What sola scriptura is…and what it is not…
Oftentimes there is a significant mischaracterization of the doctrine of sola scriptura. Most often it comes from Roman Catholics and others who would oppose such things, but it is also frequently obscured by those in Protestant circles. I offer this helpful distillation and clarification as a guidepost of the doctrine via James White’s book The Roman Catholic Controversy.
Sola sciptura is not a….
/1/ claim that the Bible contains all knowledge;
/2/ claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge;
/3/ denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth;
/4/ denial that God’s Word has, at times, been spoken;
/5/ rejection of every kind of tradition;
/6/ denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church
A Summary of sola scriptura…
/1/ Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.
/2/ No other revelation is needed for the Church.
/3/ There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture.
/4/ Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation.
/5/ All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.
Possibly Related posts:
- Scripture Alone
- Excitement & Alarm with Today’s Reformed Camp
- 5 Deadly Ism’s
- Why study Justification?
- James White on Palau in Omaha
14 Responses to “What sola scriptura is…and what it is not…”
Leave a Reply
About
Subscribe to Updates
Twitter Updates
- @JustinBuzzard Hands down Pillar's Edwards & then Lane. Ferguson's lil book is good as are Keller's & MacArthur's sermons.
- With him there is plentiful redemption (Ps.130.7). This is good for one who's sin is plentiful!
- We are officially in the South- Fried Chicken & Pickles @ the gas station register.
Recent Comments
- Gordan on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Tweets that mention John Piper on Sermon Prep -- Topsy.com on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Erik on Running from God and To God
- donsands on Running from God and To God
- Tweets that mention Running from God and To God- Irish Calvinist -- Topsy.com on Running from God and To God
It is so important that believers grasp the fact that Scripture reveals all that is needed for salvation. It is also of utmost importance the body understand the church neither needs, nor has, any other revelation outside of scripture. Without that knowledge, it is impossible for us to be light to the world. We cannot give true testimony to the Gospel without understanding it, and we cannot hope to keep straight our course if we are not growing in the truth of Scripture through our worship as the body of Christ.
Praise to the God who has provided for the needs of those whom He has elected.
Blessings to you, Brother Erik
Interesting summary — “Sola Scriptura” does need some explanation as to what exactly the sola means.
Maybe it’s implied in there in #2 about the church, but I’d also add to White’s list something like,
“Scripture reveals those things necessary for sanctification” or “Scripture reveals those things necessary for a life that pleases God.”
Some would want to say that to live a life pleasing to God in modern America, we also need some insights from psychology or sociology or postmodernism, etc. But of course II Tim. 3:16-17 says Scripture is enough for us to be “equipped for every good work.”
Mike, that is a good clarification. I think White would argue that it is there, but nevertheless, it is helpful to reiterate the Scripture’s sufficiency with respect to sanctification.
It will be good to have you up for the conference this weekend….
Yeah, I can’t make it.
My wife bought me tickets to the Husker game this Sat. for my birthday back in August….right about now, I’d almost rather come to hear Donald Whitney, but…
Go Huskers.
[...] Eric Raymond over at Irish Calvinist quotes James White in a clarification of the doctrine of sola scriptura. I think this really gets confused in a lot of people’s minds. Growing up Baptist and then charismatic in college, I always assumed a high and “only” view of the Bible. Nonetheless, both groups end up coloring the idea of “scripture alone” in various directions. That’s fine of course (to some degree) and to be expected. The reformed crowd appears to be shooting for more of a historical take on the doctrine. They are asking, “What did “scripture alone” mean to the early reformers?” It ends up being colored a reformed shade, but probably a little more carefully. [...]
