRIPTURA

Some months ago someone from a fundamental, Bible-believing church wrote to meto seek some advice. She was having a debate with some Roman Catholicsconcerning the doctrine of sola scriptura, and was being drawn to acorner by her opponents, and in her own words was “fighting a losing battle.”Her opponents were using the Scripture to show her that the Scripture does notteach sola scriptura as she claimed. She referred me to a 1995article apparently written by a Protestant convert to Roman Catholicism. Thisarticle begins with the words:

The Protestant doctrine of solascriptura—that the Bible alone is a Christian’s authority in matters offaith and morals—was one of the central tenets on which the Reformers brokeaway from the Catholic Church. But in one of those strange quirks ofhistory, sola scriptura lately has been one of the centraltenets on which some Evangelical Protestants have returned to Rome.

As I read the article, and another, which I was also referred to, it becameclear to me that a suspicion that I have had for some timenow,—concerning sola scriptura,—is probably more correct than Ithought. No, I have no doubt that the Reformed position of solascriptura is biblical. My suspicion was that much of modernevangelicalism and fundamentalism have, in fact, deviated from the doctrineof sola scriptura as taught by the magisterial Reformers, suchas Calvin and Luther. And it occurred to me that it is this deviant solascriptura that some Protestants are trying desperately to defend, andthat it is also this deviation that some erstwhile Protestants have abandonedfor Romanism.

Shortly, after that, a dear sister in the faith very kindly sent me a book byKeith A. Mathison entitled The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Idaho:Canon Press, 2001), 364 pages. What this book did was essentially to confirm mysuspicion and also to reinforce my own convictions in regards to solascriptura. In this article, I do not intend to review this book, though Iwould refer to it and quote from it quite extensively. I can do no better thanto highly recommend you to read the book if you still have any doubts or wouldlike to study the issue more after reading this short article.

In this article, I would like to examine briefly the four views in regards to theScripture, that are held in the visible professing churches today. These fourviews are dealt with quite exhaustively in Mathison’s book.

Tradition I: The Reformed View
or classic Sola Scriptura

The Reformed View of sola scriptura may be thought of ashaving two aspects. The first and primary aspect asserts that there is only onesource of divine revelation available to us, namely the Holy Scripture, andthat it alone is the ultimate authority for our faith and life. This doctrineis succinctly expressed in WCF 1.6a—

The whole counsel of God, concerningall things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, iseither expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequencemay be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added,whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

It is a doctrine that finds unassailable support from the Scripture. Writingunder a divine superintendence which no true child of God will deny, theApostle Paul asserts:

All scripture is given byinspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, forcorrection, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may beperfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim 3:16–17).

The Scripture, in other words, is God-breathed and given principally toinstruct us on what we are to believe concerning God and what duty God requiresof us. We must concede that this verse by itself does not prove that theScripture is sufficient and is the sole authority for the Church. However, whenseen together with other inspired verses, this must be the conclusion we haveto arrive at. There are numerous places in the New Testament, for example,which teach us to test and prove all that we hear or read (e.g., Gal 1:8–9; 2Thes 2:2; 1 Thes 5:21 and 1 Jn 4:1). From these verses, we have to concludethat there must be an authoritative repository of divine revelation, withoutwhich it is impossible to verify anything today. And the Church has not knownof any reliable, self-authenticating or universally accepted repository exceptthe 66 books of canonical Scripture. Of this Canon, the 39 books of OldTestament received implicit approval by the Lord Jesus Himself, whereas the 27books of the New Testament were written by the Apostles or apostolic men, andwere regarded as authoritative during a time when the supernatural gift ofspiritual discernment was not yet withdrawn (see “Canonicity of the Bible” in PCC Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 39, dated 25March 2001). For this reason, the Church must accept as truth anything that isinscripturated in the Canon, regardless of what we may think their documentarysources were: be they direct revelation from God, annals of kings, war records,travel manifests, letters or oral tradition. Whatever is found in Scripture isthere by inspiration of God. The Scripture must therefore be our ultimateauthority of doctrine and practice.

The second, and secondary aspect of sola scriptura, is givenin WCF 1.6b andWCF 31.3, viz.—

Nevertheless, we acknowledge theinward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the savingunderstanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there aresome circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church,common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light ofnature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word,which are always to be observed.

It belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies offaith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for betterordering of the public worship of God, and government of His Church; to receivecomplaints in cases of mal-administration, and to authoritatively to determinethe same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God,are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreementwith the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being anordinance of God, appointed thereunto in His Word.

That is to say, sola scriptura does not deny that illuminationof the Holy Spirit is necessary for understanding the Scripture, nor does itdeny that there is any other authority than the Scripture. The Scripture is theonly infallible authority, but through the appointment of Christ and the workof illumination by the Holy Spirit, the Church, as well as lawfully ordainedCouncils and Creeds carry subordinate authority (though not infallibly,see WCF 31.4). The Church, according to Paul, is “the pillarand ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). She is not the truth itself. Christ andthe Word of God are truth (Jn 14:6; 17:17). But she is where the truth is taughtand upheld. In other words, Reformed sola scripturadenies that weshould disregard all traditions and interpretations that have already been madein the Church. Mathison puts it well:

We may say that our final authorityis Scripture alone, but not a Scripture that is alone. Scripture alone is thesource of revelation. Scripture alone is inspired and inherently infallible.Scripture alone is the supreme normative standard. But Scripture does not existin a vacuum. It was and is given to the Church within the doctrinal context ofthe apostolic gospel. Scripture alone is the only final standard, but it is afinal standard that must be utilised, interpreted and preached by the Churchwithin its Christian context. If Scripture is not interpreted correctly withinits proper context, it ceases to function properly as astandard (op. cit., 259).

This understanding of sola scriptura was the consensus of theearly church from the time of the Apostles until the early part of thefourteenth century, when a two-source theory of revelation (Tradition II) waspropounded by William of Ockham (ca. 1280–1349) (ibid., 19–81). When theReformation begun in the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church still did nothave a dogmatic view on the two traditions. Some held to Tradition I, othersheld to Tradition II explicitly or implicitly. The magisterial Reformers arguedaccording to Tradition I to show how far the Church had deviated from the Wordof God, but they did not introduce a novel doctrine of the Scripture. It was aview that existed all along (ibid., 83–121). It was only in reaction tothe teachings of the Reformers that Rome, at the Council of Trent (1545–1563),dogmatised Tradition II (ibid., 128–129).

Tradition II: The RomishView
or the Two-Source Theory

The Romish view of the Scripture may be best summarised in the pronouncement ofthe Council of Trent, that it…

Clearly [perceived] that [allsaving] truth and [moral] discipline are containedin the written books andin the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouthof Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating,have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand: (the Synod)following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates…the Old and… New Testament—seeing that one God is author of both—as alsothe said traditions, as well as those appertaining to faith as to morals,as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the HolyGhost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continual [i.e., unbroken]succession (italics mine; Philip Schaff,The Creeds of Christendom,II.80).

Apparently, during the preliminary debates, there was an earlier draftproposing that revelation is contained “partly in the written booksand partly in the unwritten tradition.” This proposal wasrejected for various reasons, but, as Mathison has shown quite convincingly,the framers of the decree did intend to teach the two-source theory despite theambiguity of the wording finally chosen (see op. cit., 129–132).

There are many problems and objections to this theory (see details in ibid.,211–216).

First, and foremost, it is impossible for fallen man to discern what theApostles or even the Lord might have taught apart from what we may learn fromthe Scriptures. The Apostles and apostolic men might have alluded to or madeuse of oral traditions in some cases, and by their canonical writings theydeclared them to be truth (e.g., 2 Tim 3:8; Jude 9); but they were only able todo so under the special work of the Holy Spirit in inspiration (2 Pet 1:20–21).

Secondly, there is no promise by the Lord to intervene in thepreservation of oral tradition, unlike His promise to preserve His Church orHis Holy Word.

Thirdly, if tradition is on par with Scripture as a source ofrevelation, then there is simply no way to discern whether something taughtorally is true or false. Then, how would we know we are not worshipping God invain and teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mt 15:9)?

Fourthly, Rome has never produce any evidence that there were anyunwritten traditions handed down from the time of the Apostles. And even if newtraditions could be created from time to time, there is no way for anyChristian to verify the authenticity and authority of the tradition.

