In Defense of Sola Scriptura

Background and Disclaimer

Almost three years ago, I wrote a series of posts on John Calvin’s “Institutes of Christian Religion“, one of which critiqued the principle of sola scriptura. A recent debate with a few Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians helped me appreciate Calvin’s position better than before. In the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, it is fitting to write in defense of sola scriptura, the formal principle of the Reformation. I’ll explain what it really means, how the early Church applied it, and why it is the most reasonable approach in Christian epistemology.

I have no official affiliation with any churches or denominations. So the views expressed here are merely the musings of an armchair theologian, and do not represent any official position. Most of my understanding of Christianity has come from the Scriptures and Christian writings, especially writings of the early Church Fathers. As I’m ignorant of the history of the Church and theology, I sincerely welcome comments from those who are knowledgable and experienced in those areas.

Authorship and Authority of the Scripture

All Christians believe that the Scripture is inspired by God, literally “God-breathed”. Protestants also believe that the Scripture is “self-authenticating”, as explained by 2nd century Church Father and philosopher Justin Martyr thus:

THE word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves;
Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection, Ch. 1

As the word of God, the Scripture derives its authority from God, not from man. Therefore, the Scripture is not subject to the proof or approval of man.

Evidence of Divine Authorship

While we cannot prove divine authorship of the Scripture for the reason mentioned, we can find plenty of evidence of it. In other words, there are distinguishing characteristics that set the Scriptures far above other writings of men. When the early Church Fathers were challenged on this point, they gave the following evidence in support of their belief:

1. The antiquity of the Old Testament, Moses in particular, predates all the ancient Greek and Roman writings.
2. The prophesies in the Scriptures (both OT and NT) have been and are still being fulfilled.
3. Jesus, manifested as the Son of God through the Resurrection, confirms the Old Testament, which prophesies about Him.
4. The lives of people all around the world have been transformed for good through the teaching of the Scripture. This is unprecedented and unparalleled in history.

Author and Interpreter

Given that God is the author of the Scripture, it follows that He is also the ultimate Interpreter, without whom no man can comprehend the Scripture.

Christians believe that God dwells in each and every believer in the Spirit. This indwelling Spirit acts as an interpreter of God’s Word, and guides the believers into all truth.

The Church, i.e., the assembly of all believers, is the dwelling place of the Spirit. Therefore, the Church has the power to recognize the divine authority and inspiration of the Scripture, and to formalize, interpret and teach the Scripture.

Historical Application

One common objection to sola scriptura is that the principle was unknown in the Church for the first 1500 years, and only brought into existence in the 16th century by the Reformers.

For starters, to use an analogy, scientists didn’t formulate the law of gravity until the 17th century, but it doesn’t mean that the law didn’t exist in nature before then.

More importantly, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Church Fathers constantly applied the principle of sola scriptura when witnessing to the Jews of their time. They rejected tradition as the “tradition of men”. They didn’t and couldn’t appeal to the religious authorities, the chief priests and Pharisees who persecuted them. Consequently, they reasoned with the Jews using the Scriptures alone. Although the Jews compiled and transmitted the Old Testament Scriptures, early Christians did not trust the Jewish religious authorities with the interpretation, believing that the latter were not illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

There are some parallels in history between the separation of Christianity from Judaism, and Protestantism from Roman Catholicism.

The Appeal to Human Authority

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians say that the Scripture must be understood in the context of Tradition. I asked them in the forum what “Tradition” means and how one can relate to it in daily practice. After nearly a year of discussion, I remain as mystified as ever. I would submit that, because of its lack of clarity, Tradition cannot be a guiding, let alone authoritative, principle in the Christian life.

When an age of rampant relativism has run its course, people tend to gravitate toward authoritative figures, perhaps due to a deep-seated need for justification. In politics, it is the Supreme Court or the President, in religion, it is the Pope or the Patriarch, in academics, it is the most outspoken scholars. However, appealing to authority, apart from being a logical fallacy, is also futile, for authority figures are fallible and fallen men.

An Ecumenical Council might serve a necessary function in the life of the Church. It provides a venue for spiritual fellowship and rational discourse, a venue for resolving conflicts and maintaining unity, but it is not the ultimate authority of Christian faith.

Sola Scriptura vs. Personal Opinions

Another common objection to sola scriptura is that there are many different, even contradictory, interpretations of the Scriptures. Therefore, it is not a reliable approach to the truth.

Firstly, as Paul writes, “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things”. It is only natural that Christians believe different things in different stages of their spiritual life. If they all believed the same thing, it might actually be a sign of brainwashing.

Secondly, it is true that we tend to project our personal opinions into the things we read, the Scripture not excepted, which results in errors and even abuses. But, we can avoid falling into this trap by heeding Augustine’s admonition:

“For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel.”
St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, Bk. XVII

Augustine makes an important distinction between sola scriptura and the misuse of scripture. If one follows the principle of sola scriptura, he would uphold the whole scripture, not just accept the parts he approves and reject the rest; Origen, when he defends the doctrine of free will, examines all the relevant passages in the Scripture, including those verses that seem to contradict free will, and provides an interpretation of those verses that both make sense in context and are consistent with free will. This is the type of exegesis that we can all learn from.

Augustine also writes that there can be many valid interpretations of the same passage of the Scripture, as long as they don’t contradict the rule of faith and logic; Origen demonstrates that there are many levels of interpretations of the Scripture, literal, allegorical, moral and spiritual. These manifold interpretations are all valid and help us to grow deeper in faith and understanding.

Sola Scriptura and the Scientific Method

At the most basic level, sola scriptura is an approach to the inquiry for truth. It shares common characteristics with other approaches to inquiry, such as the scientific method. For it focuses attention on objective data, i.e., what is independently observable and verifiable, not opinions that may or may not be grounded in the data.

Reading the Scripture is like reading the Book of Nature. God is the author of both. An interpretation is like a scientific theory. If any scientific theory contradicts known facts or experimental results, then that theory is falsified. Similarly, if any interpretation contradicts part of the Scripture, it is not a valid interpretation.

As an inquiry for truth, sola scriptura aims at preventing people from elevating themselves above the Scripture, the objective standard of truth. In other words, it is a countermeasure against tyranny. It proclaims that everyone has access to the Truth, and everyone becomes accountable, being measured against the objective standard.

Like science, the inquiry for truth in Christianity is a life-long and communal endeavour. The Christian life is a life of learning and growing, together with other members of the Body of Christ. We shall continue to learn from each other and from God Himself even unto eternity.

References:

1. Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Edit. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
2. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series. Edit. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Related Posts:

• “Institutes of the Christian Religion” by John Calvin

Related External Articles (Counterpoint):

• Sola Scriptura: 7 Fatal Flaws of a Bleak Doctrine
• Sola Scriptura, Holy Tradition, and the Hermeneutics of Christ