Not pointing any fingers but it is becoming more apparent today that many people who claim to be Sola Scriptura, will violate point number 5 of James’ Sola Scriptura Summary, and use an outside source to contradict the obvious meaning, or any meaning you can get from just reading the text. One example of this would be that just from reading 1 Corinthians 11, you could not come to any other honest conclusion than head coverings being for all time, (which I covered here: http://www.puritanfellowship.com/2007/10/why-head-coverings-are-for-today.html
But most people today use an outside source to override the abundantly clear meaning of this text. Another but less serious example is, just from reading the Bible you could conclude that in Rev 3 “I’d rather you be hot or cold”, could mean I’d rather you be on fire for God or Stone cold and apathetic towards God, than a lukewarm false convert’ because you’re blaspheming the Name of God, and throughout the Bible we see God hates spiritual hypocrisy. Now you do not need to go to an outside source to get that interpretation. But to get the modern interpretation of that I’d rather you be Hot or Cold means be on fire for God like those “two cities with thriving churches” you have to go to an outside source which I think contradicts any interpretation you can get from just using the Scripture alone.
The World of Faith, do the same with “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle” and overide the obvious meaning of the text with “the eye of the needle gate”.
Kevin.
You are confusing Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura.
Because the plain reading of the text would also have you doing footwashing (much debated I know…but this is easy in my estimation to defend against the actual footwashing), baptizing for the dead, picking up poisonous snakes, etc. But, as we take a look at these, understand them in their biblical and historical context allows one to understand the intent of the reader. This would be one reason for denying the head covering being the actual reason behind the text.
Sola Scriptura tells us that Scripture alone is our sole guidance for theology, salvation and life, but doesn’t negate of also understanding that God has used His Holy Spirit to not only be my Helper, but also all Christians, in all generations, so that we can be aided by their contributions and not just our own, in our own culture, in our own time, in our own struggles.
Seth, by plain and obvious reading, I don’t mean that we don’t spend time studying the text, in the context of the surrounding verses, book and whole Bible. And when we do this we won’t think we should “baptize for the dead”, or be “picking up poisonous snakes”. Nor am I saying that we should not use outside sources to ENHANCE our understanding of the text, but if the outside source completely contradicts what we can get from Scripture alone then we have to question it.
We are told to test everything, and if an interpretation ‘the spirit’ told someone contradicts Scripture then we should throw it out.
With regards to head coverings, 1 Cor 11,2-16 is not even a difficult text. I suggest the only reason people can’t accept it for what it says is because of fear of today’s feminist pagan culture, and will dive head long into any reason no matter how contradictory to the text to avoid it. There is nothing in the text itself to suggest it’s a cultural thing, and if Paul was only giving advice not to offend a secular custom of that day, then surely he would not have said v3 “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” The reason for head coverings is given in the text itself and it is that of God’s Created order 1 Cor 11 v8-10.
For nearly 2000 years all commentators from the early church fathers through to the likes of Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin, Matthew Henry, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, John Bunyan, A. R. Fausset, A. T. Robertson and basically everyone until recent times saw head coverings for all time.
But it’s not just head coverings, I’m talking about. People today use the same theological gymnastics of using outside sources to override the obvious (studied-as above) meaning of the text to incorporate women Pastors.
Kevin,
You do make some valid points of clarification, but what you are talking about is not relegated to the Bibliological Category of “Sola Scriptura” but the presuppositions behind interpretation in hermeneutics. What is clear to you, because of your hermeneutical stance (notice ‘plain reading of the text’) is not-so-clear to others, for reasons in the hermeneutical categories (I do not include those who purposely twist Scripture to do away with clear commands). I am convinced that head-coverings are ‘for today.’ The arguments used are not culturally-delimited, and not defined only to the Greek subset (as opposed to the Jewish subset). The Greek syntax and grammar is troublesome in places, for which the translation CANNOT make a one-to-one equivalence (E.g., “On account of this, a woman should have a sign of authority over her because of the angels” is pure INTERPRETATION, not TRANSLATION, since the literal translation would be, “On account of this, a woman should have authority on account of the angels.”). Moreover, sometimes, the largest component that would help interpreters is missing. In the 1 Corinthian 11 example, what exactly was the problem in the historical church? If we could reconstruct the historical problem in the comprehensive cultural setting, we could better understand the nuances of Paul’s argument. To reconstruct the problem, we use the text itself to retroactively understand what was the problem. But this is disagreed upon. For example, I believe that the parallel between praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11, with the favoring of prophesying later reveals that these were exclusively PUBLIC and CORPORATE practices, in the manner that by PRAYER, one speaks for all to GOD, and by PROPHECY, one speaks for GOD to all. I could even use 1 Tim 2:8 to prove my point of PUBLIC prayer. However, I cannot disprove the private prayer idea, and therefore, I cannot with full confidence complete the hermeneutical circle. AND, therefore, this makes the understanding of what the problem was more difficult. AND, it makes its application in today’s church debated, even among those who do see continuance (like me). So, the question is not with SOLA SCRIPTURA, but with our hermeneutics.
