Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura originated in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s as one of the five Solae, a set of statements that defined the Reformation.  They have become known as the pillars of the Reformation.

 The statements are Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Christo (Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (scripture alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be Glory).  These formed the basis of what we know as the Protestant Reformation.  In the future, we may have posts on the other points, but we think it is especially important to understand Sola Scriptura.

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts the doctrine this way:

 “Chapter 1, Section VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

Consistency

One of the great theological debates between Protestants and Roman Catholics is what the basis of interpretation and authority of our Theology should be.  Protestants believe in "Sola Scriptura," that the Bible, in and of itself, is authoritative.  (Most) Catholics have historically quickly and quite intelligently objected that this reasoning is circular, for it would seem to be the case that scripture is giving authority to itself.  

The history of this debate begins in the 16th century with the Council of Trent.  Here, Catholic theologians declared that the revelation of God was not entirely contained within scripture, for He has also been revealed through oral tradition (or the tradition of the Church), so it would follow that “Scripture alone” is not a sufficient basis.  Despite the fact that Catholic circles are still very much in debate of the impact of tradition, the question remains, is scripture sufficient?

It’s extremely important to note that the early church very much believed in the authority of scripture alone, as attested by the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus..  Namely because scripture is comprised of authors personally given authority by God, so the sinfulness of man doesn’t deter its perfection.  From this it seems that the contention of tradition’s authority really comes from a perceived need rather than (ironically) tradition itself.  

The perceived need is precisely the problem raised earlier: the notion that Scripture’s authority is

circular. This is an important issue, for the conclusion of the debate guides each Christian in the proper way of interpretation of scripture.  If scripture is not authoritative in and of itself, then one must always consult tradition or the official teachings of the (Catholic) Church to be given the correct interpretation.  However, we think that this view, when examined, is nothing more than a denial of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. (side note: for questions on responding to these questions from atheists, see picture on the right. There will be a post on this in the future)

A really simple formulation of the problem:
1. Scripture is authoritative in and of itself (assumption of Protestants).

2. Scripture says that Holy Spirit guides interpretation of those reconciled in Christ (the Bible).

3. Necessarily, the Holy Spirit guides the interpretation of those reconciled in Christ (1,2).
4. Each person reconciled in Christ can read scripture (technical assumption).

5. Therefore, each person can interpret scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (3,4).

Proponents of tradition will point out that without (1), not everyone can interpret Scripture.  That with (1), the circularity arises.  However, I think the above formulation can be re-written to circumvent this objection.

1. If the Holy Spirit exists, it would have the power to guide the interpretation of Scripture (assumption of Protestants).

2. Personal revelation in the hearts of followers of Christ confirm the existence of the Holy Spirit (this is an uncontested experiential truth and properly basic belief).  

3. Therefore, the Holy Spirit can guide the interpretation of Scripture.

This deduction seems really simple.  However, the fact that Scripture acknowledges the existence and effect of the Holy Spirit does not nullify any of these basis .  (2) is uncontested in Christian theology on almost all accounts, and (3) is a correct logical deduction, so the issue is (1).  The most common contention is closely phrased as “you cannot know if the Holy Spirit can guide the interpretation of Scripture without reading that in Scripture.”  However, I think that is insufficient to make (1) fall.  For example, my personal experience with the Spirit, apart from Scripture affirming the truth of this transformation, is that the Spirit truly transformed my heart and mind.  There is a conscious reality of the effects of the Spirit, and the truth value of those effects can be placed logically prior to the knowledge of Scripture’s prediction of such effects.  This experience has, in me, justified my “knowing” the power of the Spirit, and accordingly apart from Scripture’s affirmation of this fact.  Thus there is good reason to believe that this is logically valid.

 Again, these are only our views, and if you have any questions or concerns, please email us or comment!  Sorry we didn't post this past week, both of us have been extremely busy.

Grace and Peace,

Excelsior

Athanasius