Fifthly, making tradition on par with Scripture often necessitatesundermining the authority of Scripture. One clear example is the Romishdoctrine that Mary is a co-mediator of Christ. But this contradicts theScripture, which teaches us that “there is one God, and one mediator betweenGod and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). To believe Rome would be todeny Scripture. Another shocking example of how Romish tradition clashes withScripture may be found in the Council of Trent’s Decree concerning OriginalSin, which dogmatises that baptism washes off Original Sin:

This concupiscence, which theapostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Churchhas never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin inthose born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.And if anyone is of contrary sentiment, let him be anathema (Creeds,II.88).

This pronouncement effectively declares that the Apostle Paul did notunderstand concupiscence as the Church did, and then proceeds to anathematiseanyone who seeks to teach as Paul did!

With so many weighty arguments against this theory, we can expect it to beunstable and to be rejected in due time by any thinking practitioners who wouldponder about it or seek to defend it rationally or scripturally. This turns outto be the case in many instances, as Mathison observes:

Most modern Roman CatholicTheologians have conceded the problems with Tradition II and rejected the ideaof a two-source concept of tradition. Many have instead adopted the concept oftradition… in which the magisterium of the Church is the real source ofrevelation. It is perhaps inevitable that the problems inherent in Tradition IIwould have led to Tradition III (ibid., 216).

Tradition III: TheEmerging Roman View

We will not say much about Tradition III because it is least relevant to us,though it shows that popular Roman apologetes for Tradition II are in fact alittle behind time!

What Tradition III essentially teaches is that whatever the Roman churchteaches at present is tradition by definition.

Walter Burghardt, a Roman Catholic theologian, explains how this position worksin relation to the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary:

A valid argument for a dogmatic tradition,for the Church’s teaching in the past can be constructed from her teaching inthe present. And that is actually the approach theology took to thedefinability of the assumption before 1st November 1950. It began with a fact:the current consensus, in the Church teaching and in the Church taught, thatthe Corporeal Assumption was revealed by God. If that is true, if that is theteaching of the magisterium of the moment, if that is the Church’s tradition,then it was always part and parcel of the Church’s tradition, then it wasalways part and parcel of the Church’s teaching, part and parcel of tradition(cited in Heiko Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation [T&TClark, 1986], 295).

Mathison’s assessment is incisive:

It goes without saying that this viewof tradition is a virtual declaration of autonomy on the part of the Romanchurch, and when it is combined with the doctrine of papal infallibility, itamounts to a Church for whom Scripture and tradition are essentiallyirrelevant. If whatever the Church teaches now is by definition theunadulterated apostolic faith, the finding support in Scripture or the fathersis really superfluous. With Tradition III Rome has, in effect, freed herselfnot only from the Scripture but also from the burden of her own pastauthoritative decisions (op. cit., 135).

Tradition 0: The Anabaptistic View
or Solo Scriptura

The human heart is prone to extremism. And experience teaches us that wheneverhuman autonomy is part of the equation, gravitation toward autonomy may beexpected. As Rome has in recent days gravitated towards autonomy (from God) asa church, so there are confessing Protestants who have unwittingly swungtowards human autonomy, thinking that they are defendingsola scriptura.

During the time of the Reformation, these Protestants were known as the“Radical Reformers” or more commonly “Anabaptists,” for their rejection ofinfant baptism and therefore requiring re-baptism for adults who were baptisedas infants. The difference between the Mainline and Magisterial Reformers, andthe Radical Reformers, how-ever, went much beyond the question of baptism,despite their popular namesake. The difference between them was really theirconception of Scripture and authority.