Is 1 Corinthians 11 dealing with married women (wife vs. woman) only? Or do all women have a sign of authority to any man? How can we possibly understand the whole reference to the prostitute? Is this a cultural example, and for whom? What was the doctrinal position that was driving the problem that Paul saw?
Also, why does Paul wait until chapter 11 to answer this? There is a big structural difference in order of importance, as we know that the Corinthians sent a list of problem questions to Paul, but Paul did not answer these in the order in which they deemed their importance, but in the order of problems as he determined them (church unity was first). Also, how can we understand this problem section of chapter 11 in light of the dichotomy of v. 2 and v. 3? This is much softer language than 1 Tim 2:9-15, where he relegates the one who perverts the teaching to one who will not be saved! So, our own tone and cues must also come from Scripture, as we seek to not only understand what was written, but why and how.
Blessings to you for your diligence!
In Christ,
Paul Bright
Paul you bring up great points…and this is not only to Kevin, but it seems when we are convinced of a certain text, most say, “this is just the plain reading of the text.” if this was truly so, then why do so many argue this point who have the same Spirit of confirmation and discernment given to them through Christ’s blood?
If it is being argued by many who love Jesus, the argument should never be made…”just read the text.” Especially in light that we are reading a translation and interpretation by godly men (those who did the translation process with whatever Bible we happen to use) and not the original Greek and Hebrew from the originators.
Paul, there is no mention or reference to a prostitute in 1 Corinthians 11, 2-16. That has to be forced into the text.
Seth, whether in the Greek or English, 1 Cor 11:2-16 is as clear as any doctrine of Scripture. I suggest so many people argue about it today (it must be noted they didn’t until the advent of 20th century feminism) because they do not like what it says.
Also people arguing about a text does not mean the Scripture is unclear. Many argue over Jesus being the only way, woman teachers, repentance etc.
Kevin.
Do you believe that foot washing is an ordinance of the church?
by the way…Matthew Henry states about head coverings:
The thing he reprehends is the woman’s praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man’s doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,
So your assertation that this is just a response to feminism is one that needs some work, in my opinion.
There is a lot of pointing to the culture of the Corinthian church in a lot of this epistle to them, this is not the only occurance.
tongues would be another example, and the baptism of the dead as well.
the “plain reading” cry needs to be tested against what we know of the writer and the audience it is written to, and I don’t think that this text is any different. I believe it to be completely cultural to certain region in a certain culture and my stance has nothing to do with my views on women. It has to do with me coming to the Scriptures and making sure I understand more than what is just writting “plainly.” It must be understood, like I said before, in who is writing, in what context, and in what culture. If not, we can come out with some funky theologies (not saying this particular view of yours is ‘funky’).
Kevin,
Unfortunately, I would disagree with your short synopsis of history; case in point, Calvin argued for the exact opposite of the text (i.e., that men should cover their heads). The ‘prostitute’ reference is commonly accepted by historical reference to be ‘the same as the one whose head is shaved.’ There is both historical support and textual evidence for this, but such a discussion is not profitable here. But in any case, I show my attempt at historical reconstruction; another would see the ‘eastern influence,’ or the ‘Jew/Gentile’ custom debate.
