Ken Samples does a great job here explaining what sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) does not mean.
1) Sola Scriptura does not mean that other authorities besides Scripture can’t be appropriately recognized by the church. Creeds, tradition, consensus of the church, and human reason all provide valuable judgment. However, they are subordinate to the supreme and final authority of Scripture.
2) Sola Scriptura does not repudiate the usefulness of tradition in particular as a subordinate norm in theology. It may be quite acceptable to allow tradition to play a secondary (or derivative) role in the formulation of doctrine (for example, the ecumenical creeds of Christendom).
3) Sola Scriptura does not repudiate the church fathers or church history overall. The great leaders and teachers in the history of the church have provided invaluable instruction in theology, but (as those same individuals have often remarked) their views must be appropriately evaluated in light of the supreme theological norm – Scripture. Examples from church history can still provide a secondary form of spiritual guidance for Christians.
4) Sola Scriptura does not mean that all truth is found in the Bible or can only be found there. Certainly all truth is indeed God’s truth. Information found outside Scripture (in general revelation, tradition, and so forth) can be genuinely true and may actually correct misunderstandings of Scripture. However, alleged truths that contradict Scripture are not genuinely true.
5) Sola Scriptura does not deny that the Word of God was initially in oral form. When the apostles were living, they spoke and wrote with divine authority as the Holy Spirit worked through them. However, upon their deaths, the only reliable and accessible apostolic source is found in the Bible.
It is indeed helpful for us, when thinking of the Reformation cry “Scripture alone!” to remember what it does not mean. Samples’ list above is a good one to remember in this area. If you’re interested, the list was taken from Kenneth Samples, A World of Difference, p. 120.
shane lems
It’s like you read my mind … I was just reading through that section last week and thinking that someone should draw attention to it in a blog post! Totally funny!!!
here’s 1 more : 6) sola scriptura does not mean what Ken Samples says it means. he’s got as completely wrong as one can get it. he has just appealed to all the things to which the Church of Rome appealed and to which the Reformers opposed with this doctrine. in the power of the Holy Spirit and within the Body of Christ (i.e your church if it is faithful to the Bible) the Scripture is ALL that you need — hence the term SOLA scriptura.
Which Reformers are you referring to, Celal, and from where in their writings are you citing? I’m surprised to hear that you think Samples is “completely wrong as one can get it” if you are indeed in agreement with Sola Scriptura.
Now if you are holding to the view of the *radical* reformers (i.e., the anabaptists), then your criticism would make more sense. Adherents of Solo Scriptura (see Keith Mathison’s book “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” for these definitions) would indeed be uncomfortable with Samples, Luther, Calvin et al.
Thanks for stopping by!
I am not advocating SOLO since i acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit and of the Body of Christ. I would be interested in learning about what sort of polemic Luther, Calvin et al engaged in with the Anabaptists over the issue of Sola Scriptura. However, from this sample of Samples i am not impressed. Based on these 5 bullet points, I can see him becoming one of those “swimming the Tiber”
Celal, a helpful place to get a good overview of this is Richard Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, volume II: Holy Scripture. It’s sort of a pricey set to get, but if you could find it in a local library, you’ll find Muller gives a thorough description of how the Reformers and their heirs navigated the waters of scripture and tradition. I’d also recommend Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology. He’s quite polemical, but his first volume has some chapters devoted to this matter.
As for your concerns about these points leading people to swim the Tiber, these are the very things that enable people to make sense of “the role of the Holy Spirit” and “the Body of Christ” without going Romeward for answers.
Cheers!
Thanks for the comments, everyone – and Celal – I also recommend those resources Andrew pointed out. They’ve been helpful for me.
If I can add one thing, Samples is actually drawing a difference between Rome’s and the Reformation’s view of Scripture. I posted this because some people wrongly think Sola Scriptura means “no creed but Christ,” or, “No creed but the Bible.”
Here’s what the modern RCC catechism says: “the Church…does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (para. 82).
