click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
What Sola Scriptura Does NOT Mean
by C Michael PattonOctober 28th, 2011
24 Comments
The Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is one of the most misunderstood doctrines I know of. The misconceptions come not only from those who repudiate the doctrine (such as Roman Catholics), but also from those who affirm it. Here is a list of some things that sola Scriptura does not mean.
Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Scripture is the only source of spiritual insight.
Spiritual insight can come from any number of sources, both secular and Christian. I remember in 1995, I received quite a bit of spiritual motivation and inspiration from the movie Braveheart. The idea of a person giving up his life for something bigger than himself possessed my thoughts and hopes. There are many things – songs, wise words, books, and movies (Christian and secular), among other things – that can be sources of insight and inspiration. Remember, all truth is God’s truth. It does not have to be in the Scriptures to be true.
Sola Scriptura does not mean that there are not other authorities in our lives.
We believe that the Scriptures are our final and only infallible authority, but not that they are our only authority. For example, we believe that our pastors and church leaders have authority in our lives. Hebrews 13:7 says that we are to obey our leaders. Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:2). People are to obey the government (1 Pet. 2:13). Children are to do what their parents say (Eph. 6:1). There can be no excuse like, “Dad, the Bible does not say I have to clean my room, so I choose not to.” Or “Officer, it says nothing specific about running red lights in the Bible.”
As well, tradition (church history) is an authority in our lives. Those who have gone before us in the faith must be respected. Their collective and unified influence creates an authority which, I believe, is second only to Scripture. After all, they had the same Holy Spirit as us, didn’t they? The Holy Spirit does not teach us everything new as individuals, but educates and inspires us in and with those who have gone before us. That is why I love dead theologians!
As I read through the Institutes of John Calvin this summer, I did so with a fine-toothed comb, underlining every time another source was referenced, especially a source from another church father. One cannot study the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura and come away with the idea that the Reformers ever meant that the Scriptures were our only authority. Ultimate, yes. Only, no.
None of these are our final authority, and if the Scriptures contradict what these authorities say, the Scriptures trump.
Sola Scriptura does not mean that if it is not in the Bible it is not divinely binding.
Romans 1 speaks of the binding authority of the message of creation: “For since the creation of the world, his eternal attributes, divine power and nature have been clearly understood so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). As well, in Romans 2, we are told that our conscience testifies to us about God’s will (Rom. 2:14-16). As Christians, we must be willing to take our cue from all forms of what we call “general revelation:” rationality, moral conscience, and the message of creation all qualify.
Whether it is rationality or the message of creation and the conclusions drawn from it, we cannot turn a blind eye and say that since it is not in the Scripture, it does not make any difference.
Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Scriptures are an exhaustive source for us to know how to live our lives each day.
Think about how many things the Bible does not tell us. It does not tell us any particulars about where to work, whom to marry, what to eat, how often to shower, how many elders to have, or how, exactly, to conduct a Sunday morning service. It gives us general principles and then extends lots of freedom for the wisdom in each of us to work out the details.
The Scriptures equip us spiritually for every spiritual service (2 Tim. 3:17). There is no knowledge deposit or missing database which contains essential information about how to have a right relationship with God. In this, Scripture is completely sufficient for every spiritual task.
In the end, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final and only infallible source of divine revelation and is, therefore, the ultimate guide for the conscience of the Christian.
I think this is an accurate way to put it:
The Bible is carried by reason, aided by experience, guarded by tradition, but ruled by none.
Similar Posts:
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Two – Martin Luther
- Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part One – Authority Across the Spectrum
- A Disagreement I Think I Have with Together For the Gospel
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
24 Comments
Like or Dislike:
1
great post – made just for recovering fundamentalists.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have a question:
You said: “The Scriptures equip us spiritually for every spiritual service (2 Tim. 3:17).”
There seems to be a problem with how 2 Tim 3:16-17 is being understood, particularly the words “The Scriptures” being “Pasa Graphe” in Greek.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Volume 1, page 130) says this:
3. graphe for a Single book. There are no NT instances except perhaps 2 Tim. 3:16, though contemporary parallels suggest that this means “every passage.”
And the New Evangelical Translation says this on the 2 Tim 3:16 footnote:
There is very little difference in sense between every scripture (emphasizing the individual portions) and “all scripture” (emphasizing the composite whole). The former option is preferred, because it fits the normal use of the word “all/every” in Greek (πᾶς, pas) as well as Paul’s normal sense for the word “scripture” in the singular without the article, as here. So every scripture means “every individual portion of scripture.”
Thus, the most accurate Greek reading of 2 Tim 3:16 should be “Every individual book or passage”.
Like or Dislike:
0
It is apparently not letting me edit the above post: My question is: Do you agree that this is the more accurate Greek rendering?
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick: it all depends on what Paul had in mind when he wrote πᾶσα γραφὴ. I’m not a mind reader, so I couldn’t really say, personally, what he was referring to. It seems he’s referring to everything written [in the OT, perhaps with apocrypha]. The question is: what are the sacred writings (“ἱερὰ γράμματα”) that Timothy grew up with?
How well-established was Paul’s concept of a canon, and what did that canon contain? These questions would be more helpful guidelines than the TDNT’s entry on any particular word.
More to the point, Michael was only summarizing 2 Tim 3, not quoting or translating it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Excellent post. It is hard for the average Protestant to understand the nuanced meaning of authority. It is easy to say, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” Well, did God tell us that Pi is 3.14159265 in the Bible? No, we discern that from the general revelation of scripture. The more the average Christian understands this the quicker we can find a way to mend the rift between science and the Christian faith.
Thanks again for the post.!
Like or Dislike:
0
The bible is carried by reason, aided by experience, guarded by tradition, but ruled by none.
You know CMP, if you keep referencing Wesley, your street cred with the truly reformed is going to take a hit
Like or Dislike:
0
David,
Excellent quote – love it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hello Gary,
It’s interesting that you bring up the idea we aren’t quite sure “what Paul had in mind” when he wrote that, not just with ‘every individual scripture’ but even what ‘scripture’ means here.
The sacred writings Timothy grew up with would have to be the OT; that’s really the only thing that makes sense. As for your question about Paul’s concept of canon, that’s a good question that I’ve not thought about much.
In light of this, it seems 2nd Timothy 3 is not as ‘solid’ of a proof text than at first glance, and in fact could not be supporting it at all.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] And what does it not mean? C Michael Patton gives us a short version of what it does not mean… (read more) Share this: Filed Under: Scripture « Jesus wants you to waste your life – [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Theology: What Sola Scriptura Does NOT Mean [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] A good reminder (at least for me): WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT MEAN [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Great post.
Like or Dislike:
0
Who says, “the Bible is the final and only infallible source of divine revelation?” On whose authority can you make that claim? Who has the final authority on interpreting scripture? Who had the infallible authority to pick and choose which books would be included in the canon of scripture?
I appreciate the post and it will help me to better explain the sources of Divine Revelation, but this teaching has too many holes.
Like or Dislike:
0
Good thoughts here.
Here is a summary of the 16th century Lutheran Martin Chemnitz’s views (Chemnitz eventually was the main player in writing out the final version of the Lutheran Confessions):
“The concept of a contemporaneous existence of the Word of God in a corrupted verbal form, and a pure written form, spawned Chemnitz’s explanation of traditiones in the second locus, De traditionibus. Here he lists the first of eight different types of traditiones as Scripture itself, i.e. the things that Christ and the Apostles preached orally and were later written down. Then follows: 2) the faithful transmission of the Scriptures; 3) the oral tradition of the Apostles (which by its very nature must agree with the contents of the New Testament canon); 4) the proper interpretation of the Scriptures received from the Apostles and “Apostolic men”; 5) dogmas that are not set forth in so many words in Scripture but are clearly apparent from a sampling of texts; 6) the consensus of true and pure antiquity; 7) rites and customs that are edifying and believed to be Apostolic, but cannot be proved from Scripture. Chemnitz rejects only the eighth kind of tradition: [8] traditions pertaining to faith and morals that cannot be proved with any testimony of Scripture; but which the Council of Trent commanded to be accepted and venerated with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture. The important element of this last of the traitiones appears not to be the fact that such traditions of faith and morals not provable from Scripture actually existed, but that their status of equality with Scripture was foisted upon the church by the Council of Trent.” P. Strawn, Cyril of Alexandria as a Source for Martin Chemnitz, in Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts, Wolfenbu”ttleler Forschungen, Bd. 85, Hrsg. v. David C. Steinmetz, Wiesbaden 1999, p. 213-14.
Like or Dislike:
1
So, I’m curious: the Bible is not the only authority in our lives, but when those other authorities contradict the Bible, the Bible has priority. So far, so good.
Who determines what the Bible means, and what makes that particular interpretation authoritative? How does a modern American Evangelical mediate between the original texts (choose your poison–Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew) and an English translation? Without putting one’s self through a course in Biblical languages, to say nothing about Biblical history, archaeology, anthropology and so forth, how can one be sure that the way we interpret the Bible today, separated by two or three millennia, several languages and a different culture from its original setting, is what the text actually meant by those who wrote it?