The Radical Reformers agreed with the Magisterial Reformers that the Scripturewas the sole infallible authority, but unlike the latter who held secondaryauthorities, such as the Creeds of old and the opinion of the fathers, in highesteem, the Radicals insisted that all tradition is irrelevant and unnecessary.According to them, the Bible was all they need and that each individual notonly has the right to, but must, interpret the Scripture by himself and forhimself in whatever manner seemed right to him. Thus, “according to theradicals, the magisterial Reformers may have done away with many of thescholastic theological accretions, but they wrongly insisted on adhering to thecreedal formulations of ancient Christianity” (Mathison, op. cit.,126). The Radicals, in other words, did not hold to the concept of solascriptura espoused by the Reformers. Unlike the Magisterial Reformers,they not only disregarded medieval “tradition,” but discarded also “traditionin the sense of the regula fidei [i.e., the “rule of faith” orthe creeds which all catechumen had to profess before admittance to thechurch], the testimony of the fathers, the traditional interpretation ofScripture, and the corporate judgement of the church” (ibid., 128). Theymay be said to be holding to, “solo scriptura,” in the words of DouglasJones (ibid., 238), or “Tradition 0,” in the words of Alister McGrath (ibid.,126).

This “Me and my Bible” emphasis led the Radicals not only to reject infantbaptism, but, as Timothy George noted, it also “led many of them to questionthe traditional Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of the ancient church” (Theologyof the Reformers [Broadman Press, 1988], 255).

Though many of us would wince at the thought of how the Roman Catholics and theProtestants alike persecuted the Radicals, few of us reading about theirdivisiveness and disruptive practices, would hesitate to agree that they werethe fanatics of the age.

Nevertheless, few of us will realise that, in fact, many, if not most, ofmodern evangelicals today are holding to a concept of Scripture which is reallymuch closer to that of the Radicals’ solo scriptura ratherthan the Reformed sola scriptura.

This reappearance of solo scriptura, however, cannot behistorically traced to the Radicals. It may be traced rather to the humanisticphilosophical rationalism of the 17th century Enlightenment (or “Endarkenment”as John Gerstner calls it). Colin Brown’s succinct comment sums up thisinfluence well:

The motto of enlightenment was: dareto use your own understanding. This applies especially to religion. Nogeneration should be bound by the creeds and dogmas of bygone generations (Philosophyand the Christian Faith[IVP, 1968], 91; cited in Mathison, op. cit.,142).

Though many of us are unaware of the historical developments of theEnlightenment, there is no doubt that most, if not all, of us who are broughtup under modern Western education systems have been inculcated with thephilosophies of the Enlightenment from young. While it may be argued that thisphilosophy of autonomy in thought is beneficial to society in many ways, it isalso true that its unbridled application in the realm of the Christian faith isa major cause of the confusion, individualism, and denigration of authority inmost modern churches.

Sadly, this application has entered the Church under the guise of solascripturaand the Berean spirit. Consider the following quotations (takenfrom Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity [YaleUniversity Press, 1989], 6; cited in Mathison, op. cit., 144):

In religious faith we have but oneFather and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our onlyacknowledged creed book—(A.B. Grosh, Universalist minister).

  Why may I not go to theBible to learn the doctrines of Christianity as well as the Assembly ofDivines?—(Jeremy Belknap, Liberal Boston clergyman).

  Lay aside all attachmentto human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestlyinquire, “what saith the scriptures”—(Simeon Howard, Liberal clergyman).

  The whole is writtenfrom the scripture account of the thing and not from any human scheme—(CharlesChauncy, on his published defence of universalism).

It is perhaps true that these are the exceptions rather than the rule. However,is it not true that the same individualistic independency have given rise toplethora of divisive theologies, which were unknown in earlier days? We thinkof Dispensationalism, and how much confusion it has caused in the last 170years of its existence. Think of the Lordship debate and the theologicallysanctioned easy-believism. Think of the great amount of time and effort thathas been spent debating on whether pre-tribulation rapture, or mid-tribulationrapture, or post-tribulation rapture is correct. Think about the amount of heatgenerated in the debate on how many Temples would be rebuilt and when and whatwould be done in them, etc., etc.

The concept of solo scriptura, moreover, has many problems andcaused many problems in the modern church (see details in ibid.,237– It is “the ecclesiastical equivalent of a nation with a constitution butno court of law to interpret the constitution” (ibid., 251). It tends toexalt private and individualistic interpretations above confessionalinterpretations, as well as the interpretations of ecclesiastic authority institutedby Christ.

