Christianese - Sola Scriptura

Okay, perhaps this doesn't fit under all the other "Christianese" terms I've been offering. Still, I think it deserves attention. It's somewhat different because, unlike the other Christianese terms which are common to all genuine Christianity, this one is certainly not part of Roman Catholicism. Since I believe that there are genuine Christians in the Roman Catholic Church (even though I think they're likely confused on theology), this one is not common to that particular group. Still, as I said, it's worth a look because, like the other terms, it is often misunderstood.

First, what does it mean? Sola scriptura is Latin for "Scripture alone" and refers to the position that the Scripture is the sole source of authority for Christians in matters of faith and practice. The Roman Catholic Church would argue that it is Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. The Anglican community might hold that it is Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. (I would differ from that in that Tradition and Reason are useful in understanding Scripture, but that Scripture alone has the authority.) The idea, then, first voiced by the Reformation, is thrown up against these other ideas. The Pope doesn't tell us what is true. The Church is not the authority. All of these derive authority from God's Word and His Word is alone the authority in these matters.

Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? I mean, why would anyone get confused? Well, it happens. So what does it not mean?

Well, in the 16th century as the Reformation was getting under way, a group known as the Anabaptists started their own Reformation. They were, in many ways, right there with the other Reformers. They thought the Roman Catholic Church was in error in many of the same ways the Reformers did. They agreed wholeheartedly with sola scriptura. But they had some differences as well. They disagreed with infant baptism and only allowed adult baptism (which was the cause of their name). They completely withdrew from conventional Christian practices such as marriage vows and refused to participate in government. Believing themselves solely "citizens of Heaven", they had a complete separation of Church and State, including absolute pacifism. But, as it turned out, while they agreed with sola scriptura, they disagreed with the Reformers' use of it. They believed the Reformers were simply substituting papal authority for theologian authority by suggesting that deep study of the Scriptures was the best way to incorporate sola scriptura. They argued that sola scriptura meant that anyone at all was a good, valid interpreter of Scripture by connecting directly to the Holy Spirit. They fostered this idea of "inner revelation" and favored personal revelation over study and "prophets" over careful, reasoned examination of the Scriptures. They, then, rejected sola scriptura for "Scripture and the Spirit" without offering any clarification on who had the Spirit or how two people, each "with the Spirit", could come to opposing conclusions on Scripture. (It was this devotion to "personal interpretation" and allegiance to "prophets" that caused the disaster at Munster.) They rejected sola scriptura "in favour of an understanding of revelation pregnant in Scripture" while denying the Protestant "quadrilateral of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience."

The result of this kind of split on the meaning of the term has had ripple effects today. The Reformers argued for careful, methodical, even group study of the Scriptures ("group" so that each could check the others, as opposed to individual interpretation). Today the primary argument is "Scripture means whatever I think it means, and that is authoritative for me." This isn't just the Anabaptists of today. It's much of Christendom. It is the cry of the Emergent Church. It is the voice of postmodernism. It is the song of the relativists. It is the cry of so many "independent Christians", those people who proudly hold themselves aloof from any denomination and demand that their interpretation of Scripture is just as valid as anyone else's interpretation and, therefore, authoritative. Some of those will argue that their interpretation is authoritative for them; others will argue that it's authoritative for everyone.

So, just to be clear, this is not the intent of the concept of sola scriptura. Peter wrote, "No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). The concept of sola scriptura is that a collective -- all those who are Christ's -- will commonly interpret Scripture. There is a single truth to Scripture, a proper interpretation. It is inherent in the Scripture, not a product of human evaluation. Jesus told His disciples, "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). So while we may stray in individual interpretation and while we may differ on what the correct interpretation is, there is a true interpretation and that interpretation is authoritative. Since we have this promise of Christ regarding the Holy Spirit, we should be able to find a common interpretation among believers (thus the value of tradition, Church history, orthodoxy, etc.). But it's not a matter of individual interpretation; it's a matter of a shared interpreter -- the Spirit. And it's not a matter of "inner light", "prophets", or "special revelation". This whole idea that "I figured it out after 2000 years of erroneous Christian interpretation" won't fly. That's not sola scriptura.

One other thing that sola scriptura is not. It is not the silly claim that "the Bible contains all truth." Indeed, the Bible is entirely true. However, truths like "gravity" or "2 + 2 = 4" are not contained therein, nor are they intended to be. The popular statement, "All truth is God's truth", simply says that truth is a product of God and can be found in a variety of places. Thus, sola scriptura does not reference "all truth", but quite clearly it references authority and only in matters of faith and practice. So let's not try to make it say more than is intended.