So the RCC catechism denied (and still denies) sola Scriptura. But as the Reformers (and those of us who are confessional, historical Protestants today) taught sola Scriptura, they certainly did not throw out tradition, the church fathers, the councils, and so forth. They simply put them under, not next to or above, Scripture.
Check Calvin’s Institutes and see how often he refers to Cyprian, Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, and so forth. Or consider the fact that many of the catechisms that came from the Reformation included expositions of the Apostle’s Creed. Or check the Belgic Confession of Faith articles 4-7 for a Reformation discussion of sola Scriptura and its relation to tradition/councils/fathers.
Finally, concerning the anabaptists, do a search in the Lutheran Confessions (Concordia) on these words: anabaptists, enthusiasts, and fanatics if you want to see how Reformers responded against the Radical Reformers. Here are some titles by Luther you can read: “Letter to the Christians at Strassburg in Opposition to the Fanatic Spirit,” “Against the Heavenly Prophets,” and “Concerning Rebaptism.” Finally, Dutch theologian Wilhelmus a Brakel has a section in his “The Christian’s Reasonable Service” called “A Warning Exhortation Against Pietists, Quietists…etc.”
Hope this helps!
Thanks for the comments,
shane
Hello Shane,
Thank you for these references to polemical discussions between the Anabaptists and the Reformers.
I am not as knowledgeable as yourselves so other than their denial of paedo-baptism I am not familiar with differences Reformers and Anabaptists they may have had on this subject.
Just a few points by way of clarifying my position a little bit more:
1. Paul says in 1 Thess 2:13 , “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, **which is at work in you who believe**.“ Do we find anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus or any of the Apostles use any other source than the Hebrew Scriptures? No, we do not. We should think about this.
2. Our pastor is going through the book of Daniel on Sundays. I have been pondering at the faith of Daniel who at the age of 16-17 or thereabouts was so well established in his faith as he was taken along to Babylon. An amazing time and man indeed. But we know from the book of Daniel itself that he was aware of and received the prophecies of Jeremiah as the Word of God (Daniel 9:2). We read in various places in Jeremiah, that the people of Israel right up to the kings and princes scoffed and rejected Jeremiah because they knew (or thought) that YHWH would preserve His Temple and His People against pagans as He had done faithfully so many times before in their history. Were such people prepared for the Exile? No probably not. But evidently Daniel and the family and circle from which he came had receptive ears and hearts to what God was actually doing in their midst, in their lifetime. Those that didn’t missed out big time. That’s one more thing to think about.
3. Sure those sources such as church fathers, councils, etc are there for us as reference and would be ignored at our peril. However, in conclusion, I would say that in the dynamic cut and thrust of living in a hostile world with a job to do for the Living Christ whether we are church leaders or just part of the membership these things tend to be more of a distraction from the Word of God itself. This I know from personal experience. I’m also probably not the first or only one for whom this is or has been the case. Better to hold on to the Bible itself — it’s not really a hard book to understand and since the invention of the printing press it is readily available and accessible to all of us. Even more so in this age of online resources etc.
Loved this list. Very excellent acknowledgment of the singular base of Scripture.
A helpful pair expressions: norma normans and norma normata. Scripture is the norm which norms all other norms. Tradition, the creeds, the hymns, the catechisms, etc., are normed norms, with particular creeds in some versions of Christianity constituting a pole of authority sufficient on its own to include and exclude.
It is true that the self-sufficiency of scripture is understood in very different ways in different versions of Christianity.
John – thanks for the reminder of those two helpful expressions. They are a big part of this discussion for sure!
shane
[...] had an excellent discussion on Shane’s last post (“What Sola Scriptura Does not Mean”) which reminded me of Richard Muller’s clear and concise entry for Sola Scriptura in his [...]
Thank you for these points and this discussion. I’ve heard many arguments against the creeds and traditions of the Reformed church as being not truly “sola Scriptura.” This article gives very helpful reasons for why sola Scriptura is broader than “No creed but Christ.” As you pointed out, Scripture is the final authority…not necessarily the only authority.
Michael Kearney
West Sayville URC
Long Island, New York