5 Solas: Scripture Alone (Part 2)
In Part 1 we saw that Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is our ultimate authority in matters of faith. That is, how we know who God is, what He is like, how to relate to Him etc. And that it is Scripture ALONE that determines this, there are no equal, far less, higher authorities than it. But, it raises an important issue. When we say Sola Scriptura, do we also mean Solo Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura? If the Bible is effective and authoritative by itself, can I… should I, just sit and read the Bible all by myself?
Certainly, it is good to read the Bible alone! But, we are not entirely alone. God has gifted the Church with those who can help us grasp the Bible better and apply it to our lives (Ephesians 4:7-16). Having heard about past heroes of faith and reminded of the great company we belong to in Heaven and earth in Hebrews 11-12, Hebrews 13:7-9 encourages us to remember our leaders (of the past), because Jesus has not changed, so that we do not get led away by strange teachings.
The Bible is not meant to be read alone, but in the Church. It addresses us in community. Most of the yous are plural (Southern American “y’all”, Scouse/New Jersey “yous”). So, together we help each other understand and apply it. We all take part in this (think how Acts 2 applies Joel 2:28-32), but some are particularly gifted by the Holy Spirit for this task. Not only so, but because Jesus is the same today, we worship the same Christ as Bible teachers of the past. Our God is Ryle’s, Luther’s, Athanasius’, so we can learn from them too. In fact, they are often helpful because they are in the past and from other cultures, they spot things that we miss.
Back to the reformation, the context of the Solas. The Reformers weren’t just debating with Roman Catholics, but also Radical Reformers; the Anabaptists. The three (or more) groups had significant common ground. They all agreed, that God, by his Spirit, inspired the Biblical authors so that the Bible is God’s words and the Spirit is at work in us, the reader. Like this:
The next question is how do we interpret the Bible. For the Roman Catholics, the Bible is opaque, we cannot understand it by ourselves, it needs an equally authoritative tradition alongside it to clarify things for us. In this scheme I receive revelation from a joint source. The Radicals said we do not need this parallel source, God can speak to us straight from the Bible. The Reformers agreed we don’t need a parallel source, but, for the reasons above, we don’t ignore the past but listen to it as God is speaking to us as a community. In summary the differences are like this:
You might have noticed GRUK quite likes Calvin. He has no authority as such. But, he’s worth a read because he often helps us get our head round bits of the Bible we find hard. Part of the reason for that is that he was immersed in the Church Fathers: both East and West. We don’t work out what to believe from him (or anyone else), but they may help us get to grips with the Bible, much as a friend we’re sitting down with and studying together with. For this reason, it’s no bad idea to read outside of our own traditions (but with our Bibles open asking, is this author helping me? Like the Bereans with Paul).
You might also have noticed GRUK quite likes the WCF and the creeds. These have particular historic contexts where certain truths from the Bible needed to be summarised. Let’s put it like this. If I read the Bible and find something that contradicts the creeds and the WCF… pretty good chance I’ve missed something. If you read something in the Bible and your understanding is unique… you’re probably wrong. A good theological safety bar: if it’s new, it’s wrong.
Some might say: the Bible alone, but this has at least two problems. First, people often got that idea from someone else, rather than the Bible. Second, as we’ve seen, the Bible does not teach that. That approach leads to thousands of interpretations. It is how Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and others pick off Evangelicals, “look, you can’t agree on anything: you need our tradition”, or “the Bible just can just mean anything”. This happens because over time the mainstream and radical elements of the Reformation have collapsed together.
So, what do we do when the Church can’t agree on something? WCF 1.10, we gather and work it out together, but even then, 1:10 makes clear, that the Bible is the final authority.
Sola Scriptura upholds the unique place of the Bible, but it is nuanced. Taking this historic Reformed line will mean: to Roman Catholics we’ll sound a bit liberal, to Liberals we’ll sound radical, to radicals we’ll sound Catholic. Well of course we are catholics, Reformed catholics. We’re only trying to say what God has always said, through his Son, by the Spirit, in Scripture to his Church from the start.