It seems that you are more concerned about feminism than the point on which you were originally arguing.
On your point that it is clear theologically, I would agree. The problem with this is not cultural, since I was a missionary in Russia where the view that I taught was actually considered less strict than the recognized practice in the church (which is ‘all married women MUST wear a head covering at all times in the church’).
As far as your point that the same doctrines used to support 1 Corinthians 11 ‘head coverings’ are also used in 1 Tim 2, I would agree, as would others (there is a long discussion of this issue at tmsalumni.blogspot.com. However, the argumentation and implementation of that is LESS clear. And this requires the normal process of exegesis, including the historical element, which is greatly debated. The lexical and syntactical analysis of these verses, even though you make them clear, are not as clear as elsewhere. I read the Greek fluently, and understand the structure of the book and specifically chapter 11, but the observations still must filter through my own weighing system.
As an example, I mentioned earlier that v. 10 is notoriously difficult grammar. Any exposure to Greek grammar will show this rather sublime, underexpressed verse as exceedingly difficult. Why? Well, the verse begins and ends with the same prepositional phrase. So, is the opening preprositional phrase pointing back to what was said (most translations), and then the second prepositional phrase gives ADDITIONAL reasons. This does not make sense, because Paul nowhere else follows this kind of structure, to use the “Dia touto” to introduce a conclusion based upon preceding doctrine (vv.7-10) and then ADD another reason at the very end (dia tous angelous; because of the angels). Also, there are no words for “a symbol of”, even though the words are not italisized in the ESV. Gordon Fee, egalitarian to the core, has an excellent lexical and syntactical study on the phrase, “exei exousia,” and rightfully proves that it is her own authority that she possesses. Fee makes the correct observation, but the wrong conclusion. Others make “have autority” mean something that it does not mean anywhere else in Scripture. And translations follow this interpretation, so that what you are reading is the clear dynamic interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:10. Other interpreters also labor over the double ‘dia.’ So, which way is it? Do we change the meaning of the phrase ‘exei exousia’ by supplying something from the context, ‘a symbol of,’ or do we let it stand and try to understand the verse in another way, without violating what was already laid down. V. 10 is the end of a micro-syntactical unit, with verse 11 beginning a new section; such that vv.11-12 balance out a misconception [nevertheless. v. 11] that might arise from something the apostle has stated in vv.7-10. But vv. 7-10 deal specifically with the erroneous teaching that was present and correcting it. This is why I am convinced (notice that I leave room for other views) that v. 10 is a rhetorical outburst from the apostle against the doctrine that was underlying the undoing of headcoverings in the Corinthian congregation. Why do I think this? 1) Three times in 1 Corinthians, Paul specifically mentions rather unique doctrines about angels. In one of these instances, it is quite clear that he is using a doctrine that is believed incorrectly opposingly to prove his own argument (1 Cor. 13:1). 2) The basis of the problem in 1 Corinthians 11 is doctrinal, in that the teaching that all ‘in Christ’ have become like the angels, in that there is no more role for the sexes. This perversion could have come from some of Jesus’ statements in Matt that the Corinthians may have taken too far. And, in connection with Paul’s ministry of equality between Jews and Gentiles, slave and free, male and female IN CHRIST, such a perversion is not difficult to comprehend. 3) The section [vv.7-10] directly puts the creation ORDER (v.8) and creation PURPOSE (v.9) [role] back to the correct doctrine that should adjudicate the present situation and re-establish the practice [in the shorter argument]. I am convinced then he sarcastically interjects v. 10 as a jab at the foolishness of the doctrine of angelic equivalency, so that the first ‘dia touto’ looks forward to the end of the sentence, and he adds the punchline, as if this ‘doctrine based upon the fact that we are like angels’ unravels the ORDER and PURPOSE of human creation. Then, in v. 11, he makes sure that no one takes the doctrine of ORDER and PURPOSE too far or too arrogantly, which suggests that the emotion of verse 10 might stir up some to react this way. And vv. 11-12 lay down the interdependence of man and woman, for which many interpreters give great insight.