It is true that many proponents of solo scriptura are seekingto be true to the Scripture, which they believe they can interpret correctly bythe illuminating help of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Jn 2:27). But what oftenhappens is that, in their enthusiasm to exercise their individual rights tointerpret the Scripture, they forget or deny several important biblicalprinciples. Firstly, they forget the effect of sin on the mind, and that no onecan come to the Scripture as absolutely neutral observers without any biases,assumptions, worldviews and philosophies. Secondly, they overlook the fact thatthe Church is not merely a voluntary collection of individuals, but is by God’sappointment a covenanted body which corporately serves as the “pillar andground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Thirdly, they tend to forget that God couldhave appointed more gifts suited to the study of Scripture, and given the HolySpirit in greater measure to others (such as the godly ministers assembled todraw up definitive creeds for the Church). And so ultimately, the soloscripturist’s manner of studying the Scripture would be either to disregard allother interpretations or to measure the scriptural interpretations of otherChristians, whoever they may be, against the standard of his ownindividualistic interpretation. Naturally, more often than not, this leads tohermeneutical anarchy. As Mathison puts it:

Rather than placing the finalauthority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture placesthe final authority in the reason and judgement of each individual believer.The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we seein modern Evangelicalism today (op. cit., 240).

This confusion is inevitable. For solo scriptura is not thedoctrine of the Scriptures! It was not taught by the Apostles, nor by the earlychurch fathers, nor by the Reformers. In fact solo scriptura isbiblically indefensible! (see how Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxtheologians argue against it in ibid., 285–310). The Scripture, andthose who held to sola scriptura, teach that the Scripture is thefinal authority of all Christian faith and duty, but Christ has also appointedHis under-shepherds whom He endows with His Spirit and with gifts and skills torightly divide the word of truth. Sometimes these under-shepherds may be wrong,corporately (in councils and assemblies) and individually, but unless they areproven to be wrong they ought to be submitted unto.

But of course, we are at a stage in the history of the Church, where thatprinciple concerning tradition or the regula fidei has beenabandoned in much of Protestantism just as sola scriptura wasabandoned in Rome. And so present “under-shepherds” who are holding Tradition 0and have veered from historical Christianity, such as the liberals we quotedabove, cannot be relied upon. What do we do? I believe what we must do is torepent of our pride and return to the old paths through the writings of ourforebears who held truly to sola scriptura.

Conclusion

We began this article by noting how many erstwhile Protestants have defected toRome because they came to the conclusion that sola scriptura isunbiblical. But reading some of their arguments have led us to conclude thatthey had in fact reacted against solo scriptura ratherthan sola scriptura. But as we have shown, both Traditions II andIII of Romanism are neither scriptural nor traditional in that it was never theunanimous or even majority understanding of the fathers before massivecorruption infected the Church in the medieval age. Therefore we contend thatthe defectors to Rome have, as it were, jumped from the pot into the fire.

But what of us who remain? I believe we must carefully examine our owntendencies and guard against the individualistic and rationalistic spirit ofthe age. We must guard against holding solo scriptura in thename of sola scriptura. We must repent and return to the scripturalway if we have been guilty of so doing. If we fail to do so, I have no doubtthat in one or two generations, this church will either go the way of theCharismatic movement or the way of liberalism. Indeed, I have no doubt thatfrom a human standpoint Mathison is right that: “Protestantism cannot continueto operate under the individualistic principles of solo scriptura,or Protestantism as a branch of the true visible Church will eventually ceaseto exist” (ibid., 336). And therefore let me plead again that we do notraise our heckles when appeal is made to the Confession rather than directly tothe Scripture, on occasions. Did you grimace at my quotation of the WestminsterConfession of Faith when I introduced sola scriptura? Perhaps youmay have a solo scriptura view of the Confession. Against suchan attitude, we ought rather to regard our Confession as having subordinateauthority, and therefore must not be ashamed to use it. It is no coincidencethat the Reformed Princeton theologian Samuel Miller once remarked that the“most zealous opposers [of Creeds and Confessions] have generally been latitudinariansand heretics” (The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions [Greenville:A Press, 1991], 15; cited in Mathison, op. cit., 273).

The Lord Jesus Christ will surely preserve His Church as He has promised (Mt16:18), but will we hear His voice and follow Him (Jn 10:27) in the way He hasinstituted for the Church?

— J.J. Lim
27 January, 2002



Remember that the greatest misery to an honest heart is this, a misdrawing ofrules out of the Word of God.

—WalterCradock