The Protestant Response!

See Scripture Alone                   

Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of "alone," "ground," "base," and the word scriptura meaning "writings" - referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. "All Scripture is 'God breathed' (given of inspiration of God) and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church has made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism,  indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its un-biblical  teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, "Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, - unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, - and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!"

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue, “the Bible nowhere states that it is the ONLY authoritative guide for faith and practice.” While this is true, it fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for “sola scriptura,” it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against un-biblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed – the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone, and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the Word of truth."

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church (and many other churches) is that it bases traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions – often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for 1500+ years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? How, then, were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

The problem with this argument is that it is essentially saying that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions, and passing them on from generation to generation – the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

Again, traditions are not the problem. Un-biblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and are in agreement with God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or are in disagreement with God’s Word, must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

Excerpted from "How We Read the Bible" 

© September 12, 2001 By Bernie L. Gillespie All Rights Reserved.

  This brings us to address the underlying view of the nature of Scripture. When we begin to look at the Bible as containing the Word of God or as a "‘revelation-within-the-revelation" the Bible becomes less a factual, objective book of history and more of a subjective book of mystery. The history of those who have taken this path is sobering and should cause us to stop and reflect. The ultimate result of this way of looking at the Bible is that truth becomes whatever one's personal impressions tell them. One example of this approach is Mary Baker Eddy, the leader of Christian Science:

In Christian Science we learn that the substitution of the spiritual for the material definition of a Scriptural word often elucidates the meaning of the inspired writer. On this account this chapter ["Glossary"] is added. It contains the metaphysical interpretation of Bible terms, giving their spiritual sense, which is also their original meaning.

    Christians throughout the centuries have looked at the Bible as a mystical book. There are many reasons for this. One of the primary reasons has been the invasion of pagan thought into Christian thinking. Tragically, the historical church has perpetuated this approach to Scripture. Under this influence many Christians were taught that the Bible was too sacred, holy or mysterious for them to handle. Only the priests could understand and explain it. Therefore, many generations of Christians never read the Bible in their own vernacular. Medieval Catholicism took this view to such an extreme that people were led to believe that the power of Scripture was not in their comprehending its words, but in hearing it spoken, in Latin, as an incantation by the priests. Thus centuries of Christians listened to Scripture read in Latin, never understanding it, yet believing it was performing a magical or mystical work. Thankfully, many Christians do not live under that influence any more. Nevertheless, the mystical approach remains alive in other forms.

    The mystical view of Scripture has come to us through the persisting ideas of the "mystery" religions, and a gross failure by the Church to discern the vital difference between what is supernatural and that which is mystical. Supernatural means to come from above nature, or from God. Mystical means "having a spiritual reality not apparent to the intelligence or sense." The mysterious is said to be something that baffles human reason or understanding. Thus, the mysterious approach sees truth as incomprehensible to the mind and must be "known" through intuition or one's "spirit." The Bible, being the book about the work of God's Spirit, telling of a God who works in mysterious ways, and who works wonders and miracles, can lead one to think of it as a mystical book. One can see how Christians could easily confuse the supernatural character of Scripture with a mystical approach.

    However, just because the Bible is the supernatural product of God's Spirit, that does not mean the communication of the message is through mystical means. The Bible comes to us supernaturally or from God, but it does not speak mystically - incomprehensible to the mind. The nature of the Bible consists of the supernatural and the natural. The way it communicates involves nature - words, history, and the human reason. Just how God was able to inspire and communicate His Word through the Bible may be a mystery to us. That does not mean we understand the message of the Bible mystically. We believe Jesus was God and man. His incarnation was a great and holy mystery. How could God become human? Yet, we do not know the truth of the deity of Christ through a mystical experience. We know about it through the facts of history recorded for us in Scripture. We come to know about the mystery of God through the very common words of human language found in Scripture. It does not matter what mystical experiences one may have. The test is the non-mystical, openly revealed report communicated to us in the words of Scripture.

The Bible Speaks for itself. We find the Way through Reason!

⁠

 Montanism, apocalyptic movement of the 2d cent. It arose in Phrygia (c.172) under the leadership of a certain Montanus and two female prophets, Prisca and Maximillia, whose entranced utterances were deemed oracles of the Holy Spirit. They had an immediate expectation of Judgment Day, and they encouraged ecstatic prophesying and strict asceticism. They believed that a Christian fallen from grace could never be redeemed, in opposition to the Catholic view that, since the sinner's contrition restored him to grace, the church must receive him again. Montanism antagonized the church because the sect claimed a superior authority arising from divine inspiration. Catholics were told that they should flee persecution, Montanists were told to seek it. When the Montanists began to set up a hierarchy of their own, the Catholic leaders, fearing to lose the cohesion essential to the survivial of persecuted Christianity, denounced the movement. Tertullian was a notable member of the movement, which died (c.220) as a sect, except in isolated areas of Phrygia, where it continued to the 7th cent. But the puristic anti-intellectual movement had many descendants Novatian, the Donatists (see Donatism), the Cathari, and even Emanuel Swedenborg and Edward Irving

The Reasons for rejecting Montanism then are still valid reasons now!

The Montanists were in some sense responsible for forming the Roman Catholic Church.

(1) Since a person who claims to have direct revelation from God does not need the church.

(2) A person who speaks to God directly does not need the Bible!

For their authority, they just ask God directly. To combat Montanism, the Catholic church invented the Doctrine of "Apostolic Succession." Meaning these people could not have the entire truth and they needed the church because the church had "secrets" given to them by the apostles.