However, the Greek is not clear. And this causes stress in how to balance fairly all the evidence. However, some do indeed ignore the clear data to construct OR better INVENT positions. However, to say that all evangelicals are in the position of the latter because the text is SO clear is broadbrushing over the difficulties that ARE in the text.
Theologically, the doctrine of perspecuity does not mean that all texts are equally clear, as the Scriptures tell us that some doctrines are more difficult to understand than others, and that in misunderstanding they can be perverted by false teachers. Sola Scriptura, the original subject of this post, does not exclude historical and grammatical studies outside of the Scriptures. In fact, 1 Tim 2:9-15 has at its basis wonderful historical facts, that only correct other misunderstandings, after certain interpreters went back into the historcal data (Richard E. Oster for example, and see Kostenberger, Shreiner and Baldwin’s “Women in the Church”).
You are also mistaken if you think that the Sola Scriptura means that we only need the Scriptures in what is contained in them. I would not know of a single Hebrew grammarian or exegete who would agree with you. All of the lexicons in existence came about from comparative philology, and these studies advance as additional, extra-biblical, yet cognate languages, are better understood. How can you read Isaiah, when fully 33% of the words (at least) only appear once in all of Scripture, sometimes, in all of the Hebrew language.
What do you do when you see the influence of other grammar even though the language being written is another. Latinism, Hebraism, and Aramaism abound in the New Testament, as are there also remnants of Old Hebrew in Job, Genesis. Or what about when the author is less skilled in the language in which he is writing (which does not undo inerrancy in any fashion, according to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy). The greek of the writer of Hebrews is the best grammatically, structurally, in that it follows defined arguments, follows hypotactic structure throughout, where the greek of John in 1 John is highly paratactic. If you read 1 John 1:1-5 in the Greek, as some commentators note, it is almost incomprehensible if one were to apply ‘the normal rules of grammar.’ But these ‘rules’ do not define how God used these men to write His inerrant word.
Also, there is debate on whether Jesus spoke in Greek or Aramaic. This is part of the debate behind the ‘rock’ ‘ROCK’ confession of Peter. So, is this clear from the context only, or do extra resources help decide?
How would you study the Greek or Hebrew unless someone taught you?
So, with all of this, I take issue mostly with your original point that the Scriptures alone are clear enough in every matter to interpet themselves. If you removed the helps by which the English translation was made, which you might use daily to study Scripture by itself alone, and other presuppositions, I believe that you will find yourself in practice contradicting the point that you are trying to prove.
However, if you are merely saying that some texts are clear, and there seems to be a lack of implementation in one culture over another, to that…I heartily agree.
Blessings to you brother!
In Christ,
Paul Bright
Kevin,
By the way, do you know WHY God specifically mentioned “Hot and Cold” to the church of Laodecia? Is there any kind of historical fact tied to geographical location that might make this usage more pointed in God’ rebuke? Or what about the whole ‘rich’ idea? Is there anything in the history of the city of Laodecia that might help understand the extremely perverse and apostate attitude that they had with regards to themselves? These words are used in the text FOR A SPECIFIC REASON.
For example, Laodecia was a rich, resort city in the Roman empire, that suffered a tremendous earthquake some years before. The wealth of the city collapsed. But, through effort, by the end of the first century, Laodecia was once again the playground of the wealthy. Could this self-sufficient attitude have crept into the church?! Absolutely! Does this have application to us today?! It does not take long to consider our individual and national sin of self-sufficiency and the flaunting of ‘ease’ and ‘riches.’
OR what about the fact that Laodecia was a center for water transportation, having both hotsprings, and massive aqeducts. In the HOT or COLD reference, the idea is not that God is saying that you would either be completely pagan or completely on fire, but that He desires them to have some kind of USE, since HOT water could be used, and COLD water could be used, but Lukewarm water, could not be used. Again, historical and topographico-geographical data helps in understanding the WORDS in Rev. 3.
In Christ,
Paul Bright