And it won’t do to say the plain sense of the text is literally an open book. If that were the case there would not be conflicting interpretations. Moreover, no text interprets itself, but each reader brings to it his own experiences and preconceptions. Every “Bible Only” Christian is in fact a disciple of some scriptural exegete or another, unless he’s totally devoted to do-it-yourself hermeneutics. So, again, the question becomes whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative, and why.
Like or Dislike:
0
No one needs to have the authority to make these claims. They are true by default. One does not need infallible beliefs to have valid beliefs in any area of life.
Like or Dislike:
0
Stuart, any pope, bishop, or council can claim to have authority (and many do). But how would we discern between those who make such claims and those, if any, who actually do? There are only the tests of a prophet or apostle. In the absence of such, we don’t have any other option but to interpret ourselves. But this is not so grave as the regula fide of the church creates a canon of interpretation and guards the Scriptures.
And, contrary to what many believe, Orthodox Christianity is pretty stable on the essentials. I know The original languages, study history, have a good understanding of hermeneutics, and everything involved and you know what? It is not THAT difficult to come to conclusions aoout most of the scriptures.
Personal Interpretation does not mean autonomous interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
0
As much as you think this clarifies things it really doesn’t at all. As soon as you admit two or more authorities, the question becomes how you weigh these competing authorities. And since you have nothing objective to offer here, the end result is confusion. We saw this when you interpreted what scripture says about the charismatic gifts in light of of your own experience. We could similarly ask how to treat church tradition. One approach is to harmonize tradition with scripture in the same way we would harmonize apparently contradictory passages of scripture. But then… You won’t be Protestant any more. Another way is to let your personal interpretation to trump tradition. Although you didn’t actually list self as a source of authority. If self ever trumps an “authority”, is it still really an authority? Hardly.
Like or Dislike:
0
John, I think you are failing to realize that objectivity, in the sense you are seeking, is not something that is available to us, no matter what tradition you are from. Objective truth is real, but all of us are subjective beings trying to make the most responsible decisions. For example, if I was to say that we have to have some objective authority in order to be sure about the truth, which objective authority do I choose? Yours? Mormons? JWs? A prophet? In the end, whichever I choose is subjective since I am not infallible. Were I to choose the Pope, this would be a fallible subjective choice due to the fact that I am the one who is ultimately making the choice.
We cannot escape our own responsibility to examine the truth and personally choose that which WE deem to be best. This certainly is not hopeless as most issues in life are not THAT difficult.
I make a personal fallible choice that the Roman Church is not objective and infallible. You make a personal fallible choice that it is infallible. What is the difference from an epistemological basis? Neither. So we all have to make decisions according to the evidence “adduced by us”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Eastern Christianity has an answer to the question of divided authority–neither Scripture over Tradition (Protestant), nor Scripture and Tradition (Latin Catholic), but rather Scripture within Tradition. That is, Tradition is nothing more or less than the action of the Holy Spirit within the Church; it is the Word of God manifested through Scripture, liturgy, the writings of the Fathers, the Acts of the Great Councils, and the canons of the Church. Since Christ is the Word of God, and Christ is one and indivisible, so the various elements of Tradition are all in accord with each other; any apparent differences are just that–apparent, not substantive.
Scripture holds a special place within the Tradition, but Scripture is interpreted within the matrix of the Tradition, because the Tradition predates Scripture: before there was a New Testament, there was the Church’s rule of faith, embodied in its rule of prayer, the liturgy. Though the Old Testament (in its Septuagint form) was the Scripture of the Early Church, the Church interpreted it within the light of its rule of faith, received from Christ, passed down from the Apostles (most of whom, please note, left us nothing in writing), preserved and taught by the bishops, mainly through the vehicle of the Church’s liturgy, which is the source and touchstone of theology.
Because it interprets Scripture through the Tradition of which Scripture is an integral part, the Orthodox Church never finds itself in the position of having to reconcile conflicting sources of authority, even though it lacks an extrinsic magisterium.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m not RC.
The point is, I could basically affirm everything you say above and remain Eastern Orthodox. That kinda says how meaningful it is.
Like or Dislike:
1
“And, contrary to what many believe, Orthodox Christianity is pretty stable on the essentials. I know The original languages, study history, have a good understanding of hermeneutics, and everything involved and you know what? It is not THAT difficult to come to conclusions aoout most of the scriptures. ”
Based on your post in light of my latest, I will assume you meant “orthodox Christianity”, not “Orthodox Christianity”, which would certainly disagree with your statement about discerning the meaning of Scripture.
Like or Dislike:
0
Outstanding, Michael!
Sincerely appreciate this post in many ways.
Moreland’s How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It is equally important.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Michael Patton’s post “WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT MEAN” J.P. Moreland’s article “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What [...]
More Comments: