In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, there arose a group of men and women that had become disillusioned by the excesses and misappropriations of the Roman Catholic church and, in a reactive movement, spawned the Reformation, and consequently, the Five Solas: sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura, sola Christus, and soli Deo gloria. While these five principles were never clearly grouped and articulated together by any one Reformer during that period of time, they have been devised in subsequent centuries by scholars to succinctly convey the core of most Reformation doctrines. Each of the solas bears weight for the church in America today, but one in particular, sola scriptura, seems to be one that is often left by the wayside, in favor of “cutting edge” psychological and scientific advances. Yet, I believe that if we return to this doctrine, we, like the Reformers, will become the salt and light that both the world, and the Western church need for us to be.

What does Sola Scriptura mean? Simply translated, it means “by Scripture alone.” Of course, that concise phrase actually encompasses a whole ideology—the belief that God’s Word alone, rather than the clergy, the Church, or any other human-made structure or framework, is the final authority for all forms of doctrine and practice. This principle is supported by 2 Timothy 3:16, which says “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”[1] (KJV) According to sola scriptura, God’s Word alone, not the words or philosophies of man, is to be revered as the only inerrant authority.

Why did the Reformers deem it necessary to promote the principle of sola scriptura in their communication regarding the Reformed faith? In observing the state of the Catholic church from whence they had come out, these men saw that there had been such undue emphasis placed upon church traditions as to usurp the authority of the Scriptures, to the detriment of the church and to the extreme elevation of mere human beings and their traditions. As John Calvin wrote, “But this is the difference between us and the papists. They think that the Church is the ‘pillar of truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15), just as if it controls the Word of God. On the other hand, we assert that the truth is possessed by the Church and handed down to others because it subjects itself reverently to the Word of God.” [2] We may well understand that the Church does not rule the Scriptures; rather the Scriptures ought to rule the Church.

The reformers believed that each aspect of the life of the Church and the individual must be conformed to the will of God as revealed only in Holy Scripture. After all, Romans 3:10-18 clearly states, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (KJV)[3] If this is the wretched and helpless state of even the best specimen that humankind has to offer, then it is evident that we would do poorly to fashion our lives according to the word of man rather than the Word of God.

If we do not see Scripture alone as the final authority for the modern church, as other churches have in the past, we run the risk of committing transgression in a couple of different ways. First, we fall into the trap of exalting man’s traditions, legalisms, or practices too highly, even to the point of idolatry. Jesus, speaking harshly to the Pharisees in Mark 7:6-8, said, “Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” [4] (KJV, emphasis added) Obviously, Jesus was displeased with the lack of respect and prominence that the Pharisees gave the Scriptures—the revelation of God to man—as they instead pridefully reverenced their own inventions and that of their fathers above God’s Word. If we claim, as many rightfully do, that our Lord is the wellspring of all knowledge and wisdom, consider what hypocrites we make ourselves to be when we live by the traditions and inventions of men, which are pitiful when compared to the surpassing brightness of God, while pushing His own words to the back burner.

Secondly, if we do not keep the principle of Scripture alone always in the forefront of our minds, we leave the door wide open for false teaching to infiltrate both ourselves and the church. If we follow Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or anyone else other than Christ as He is revealed in the Scriptures, we will discover at some point, if we keep our eyes open and do not fall prey to delusion, that each of these are only men, prone to error, however well-intentioned they may be. Following men blindly, without the discerning power of the Bible, will certainly lead to sin. The Word of God praises the Bereans in Acts 17:11 saying, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (KJV) [5] Even when presented with truth, the Bereans beheld these new doctrines in light of Scripture and followed them willingly because they understood them to be the fulfilment of what they already knew to be true, as revealed in the Old Testament. They understood how easy it is for one to be overtaken by false teaching that comes as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 says, “For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.” (KJV)[6] We would do well to follow the example of the Bereans in testing new ideas in light of the Scriptures, rather than merely accepting them at face value.

John Calvin said, “Now, in order that true religion may shine upon us, we ought to hold that it must take its beginning from the heavenly doctrine and that no one can get even the slightest taste of right and sound doctrine unless he be a pupil of Scripture.” [7] Even though the “great cloud of witnesses”—the saints of the past and present spoken of in Hebrews 12— can be an excellent source of encouragement and wisdom for us, the elevation of their insights to those of the Word of God, or the study of them to the exclusion or neglect of the Scriptures is folly at best, and idolatry and false teaching at worst. Why should we cling so tightly to secondhand information, when the firsthand account is so readily available to us? We do not live in the time of the Reformation, when illiteracy was rampant and the only Bible authorized by the Church was the Latin Vulgate, something that most common people would never be able to read. It is understandable that the common person in those days would blindly follow human teachings. He had little choice, since the opportunity for learning to read either English or Latin, let alone having access to a Bible, was far out of reach. But, today, almost anyone who lives in a first world country has no excuse for not holding men’s teachings and traditions accountable to the Word of God, seeing that we have the Bible so readily available to us in most bookstores and even on iPhone apps and that compulsory education laws mean that most of us are literate. As Jesus said in Luke 12:48, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.”(KJV)[8] We have been given the privilege of having God’s Word conveniently accessible to us and of possessing the ability to read it. May we not waste these things, but let us instead be diligent in using Scripture to “cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5, KJV)[9]

[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]

[1] 2014. 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV – All scripture is given by inspiration … https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16&version=KJV.

[2] 2003. The Title: “The Church” by John Calvin – The Highway. http://www.the-highway.com/titlechurch_Calvin.html.

[3] 2014. Romans 3:10-18 KJV – As it is written, There is none – Bible … https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A10-18&version=KJV.

[4] 2014. Mark 7:6-8 KJV – He answered and said unto them, Well … https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7%3A6-8&version=KJV.

[5] 2014. Acts 17:11 KJV – These were more noble than those in … https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17%3A11&version=KJV.

[6] 2014. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 KJV – And no marvel; for Satan … https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11%3A14-15&version=KJV.

[7] Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. https://books.google.com/books?id=eABeezea4dwC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=John+Calvin+true+religion+shine+upon+us&source=bl&ots=Xle6tzHV7u&sig=SvhQBOtTtHnm3J8lH6LLRomrxLw.

[8] 2014. Luke 12:48 KJV – But he that knew not, and did commit … https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A48&version=KJV.

[9] 2014. 2 Corinthians 10:5 KJV – Casting down imaginations, and … https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+10%3A5&version=KJV.[/wpex]

42 responses to “Sola Scriptura’s Relevance for the Modern Church”

  1. mmchanb Avatar
    mmchanb

    Hello, Alyssa. I admire your passion for truth and passion for the Holy Scriptures. Indeed the safeguard against error in the Church is Scripture. At the same time, it took me too long to finally learn that the safeguard against Scripture-abuse is the Church, and I am not Catholic.

    I was a devout Evangelical from the age of 22 until 40. 40 was a rough year as I learned that the Evangelical gospel was derived from Protestant tradition rather than from Sola Scriptura. I wrote a book on the historic, Scriptural gospel titled “Forgotten Gospel.” If you do a word search of “gospel” in the Bible, you might see the same problem I found.

    While it was quite a blow to realize that Protestant tradition had failed me, it was an even greater joy to begin learning what Peter and John’s disciples wrote in the second century AD, and their disciples after them. I only wish I had begun mining the treasures of the 2,000 year old church at an earlier age. Ancient Christianity in Persia, India, and Ethiopia were particularily eye-opening. While theologians and Church customs have failed us in various times and places, the gates of hades have never prevailed against the worldwide Church.

    I appreciate and commend your passion for Scriptural purity! It is one of the divine safeguards indeed.
    -Matthew

    1. Paul Pavao Avatar

      You’re always so nice, more so than me. I probably should have mentioned your book in my post because it carefully crafts how sola Scriptura has missed the boat on the most important doctrine of all!

    2. Alyssa Hall Avatar
      Alyssa Hall

      Thanks for your response, Matthew. I’m certainly open to studying the early church fathers and hearing what they have to say (I really appreciated your earlier article regarding Irenaeus’ explanation of the Gospel! Very though provoking!) My only issue (and what I hoped to convey with this article) is that they ought not be seen as completely authoritative, as if God Himself had spoken, although, obviously being closer chronologically to the time everything happened, they can offer a lot of insight! And, thanks for being so nice (as Paul put it below. :-)) I’m quickly learning that ecumenism requires disagreement without being disagreeable!

      1. Ben Cabe Avatar

        I think it would be interesting to re-iterate (again) that even if you read scripture it doesn’t mean you’re “reading it infallibly.”

      2. mmchanb Avatar
        mmchanb

        Thank you, Alyssa. You sure got some conversations going!

  2. Ben Cabe Avatar

    Hi Alyssa. Thank you for your courage and for writing this piece. I am not sure what the response has been to your previous articles, but I imagine this article will receive a decent amount of feedback.

    The ultimate problem with Sola Scriptura, as Matthew noted, is that it’s ultimately untenable. The Scriptures certainly need to be read (you are on point) and they need to be heeded (on point again!) but once we begin reading the scriptures we are faced with another question: how do we read the scriptures? Using scripture alone, one can defend any number of opposing dogmas. That is, the Reformers held to Sola Scriptura but did not agree with one another on central Christian dogmas: the Eucharist, Baptism, Salvation, etc. The disagreement between Sola Scriptura proponents has widened, in our own time, to result in tens of thousands of Sola Scriptura believing traditions, all of whom believe they are reading scripture the “right way.” Sola Scriptura has always produced division, not unity—and Christ desires that we be unified (John 17).

    We must also be careful not to idolize scripture. Ultimately, we are looking for Christ, and union with him. Certainly he, through his Holy Spirit, ministers to us through scripture, but he can also minister to us outside of scripture.

    To be particularly picky, in the article you argue over, what seems to be, semantics, using words like tradition as a catch-all phrase for what is “bad.” Paradosis (“Tradition” in Greek) is used in scripture both the positive (Traditions of God) and negative (traditions of men) sense.

    Considering Protestantism has its own set of traditions, and considering they rely on readings and interpretations of scripture that do not exist before those particular reformers, one must wonder if the reformers’ traditions are, in fact, traditions of men. As Irenaeus mentions in Against Heresies (200’s AD), we can tell what is a heresy by whether or not the view or belief existed prior to the person who propounded it. That is, whether or not it’s consistent with what the earliest Christians believed.

    Which raises another question. I am curious when, in your view, the Church and/or Christians became “corrupted” by “traditions of men”? The earliest Christian writings that we have support an Orthodox (or Catholic) Liturgical practice, and ecclesiology, etc.

    Another question that your article raises: Sola Scriptura supposes their is a canon of Scripture. However, Martin Luther altered the Canon (which previously included what is not considered, by Protestants, the “Apocryphal Books). If the Canon can be altered, then Sola Scriptura is certainly unstable (Luther also wanted to get rid of the book of James, etc.). It should also be noted that, according to Luther himself, he could not fight against a man marrying two women based on “Scripture alone”. So, he decided to remain “silent” on the issue.

    Also on the canon: The Church is the one that canonized the scripture. To quote a wonderful priest named Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, “Scripture was written by and for the Church—to be interpreted by the Church.” If unity is a criteria for truth (cf. John 17), then we must look somewhere other than “protestantism general” where the readings and interpretations of scripture are not unifying but rather diversifying.

    1. Jeff Hart Avatar
      Jeff Hart

      Ben,
      You raise some very interesting points here that deserve to be addressed. As it happens, I’ve been working on some pieces about the Reformed view of canon (specifically the NT) and they’ll get at some of the points you bring up. Hopefully I’ll have those pieces ready to go in the next few weeks so we can continue the discussion at that point.
      – Jeff

      1. Ben Cabe Avatar

        Wonderful! I look forward to it!

    2. Paul Pavao Avatar

      Luther received his canon from the Catholic Church, which still questioned their seven deuterocanonical books. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Old Testament Canon,” in the 5th-7th century section:

      “During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity.”

      The Middle Ages section of that same page says (emphasis added):

      “In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. FEW ARE FOUND TO UNEQUIVOCALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR CANONICITY.”

      Sorry, Ben, you can’t blame Luther. You have to blame Jerome. Also I think you’ll have to show me where he disparaged the RC Deuterocanonicals. Protestants held on to the deuterocanonicals, though not as Scripture, for a couple hundred years, even translating them with the rest of the Scriptures in 1611 (attaching them rather than including them). The RCC did not authoritatively define the canon until the Council of Trent, which began three years after Luther died. (same page in Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Tridentine decrees [given at Trent] from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”)

      That same page says that Luther did not want to admit II Maccabees as canon at a debate with Eck (2 years before the Diet of Worms).

      It’s much safer to complain about his rejection of James and Hebrews. That was a result of Luther’s private theology, where he chose to overrule the authority of Scripture rather than adjust his theology to Scripture. Rejecting the deuterocanonicals was simply a continuance of long Catholic tradition, though that rejection was not universal.

      Finally, I know that you are Orthodox, not RC. The Orthodox never embraced the Jerome distinction. The RCC, because of their used of Jerome’s Latin version, the Vulgate, did.

      1. Ben Cabe Avatar

        Agreed. And yes, I know Jerome was against the Septuagint / Luther was following Jerome. Although, being Orthodox as you acknowledged, I don’t really bother with that, taking into consideration the concerns around the Masoretic Texts. If you haven’t already, you should check out one particular variance in Ex. 10:12 (I think it’s 10:12) where it’s talking about the sacrifice of the lamb for the passover . . . in the Masoretic Text, it does not include the phrase “and do not break a bone of it.” In the Septuagint, it does. I just find that kind of stuff interesting.

      2. Paul Pavao Avatar

        Thank you. So do I. I’m somewhat obsessed with it, but apparently not obsessed enough to have heard about Ex. 10:12. Thank you.

    3. Alyssa Hall Avatar
      Alyssa Hall

      Hello Ben. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts! 🙂

      Just for clarification, while I label myself “Protestant,” I am not in one accord with either Luther’s life or teachings. I am aware of his anti-Semitic rants, among other unsavory things. While I believe he had some valid points, I don’t claim either his name or practices as authoritative.

      Also, I am not making the claim that all traditions are bad. God’s traditions are good and are to be kept diligently. While editing this article, Laura Norris pointed out to me 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which says “Therefore brethren, stand fast and keep the instructions, which ye have been taught, either by word, or by our Epistle.” I read on to chapter 3, which says further, “We warn you, brethren, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh inordinately, and not after the instruction, which he received from us.” The translation I read most (the Geneva Bible) says “instructions,” while my NKJV Bible says “traditions,” but in either case, these traditions seem to be referring to the doctrine of the apostles, given them by the Holy Spirit and revealed in the Bible, rather than to other, may I say, peripheral practices, such as papal infallibility or indulgences.

      To answer your other question regarding the corruption of the church, I believe that while the Orthodox or Catholic liturgies, ecclesiology, etc. that you mentioned may indeed be sound (I’m not writing off everything they believe- I’m certainly open to study!), there seem to be elements within the Catholic/Orthodox churches that have evolved into something that was never intended to exist. A few particular things come to mind that the Reformers fought against: papal infallibility, indulgences, penance, and prayer to anyone but God (i.e. Mary, saints, etc). The reformers could not find any Scriptural basis for any of these things, in fact they believed that they found Scriptural evidence against them. I’m not sure how or when these practices arose, but these were some of the things I had in mind when referring to corruption within the church.

      If you don’t mind, you said some interesting things that I’m hoping you might unpack a little more for me. In your comment, you say that “we must be careful not to idolize Scripture. Ultimately, we are looking for Christ, and union with Him.” But if God tells us who He is by the Words He has spoken to us, presented in the Scriptures, if the Scriptures are God-breathed and God-inspired, then how can we idolize them? I absolutely agree that we are seeking Christ, but has not Christ revealed Himself through the Scriptures? To depend upon other sources for the final word on who Christ is would seem to contradict Galatians 1:8-9 which says, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

      Also, you seem to presuppose in the last paragraph that “unity is a criteria for truth.” Would you mind explaining some of your rationale behind that? Is that Scripturally based, is it derived from the church fathers, or maybe something else?

      I realize that Protestantism, as you have pointed out, is diversified with regards to its teachings, and I know that Christ indeed desires unity for His bride, but I’m curious as to what constitutes unity? Is it homogeneous doctrine throughout the church? Or is it the presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of true believers, creating a brotherhood that transcends brick walls and labels? I’m not sure, but I think it’s a question worth asking. Within each church building, Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise, is there not disunity? After all, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is saved. (Matthew 7:21-23) I’d be interested to hear any thoughts.

      With regards to your challenges regarding the Apocryphal books and the canonization of Scripture, I’m unsure how to answer, as I’ve not invested as much time in studying them as I would like. I had been under the impression that while the Apocrypha was included in the physical Bibles printed before the Reformation, they were not considered inspired and authoritative. But, I could certainly be wrong and am open to learning more!

      1. Ben Cabe Avatar

        Thanks for your reply. The Orthodox Church does not believe in Papal infallibility or indulgences. When you say “penance” do you mean the sacrament of Confession / Repentance?

        Concerning your question about idolizing scripture / Christianity being a life dependent on union with Christ . . . I think part of the difficulty in talking about this is our (possible) two different visions about what Christianity is. For the Orthodox, we are not merely trying to learn about Christ but to genuinely be united with Him. I do not imagine you would disagree with that statement, however, for the Orthodox, Christianity is not about “learning” or “information” but about a relationship (ambiguous language, I know) with Christ. Christ is the one we want. He is a person—THE person, in fact. And he exists outside of the scriptures. And the “Spirit blows where it pleases.”

        Scriptures can be idolize when we idolize our own interpretations of them. I think part of our misunderstanding is that, when you sit down to read the scriptures, whatever “pops into your head” does not necessarily come from the Holy Spirit. In fact, it could be a demonic delusion. Demonic delusion is very dangerous and is why the Orthodox Church insists on having a “Spiritual Father” to help “bring you up” in the faith (think of St. Paul’s epistles, etc.)

        Your reference to Galatians seems, to me at least, somewhat out of place. That passage is not referring to “the canon of scripture” but rather “the gospel of Christ” which, in a sense, could be written out somewhere other than scripture and be “the same gospel.”

        The Holy Spirit is a spirit of unity and peace. Where the Holy Spirit is, these things will necessarily follow. Truth is a person and that person is Christ. A criteria of truth must be unity. But unity does not mean uniformity. Unity (if you want to check out the round table on unity you’ll see some different visions of what unity is) is based around the “catholic” faith that is also “one” and “apostolic” and “holy.” Ultimately, Christ and his Eucharist are our unity. In the Orthodox Church, you cannot disagree on dogma. However, there are some things called Theological Opinion that you may differ on (it’s opinion because we do not know. It’s a mystery.) An instance of theological opinion would be something like “whether or not we should have pews in church.” However, one cannot deny the divinity of Christ, or believe in hyper-calvinism, or that baptism is optional and be a part of the Orthodox Church. So, no, actually. There cannot be such divisions in the Orthodox Church. However, there is a more substantial understanding in Paul’s epistles based on the Eucharist (1 Cor. 10:16-17). We are one body (the body of Christ) because we partake of the one body (in the Eucharist). Is not the Eucharist the very body and blood of Christ? (That’s Paul’s question, not mine).

        Unfortunately, the idea or doctrine of “a true believe” is too ambiguous to be tenable, and leaves people wondering if they “really believed” or if “they’re a true believer.” The Church is grounded historically and in reality.

        Scripture tells us whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (as you noted above) but it also tells us that not everyone who call’s on the Lord will be saved. Strange. It’s instances like these and countless others that require some sort of interpretation. You cannot read anything without interpreting what it says (even this). So when you read the scripture, you unwittingly interpret (or read into) something that it says. And more than likely what you interpret the passage to mean is not always right. So how do you know?

        If you haven’t read it already, I laid some of this out in a previous article on CP:

        https://prahlowjacob-pvcnh.wpcomstaging.com/theology-spirituality/is-protestantism-a-heresy/

      2. Alyssa Hall Avatar
        Alyssa Hall

        Whoops! Sorry for including the Orthodox church in with Catholic practice- that was actually an editing error on my part! (One of many, I’m sure!) I certainly agree that we are to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, not just know His words. Thanks for making the distinction between unity and uniformity! That makes a lot of sense. I think you raise an excellent point with regards to knowing the right interpretation. At this point, I don’t know what the answer is. I’m young, at 18, probably the youngest person writing for CP, so I realize that I don’t know everything, but I’m open to learning and discussion! Thanks for your patience in sharing!

      3. Paul Pavao Avatar

        18? Okay, then. I will make an adjustment in the way I read this. I can’t imagine you got invited to blog here without being more mature for your age that I was, but I still shouldn’t be reading this as though you could possibly have a decade of familiarity with church history behind you.

      4. Ben Cabe Avatar

        Also agreed. But age is not a factor of discrimination. It actually helps our dialogue / understanding, as Paul noted.

  3. Jeff Hart Avatar
    Jeff Hart

    Hi Alyssa,
    Good work on this piece. I think you are absolutely right to point back to the foundational authority of Scripture. I’m convinced that the issue of authority, particularly as it relates to the idea of sola scriptura, is the fundamental dividing issue between different Christian traditions. If we don’t understand and discuss the differing views of authority at work in various Christian traditions, we will make little progress in sorting out downstream differences (and virtually every issue is downstream from the issue of ultimate authority).
    – Jeff

    1. Alyssa Hall Avatar
      Alyssa Hall

      Hi Jeff,
      Thanks for the encouragement! I absolutely agree. If we don’t have a discussion about securing the foundation, it’s ridiculous to think we can build anything sturdy on it!

  4. Benjamin Winter Avatar
    Benjamin Winter

    Hello! Thanks to all for great comments already. I am replying here primarily so that I will receive email notifications of future posts in this fascinating discussion.

    To make a brief contribution, I’d like to say that what’s at stake in Alyssa’s piece is whether the Word of God is (in any way) mediated by human beings. The distinction between firsthand and secondhand information only holds if we believe that the Word is wholly divine, allowing no human elements to enter into its authorship, translation, or interpretation. But this position is untenable. First, the authors of the Word were human beings who lived in a variety of different social/historical contexts. Second, the translators of the Word are also human beings, so reading (for example) a Greek text that has been translated into English is already an exercise in interpretation. Finally, as others have pointed out, Scripture is not self-evident and is therefore in need of interpretation. In sum, the only way to affirm the tenets of this article is if you are willing to admit that 1) Scripture was dictated to human beings by God as a kind of atemporal and abstract doctrinal treatise; 2) Translations do not alter the meaning of texts; and 3) Scripture is so clear that anyone who reads it must come to Calvin’s conclusions. If you have time, Alyssa, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on those three caveats, and to what extent you are willing to embrace or qualify them!

    1. Ben Cabe Avatar

      Excellent summation.

    2. Jeff Hart Avatar
      Jeff Hart

      Not to steal Alyssa’s thunder, but I’d like to offer a few thoughts in response myself.

      First, I don’t think it’s valid to posit such a sharp divide between Scripture being “wholly divine” and having human elements. If we’re talking only about the original composition (I’ll address translation/interpretation later), Scripture seems clear that it is wholly the work of God, yet without doing violence to the will of the human authors. In other words, the unique voice of the human author (including his social/historical context) may come through in the text, but even that aspect is inspired by God such that the text says exactly what He wanted it to say in exactly the way He wanted to say it. So I would reject your first summary point on that basis.

      Second, you are correct that translation is itself an act of interpretation. But that’s exactly why we have scholars to study the original languages and produce faithful translations as well as teachers to exegete the text so they can faithfully preach the message originally recorded. While interpretive decisions in translation have factored into doctrinal missteps throughout church history (problematic texts in the Septuagint or some key translational decisions from Jerome, for example), we now have a wealth of resources at our disposal to ascertain what the original texts said and better grasp what they actually meant. Scripture should never be read in complete isolation; while not everyone needs to study the original languages, we should all seek to be informed in our reading of Scripture by those who have. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, this is sufficient for God to deliver his word to people, even in translation.

      And that brings me to my third point: we can’t neglect the role that the Holy Spirit plays in this entire process, from the writing of Scripture, to it’s preservation through the ages, and finally to it’s interpretation in our day. The Scriptures are intelligible to us because God stands behind them, making them heard and understood where he pleases. To your third point, while I happen to believe that the conclusions of Reformed Theology are the most consistent with Scripture, this does not mean that it is inevitable that everyone will arrive at those same conclusions infallibly. The Westminster Confession (1.7) explains why: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

      As a side note, I would recommend to everyone on this thread that they read through the first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which deals with the Reformed doctrine of Scripture. It’s super short (probably a 5-10 minute read), and it’s well worth it: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

      1. Alyssa Hall Avatar
        Alyssa Hall

        Thanks so much for sharing this Jeff! That’s pretty much exactly what I’m thinking-I appreciate your great explanation! I’m looking forward to seeing your future work on this topic.

      2. Benjamin Winter Avatar
        Benjamin Winter

        Jeff, thanks for your thought-provoking replies to my three “caveats.” Although I respectfully disagree with your conclusions, I still appreciate the pushback and am willing to further explain/mollify my positions since we are engaged in a dialog.

        To the first, we agree that Scripture “does not do violence to the human authors.” Likewise, since you acknowledge the impact of social/historical context, we are on track toward being in harmony about inspiration. The reason I put forward the God/human framework so strongly is because sola scriptura tends to overlook the fact that human beings cooperated with the holy spirit to write and put together the Scriptures. For example, I used to think that Moses was the single author of the first five books, and Isaiah of “Isaiah.” When I found out that this is not the case, that schools of scribes and other interpreters went back and added/changed things, I had no way (within my Protestant framework) to account for this human intervention. From a Catholic perspective, on the other hand, we readily acknowledge the role of human community (Church) in assembling the books and (more importantly) passing on the truth found in Scripture.

        You are correct that God allows nothing in Scripture that is not what God wants to be said; but, in order to understand HOW this is true we can’t just look at individual books and passages. We must see these passages in light of the unity of the whole text. If we were to isolate particular passages (for example many of the violent actions of Israel and the anthropomorphic depictions of God in the Old Testament), we would be amiss to reconcile them with other parts of the same Scripture. This is why Catholics and Orthodox hold that Scripture alone is not enough to serve as our guide. As the Catholic Constitution on Revelation affirms, “the living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith” (It’s a succinct yet challenging read: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html)

        Scripture does not come to us in a vacuum, which you appropriately acknowledge above (“Scripture should never be read in complete isolation”). Where you and I differ with regard to the guidance of the Holy Spirit is that you seem to base it in individual readings of the text, whereas I look across history and see the Spirit’s work in the visible communion of the Church. “CFrench” gives a good example of this work with his paragraph on early Christian heresies.

        Ultimately, I respect that you have made an informed decision to align with the Westminster Confession, but also think it’s clear that the people who wrote that confession were advancing a particular interpretation of Scripture. As it turns out, their interpretation runs against the authority of the Apostolic communion of bishops, which has guided the Church through the centuries.

      3. Jeff Hart Avatar
        Jeff Hart

        Thanks for the reply.

        I would be interested to hear more about why you “had no way (within my Protestant framework) to account for this human intervention.” Also, could you specify what interventions you have in mind? The primary “modifications” that I’m aware of in the Old Testament (leaving out the question of the Septuagint) are the Masoretic markings. The Masorites were extraordinarily careful not to modify the original consonantal text, although they do provide comments about how they think the text should be read according to the oral tradition they received. The Masoretic texts should therefore be seen more as a commentary on Scripture rather than a human addition to or intervention into Scripture. As far as the New Testament goes, with the wealth of manuscript evidence we have at our disposal, textual criticism enables us to reconstruct the original texts with impressive accuracy.

        Regarding your second paragraph, my only comment is that the hermeneutical principle that I would apply to sort out difficult passages is “Scripture interprets Scripture.” Clearer passages explicate less clear passages. It’s not clear to me that this is an insufficient principle.

        I actually just read through Dei verbum last week, so it’s pretty fresh in my mind. I would actually be interested in discussing it (although I’m not sure this comment thread is the appropriate forum) because there are a few statements that seemed somewhat ambiguous to me.

        Regarding your penultimate paragraph, I wouldn’t point to individual readings in isolation. While the Holy Spirit does illuminate the Scriptures for individual readers, I think it is essential that we read Scripture in light of tradition. We have much to learn from those who have gone before us. Where I would likely differ from you on this point is only in that I do not hold that tradition to be authoritative in the same way that I hold Scripture to be.

        And that leads me to my last point: I think your final paragraph really gets to the crux of the matter. You are correct that the views expressed in the Westminster Confession run against the authority of the Apostolic communion of bishops because that’s precisely what’s at issue: authority. And with that, we’ve come full circle. I hold to Scripture as the ultimate authority, and you appear to hold to a different ultimate authority.

        I noted this in another comment, but I’m planning on writing some pieces on this topic in the coming weeks, so I look forward to continuing the discussion at that point. It’s been a pleasure so far.

      4. Benjamin Winter Avatar
        Benjamin Winter

        Indeed; it’s a sign of good dialog when we return, full circle, to first principles. Thank you for carefully considering my points, as I have also tried to do with yours.

        To answer your first question, I’m thinking in general of redaction criticism–like the JEDP hypothesis for the Pentateuch and the case for a Q source when it comes to the Gospels. I was also referring to scholarship on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Isaiah. The point I was trying to make was that, in line with Divino Afflante Spiritu (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html), I now feel that I can take these hypotheses seriously without also feeling that my faith (or the “bedrock” of my faith) is threatened.

        Second, “Scripture interprets Scripture” is a laudable hermeneutic, but it’s also found in Church Fathers like Origen. Of all people, Origen (due to his fondness for allegory) is wont to come to conclusions–using this principle–that we would find untenable today. [Origen uses the phrase “Scripture interprets Scripture” in numerous writings, but chief of them is probably de principiis book 4]

        Finally, you’re right to say that we have different views on the authority of tradition. I subscribe to Congar’s thesis that we could not have a Church without Living Tradition, which is prior to the written text of Scripture: “Immediately after Pentecost and during the next thirty years, the Christians celebrated the Breaking of Bread, although no written text on the matter existed. The texts that were then written give very few details concerning the rite to follow or the method of procedure. It was enough for the apostles to have seen Jesus celebrate it. The Church, which had seen the apostles do it after him, thus learned the Eucharist from its actual celebration; and so it was for many other things … Catholics believe that this method of communication [Tradition] is the one most essential to the Church, and that it would suffice if it alone existed.” [Congar, Yves, The Meaning of Tradition, trans. A.N. Woodrow (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 18.] More on that here: https://prahlowjacob-pvcnh.wpcomstaging.com/journeys-of-faith/my-journey-to-catholicism-part-i/

        Of course, Holy Scripture is also prior to Tradition, since the Hebrew Texts of what is now called “The Old Testament” were the Scriptures to Jesus and his followers. Nothing is possible, either, without Scripture. So this is not an elevation of Tradition above Scripture. You are correct to note that, due to my position on the authority of the Catholic Church, I see Tradition as on equal footing with Scripture. It seems to be the only tenable position in light of the history of the unified, Spirit-guided Church across time and space. =)

  5. Paul Pavao Avatar

    Hi, Alyssa. I have read your article, but not the other comments yet. Here’s my response as a Protestant who has been frustrated with the results of sola Scriptura for three decades (though not so frustrated as to join the Catholics or Orthodox).

    You used Calvin as an example, but about a large percentage of Scripture-only Protestants would object to Calvinism. There is hardly a doctrine anywhere that the Protestants don’t have whole denominations disagreeing. Perhaps the most agreed upon doctrine, that salvation by faith alone, is contradicted by the only verse that uses the term “faith alone.”

    I don’t think any Protestant can justifiably claim sola Scriptura. I think they can only claim sola my own interpretation of Scriptura.

    My contradicting verses for you would be Jn. 5:39-40, where Jesus tells the Pharisees that trying to find life in the Scriptures is a bad idea because the Scriptures testify of him, and he is the one that has life. The second is 1 Jn. 2:26-27, which says that the way to avoid those trying to seduce us is by you (plural, not singular) believing the teaching of the anointing. This jives with 1 Tim. 3:15 (church as pillar and support of the truth).

    It takes a church filled with the Spirit of God and with a structure that admits learning to see 1 Tim. 3:15 and 1 Jn. 2:27 fulfilled. It is church and Sripture working together. If not, well, then you can look around and see the results of sola Scriptura.

  6. CFrench Avatar
    CFrench

    Alyssa,

    To add to some of the other critiques already on offer here, I would re-echo the problems with this statement: “First, we fall into the trap of exalting man’s traditions, legalisms, or practices too highly, even to the point of idolatry.” Yet Sola Scriptura is *itself* a tradition and practice of man; it is a position that is utterly alien to the Church prior to the Reformation. The major and often implicit shortcoming of SS as I have always understood it (and as you articulate it in your essay) is the belief that Holy Scripture is somehow a self-interpreting set of documents, which it is not. (If it were, how else would one propose to account for the extraordinary fissiparity of Protestant sects, most of whom claim to conform stringently to Scriptural norms?) Indeed, the only means by which we might arrive at a reliable interpretation is through extra-Scriptural hermeneutic norms, which the Church has called the regula Fidei, the Holy Tradition.

    To confine oneself to Scripture alone is, quite simply, to risk ultimately arriving at error. It took the seven councils of the undivided Church–after much conflict with intransigent heretics–to arrive at a correct and orthodox understanding of the dogmas of the Holy Trinity and the Personhood of Jesus Christ (among other dogmas). The cases that the council Fathers made against the heretics were based in Scripture, but they also exceeded–but complemented!–the Scriptural witness. The Arians, the Docetists, the Nestorians, the Apollinarians, and the various Monophysites all had *Scriptural* cases for their arguments. Scripture alone is insufficient to be the sole determinant of doctrine, even if–and this is a crucial qualfier–the seeds of all doctrine reside therein. Scripture alone, outside the guiding witness of the Church, is too open to misinterpretation. Tradition is not a corruption of Scripture; it is the explication of Scripture in a way that is faithful not merely to Scripture itself but also to the whole body of teaching and witness that fostered the formation of the Scriptural canon and the orthodox faith of the Church. All Tradition is ultimately guided by the normative rule of Scripture, but all interpretations of Scripture must likewise submit themselves to the Tradition if we are to understand whether or not they are for the building up of the Body or not.

    Furthermore, it is clear enough that there was a great deal of teaching, worship, and practice in the earliest days of the Church that goes beyond what is recorded in Scripture. John 21:25 adverts to the fact that even Scripture itself is not an exhaustive account of Our Lord’s Life on earth. So, who are we to suggest that what the Church did and taught (and, more over, what Our Lord may have done and taught that was submitted to the Apostolic witness) in those days is immaterial? Christ established His Church with the power of binding and loosing (Mt. 16:13-20), to determine what is or is not in conformity with the Faith. Presumably this power was precisely what the Church in her early days exerted in formulating the liturgy and doctrine, and what the conciliar Church exercised in specifying the nature of the orthodox Faith.

    The Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture are the two lungs of orthodox doctrine. Without Tradition, our interpretations of Scripture are liable to veer off into the erroneous and even heterodox. Without Scripture, Tradition is liable to become “a fond thing, vainly invented.” But there is a necessary symbiosis between the two. It is the Church in her Tradition that gave us the canon of Scripture. To overlook that fact is very much to confuse the whole issue. Tradition precedes and shapes Scripture, even as it is faithful to what ultimately becomes concretized in the Canon.

    You would do well to read St. Augustine’s masterful treatise on biblical interpretation, _On Christian Doctrine_ (De Doctrina Christiana), in which he outlines the problems of believing in self-interpreting texts. If you want a fuller exposition of tradition, you may also read Yves Congar’s _The Meaning of Tradition_, Jaroslav Pelikan’s _The Vindication of Tradition_, and J.N.D. Kelly’s _Early Christian Doctrine_. The Congar and Pelikan works are fairly short and quite accessible.

    In any event, a good read on a rousing topic. Thank you!

    –Corey

  7. Kenneth O'Shaughnessy Avatar
    Kenneth O’Shaughnessy

    My brief response is simply that the Scriptures are not a handbook of any kind, but the revelation of the Christ whose body is the Church, which bears that revelation to the world. As such, it is inseparable from the context of Christ and his Church – it is impossible for it to be “sola”. Kind of like trying to separate faith and works 😉

    1. mmchanb Avatar
      mmchanb

      Great point and wording, Kenneth.

  8. Charles Quazar Banks Avatar
    Charles Quazar Banks

    Love it. I’m reading through Augustine’s City of God now, and am shocked by the simple but severe errors that this highly reverenced man of God made simply because he interpreted the scriptures through a preconceived worldview, rather than interpreting the world through the truth of the scriptures. I hadn’t thought to connect these errors with the lack of the “sola-scriptura” ideal, but thanks to this post, I better understand the fact.

    1. Alyssa Hall Avatar
      Alyssa Hall

      Thanks Charles! Though many disagree with me, as you will see if you read many of the above comments, I agree with you completely. So glad you found it useful!

      1. Benjamin Winter Avatar
        Benjamin Winter

        Is it possible to agree with someone completely if he doesn’t give any examples of what he’s talking about? 😮

    2. Jody Byrkett Avatar

      Mr Banks, even if Augustine relied on Scripture alone for his beliefs, would it shape his worldview, or might he still have a view of the world that does not stem from Scripture? Worldviews are often “caught not taught”.

      Even when we are relying on sola scriptura in study and trying to model it with our lives, what do we do with passages of Scripture that can be interpreted more than one way, or passages that may even seem contradictory? We tend to pick the interpretation that makes the most sense/appeals to our personality most. Or, we see how other people interpret/live out those ideals. We “catch” our view of the world from parents, friends, neighbours, even enemies—not only the Scriptures.

      I say this not to disagree with you or Alyssa. I do think the Scriptures are our written authority (as God is our ultimate Authority and Scripture is inspired by God, as noted by Alyssa early on)… However, while Scripture is a source of God’s authority, it is not the only influence in anyone’s life; nor do any of us interpret it perfectly in line with God’s Spirit.

      Alyssa, you said, “We may well understand that the Church does not rule the Scriptures; rather the Scriptures ought to rule the Church”, and two paragraphs later begin with, “If we do not see Scripture alone as the final authority for the modern church…” I easily agree with the first statement, but I find the second a bit dogmatic in the sense that sola scriptura must be coupled with sola Christus. Scripture can only be one source of authority—the written word of God—whereas there is a greater Authority, Christ Jesus, the spoken/living Word of God. He obviously doesn’t change Scripture or ask us to go against the written word, but He is not static, He is the dynamic Word—thus Scripture cannot be the final authority of the Church, Jesus must be.

      Your opening paragraphs were a great foundation for the rest of your piece. You write thoughtfully and are obviously seeking to lead others into all truth. You are also gracious with those who may not agree with you and are teachable, which I admire. Keep up the good work!

      1. Alyssa Hall Avatar
        Alyssa Hall

        Hi Jody! Thanks for your encouragement and your thoughts! Yep, I see what you’re saying there and I absolutely agree with your take that Christ is our final authority, and that while He speaks to us and moves in our lives, He moves in accordance with His Word. The reason I phrased the statement in question the way I did was to elevate Scripture above man’s opinions, but I certainly could have (and likely should have) been more clear in conveying a complete picture (that Christ is our final authority too) such as what you were describing above. Thanks for the feedback-you’re always so kind and constructive! 🙂

      2. Jody Byrkett Avatar

        I kind of thought you were going that direction (Scripture over the words or traditions of men) and I certainly agree. =)

      3. Charles Quazar Banks Avatar
        Charles Quazar Banks

        Good points Jody. I am not so sure that worldviews are ONLY caught and not taught, since I myself have had my worldview shifted in a completely new direction multiple times because of isolated, well laid out teachings about worldview, and as to Augustine, the errors in worldview that I referred to are discernible, specific doctrines which can be traced to the school of Alexandria, where he was taught them. I do agree however that I cannot blame Augustine for having grown up in the context which contained the worldview which he caught, indeed he many times relates that his statements are nothing more than orthodox ideas of Christianity based on the Word. The real issue is indeed, as you stated, with our interpretation of the scriptures, not so much our reliance upon the scriptures, for all Christians claim the scriptures as their basis, otherwise they could not truely be called Christians, could they? Also, what exactly does it mean to believe in “sola scriptura?” or for that matter, “sola” anything? If sola scriptura means that we get no inspiration or help from God from any place but the scriptures, then I do not believe that in the slightest. I believe in Prophetic words, in God existing in acts of kindness, in weather patters, in inward nudging, and even acting through unbelievers to positively affect believers, HOWEVER; I believe that I could not have known of these things, and could not draw any reliable meaning from them, if I did not use the scriptures as the ultimate guide to my life. If sola scriptura is to be understood more generally as Miss Alyssa stated, as “the belief that God’s Word alone, rather than the clergy, the Church, or any other human-made structure or framework, is the final authority for all forms of doctrine and practice,” then that means that I can also believe that a scripture can not only mean one thing, but many things at the same time. Many people believe that “resurrection” only refers to a spiritual reality which ocurrs during baptism, others that it can only mean bodily resurrection. Why can it not mean both? That’s what I believe about interpretation. As for not only listening to the scripture but to Christ as well is like saying, “Don’t just listen to the words being spoken, but also to the throat that produces them.” Christ is the Word, and the scriptures are the Word of Christ, the two are inseparable. I cannot believe that Christ is speaking to me spiritually if I cannot discern from the scriptures that what I’m hearing is something which He is actually saying to me. There is no difference in authority of the Word of God, and the Authority of Jesus Christ, for they are the same thing.

      4. Benjamin Winter Avatar
        Benjamin Winter

        Again, you are not naming anything specific when you malign Augustine for his dependence on “the school of Alexandria, where he was taught [discernible, specific doctrines].” Augustine never traveled to Alexandria, and in fact his relationship to the works of Origen (to whom I *think* you may be referring) is ambiguous. We don’t know what Augustine read by Origen. In fact, we know that Augustine’s Greek was not very well developed.

        Also, your statement that resurrection could only be spiritual is not the best example for a principle of polyvalent interpretation. Only affirming spiritual resurrection is a huge theological faux pas; in fact, it’s one of the items that got Origen’s followers condemned. Most would say that a spiritual resurrection is an interpolation of Greek philosophy (where souls are more important than bodies) onto the Biblical philosophy of the human person as both soul and body.

      5. Charles Quazar Banks Avatar
        Charles Quazar Banks

        I read in the copy I have of City of God that he did travel to Alexandria, but perhaps it is wrong. First of all, let me point out that I am no authority upon Augustine, I am simply reading one of his books, and while I agree with a good portion of his statements, I disagree with just as many, which I ascribe to the Greek thinking of the Alexandrian writers whom he mentions reading, within his book City of God. According to Him, he at least skimmed Origen’s book “On First Principles” and discusses it extensively.

        Ok, to get specific with one of the doctrines that I am referring to, I will outline this one; that the seven days of creation were not literal 24 hr periods of time, but rather refer to the symbolic cycle of God knowing his creation by his thought, the creation’s ignorance of itself and God (evening) and creation’s knowledge of itself and God, leading to creation praising Him, (morning.) This is fine as a spiritual speculation, but he states that it is not mere speculation, but one of the only ways to understand what is meant by the Genesis 1 account. This is symptomatic of the Greek worldview of yes, Origen, but also more importantly Plato and Aristotle. If one takes the viewpoint that the Bible is only to be read as symbolic, there is no problem with this, but I take the literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for understanding it.

        Another of Augustine’s doctrines that I refute, is that God’s voice has never been heard by anyone because God is an intellectual Spirit and has no voice, but rather speaks through mental urging. Again Platonic. I believe that God has spoken audibly to the Fathers and prophets. As to the idea of spiritual resurrection, I use that only as an example, for I indeed have met people who take to this theory as belief in my experience. For another example, Augustine’s theory that when God created light, it actually means that he created heaven then; it can’t be proven, but it could very well have been then that God created heaven. Augustine believes that to be the exact time heaven was made, and what is meant by “Light,” whereas I believe it refers both to physical light, and perhaps also to the angels and heaven. Song of Songs is a whole book with a tendency toward multiple interpretations. I accept both a spiritual, Church focused view, a spiritual Israel focused view, and the literal physical view. I also believe in two resurrections, the resurrection of the righteous at one time, and the wicked at another. The Eastern Orthodox church does not accept this at all. In other words, I would rather be more theologically inclusive in situations of polyvalent interpretation than exclusive. That’s my point…except when it comes down to heresy…I’d like to exclude that…

      6. Jody Byrkett Avatar

        Oh my, I had a lot to catch up on after being gone two weekends in a row… Your last line here made me laugh, Adam. 😉 Yes, let’s exclude heresy.

        In my defence, I didn’t say that worldviews are /only/ caught, they certainly are also taught. It would be bizarre for me to say the former, in fact, since I work for a ministry that coined the term ‘worldview’ and teaches them by various ways and means. 😉 From your first comment, however, you implied that Augustine’s beliefs came straight from Scripture, as if nothing else had influenced him, which of course, isn’t realistic because we live inside a world of influences.

        Having only read portions of Augustine’s Confessions, I have nothing further to say about him, as my knowledge is very limited. I’ll let you and Ben wrestle on that one. 🙂 Kudos to you for reading City of God, though; it’s rather lengthy, from what I recall of my parents’ copy.

        I realise you were trying to explain a concept about Scripture being layered in its meaning, but you did pick a very controversial idea to make that point. Yes, we are resurrected in the spiritual realm (being immersed into Christ), but resurrection is certainly bodily, too. (Yes, I know you believe this ^_^) This is not a “one or the other” sort of belief, it is a “both and” and cannot be separated. Your friends who believe only in a spiritual resurrection/re-birth are radically misreading Scripture, and I would say are believing heresy. God made us body, soul (mind, will, emotions), and spirit. We cannot say He only redeems one portion of us; rather, He redeems all of us—body, soul, and spirit.

        I think we are probably saying the same thing in different ways, but to say that Jesus (the Word) is equal in authority with Scripture (written words) might be true, but they are not one and the same. Not to speak heretically here (we’re avoiding that, as I recall), the written word /is/ directed and infallibly inspired by God through His Spirit. However, Jesus is so much bigger than Scripture and is not limited to the things we have written down… This is one of those things than cannot go both ways, Jesus is God, He is not confined to the pages of Scripture, and so cannot be said to be one and the same with it, because that would restrict His infinity.

        Okay, that was my belated and long-winded reply… Hope it made sense. I really appreciate the discussion going on here, you’ve certainly made me think about the importance of how we state things. 🙂

      7. Charles Quazar Banks Avatar
        Charles Quazar Banks

        Indeed! Precision in written communication is crucial, and I have not done such a great job at it it seems. 😛 To be nitpicky, I get what you mean by saying your ministry coined the term ‘worldview’ but that is impossible, for the term worldview is an English calque of the German word Weltanschauung which was used in the 1800s, probably calqued into English in the 1940s. Aaaaanyway…
        As for Augustine, what I meant to say with my first post, is that he definitely did not inform his own perspectives by the scripture alone, whereas if he had, he would not have interpreted the Bible in some of the somewhat strange ways he did, although I agree that there’s no way he could not have been influenced by the ‘worldviews’ of his time. He refuted many of the worldviews of his time, but he also accepted a few that I believe do not fit in with a “Scriptural worldview.” Sola Scriptura is a relatively new thing in Christian theology, which explains why many of Augustine’s ideas sounded so strange to me, as a protestant in the 21st century, who takes some views of the Reformation for granted.

        Yeah, I agree, the Godhead is infinite, but I believe that there is nothing that God wants to reveal to us about Himself on this side of eternity, that He has not already revealed to us in some way in the Bible and the nature of the universe (as well as some of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha perhaps.) I believe that the Bible is also, in a way, infinite in its ability to reveal God to us. I believe we’ll be studying the Bible for all eternity, always finding new facets of God’s glory in the finite number of words written there. It’s not a bad thing to disagree with me in this, but these are strong convictions in me that steer the course of my mind and life.

  9. […] Sola Scriptura’s Relevance for the Modern Church by Alyssa Hall […]

  10. […] Alyssa Hall comments on The Relevance of Sola Scriptura for the Modern Church. […]

Leave a Reply

Conciliar Post

Conciliar Post is an online community and archive devoted to thoughtful Christian reflection. Since its founding, the site has published theological conversations, reflections on Christianity, reviews, and commentary on culture and current events from a Christian perspective.

Top Posts

The Old Testament in OrderDecember 13, 2024Jacob Prahlow
The New Testament in OrderApril 14, 2021Jacob Prahlow
How the Christ Defined the ChristianAugust 15, 2025Matthew Bryan
Why Liturgy?December 2, 2016Wesley Walker
John Wesley and Small GroupsFebruary 17, 2020Jarrett Dickey

Discover more from Conciliar Post

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading