Biblical Authority
Why do so many self-described Christians explicitly or implicitly deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? That is, why are the doctrines of the authority, infallibility, and inspiration of Scripture mishandled, distorted, or abandoned altogether in the 21st century, even among purportedly Bible-believing Christians? To begin to answer this, we must define our terms. First and most crucial, what is Sola Scriptura? “Sola Scriptura means that only Scripture, because it is God’s inspired Word, is our inerrant, sufficient, and final authority for the church” (Barrett, p. 23). Thus, the Bible, particularly according to the theology of the 16th century Reformers, is our ultimate authority for faith and practice.
Why should the controversy surrounding the doctrine of Sola Scriptura interest us? Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that “without the authority of Scripture, our theological convictions are merely conjectures and our preaching becomes nothing more than a display of human folly” (Barrett, p. 15). This is because only an orthodox, reverent attitude toward Scripture results in preaching and discipleship that is true to the Gospel. Christian teaching has always been attacked, but only in the previous two centuries have key doctrines been criticized and rejected within the visible church, testifying that we are “by nature children under wrath as the others were also” (Ephesians 2:3) and therefore must constantly abide in the truth of Scripture. Finally, if we ultimately appeal to science, logic, or reason as functional arbiters by which Scripture should be judged, then we have determined science, logic, and reason to be of higher authority than the very words of God. Thus, the reasons people deny Sola Scriptura are numerous. False teachers and reprobate philosophers have historically replaced the authority of Scripture with the authority of their own reasonings or observations. Moreover, whether out of ignorance or willful spite, many believers don’t recognize the weight Scripture has on Christian practice and not simply Christian doctrine. In the end, the reality is that the fallen, unregenerate hearts of men and women want human beings, not God, to be the final authority. “You have never heard; you have never known; for a long time your ears have not been open. For I knew that you were very treacherous, and were known as a rebel from birth” (Isaiah 48:8).
We’ve established the definition of Sola Scriptura, but the truth of this doctrine needs to be established. First of all, Scripture should be our highest authority and final authority because only the Bible is the written Word of God. “The ultimate source of every prophecy was never a man’s decision about what he wanted to write, but rather the Holy Spirit’s action in the prophet’s life” (Grudem, p. 75). Secondly, God, being the transcendent Creator, Lawgiver, and Governor over creation, necessarily holds a greater authority over the faith and practice of human beings than any other person or creed. The divine law is not binding on a man if it is “bound” upon him by his equals, since that man, made in the image of God like every other human, has an equally valid voice, opinion, and standard of his own that cannot be challenged unless one appeals to a universal, transcendent, immutable standard. “Lord, your word is forever; it is firmly fixed in heaven” (Psalm 119:89). Thirdly, not only is Scripture God’s very words and not only is God’s law the only eternally binding standard, the Word of God is perfect in its character and its content. That is, it’s moral beauty far surpasses that of any human making and it is utterly infallible, since it comes from a God who is Truth and Wisdom. “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping your word. … I understand more than the elders because I obey your precepts” (Psalm 119:9, 100).
This is in contrast to both the Catholic view and the Anabaptist view. “Just as [the Reformers] had to combat the Roman Catholic position which effectively made the church autonomous and the Radical Anabaptist position which effectively made the individual autonomous, so we too must combat both of these defective views” (Mathison, p. 14). Indeed, the Reformers, the exemplary proponents of Sola Scriptura, did not seek to abandon tradition entirely but rather to return the church to the orthodox tradition of the early church. In fact, the Reformation debate was not Scripture vs. Tradition but Tradition I vs. Tradition II. In other words, Reformed theology teaches that only Scripture is the source of divine revelation while Catholic dogma holds that both Scripture and tradition are sources of divine revelation, which erroneously gives man’s words the same weight as God’s words. Tradition is useful, but tradition is man-made and thus errant.
Moreover, on the other side of the spectrum, Sola Scriptura has been distorted into Nuda Scriptura, the latter implying that Scripture is the only authority rather than the only infallible authority. This results in another form of heterodox autonomy, except in this case it is not the church that is autonomous but the individual that is autonomous. Those who hold to Nuda Scriptura mistakenly view the Reformation debate as Scripture vs. Tradition, choose Scripture as the victor, and therefore consign tradition to the waste-bin. But, as aforementioned, this is neither spiritually healthy nor does it conform to the message the Reformers sought to send. The ability to read Scripture for oneself is a great privilege, but it cannot be abused to the point of ignoring all tradition. Thus, we already see reasons why the doctrine of Sola Scriptura may be rejected; the errors of Catholicism and Radical Anabaptism demonstrate that man often seeks autonomy and stridently resists the sovereignty and authority of God and his Word.
In order to further answer the question of why Sola Scriptura is explicitly or implicitly denied, it is essential to look at the historical context. Moreover, it is helpful to begin with ancient Greek philosophy since it helped lay the groundwork for much of ancient and medieval Christian philosophy. “It is rather the total attitude fostered by the Platonic philosophy -- I refer to the belief in transcendental Reality, eternal values, immortality, righteousness, Providence, etc…, and the characteristic mental and emotional attitude that is logically fostered by such belief -- rather than any specific arguments which helped to lead up to the acceptance of Christianity” (Copleston: Volume I, p. 502). Furthermore, Neoplatonism, which arose out of Platonic philosophy and was later adopted by Saint Augustine, promotes a moral/spiritual ascent to God based on transcendentally based standards. Thus, when Christians dove more deeply into the realm of philosophy, they already possessed or had access to a great number of dialectical tools and metaphysical concepts. This is the atmosphere in which early Christianity was accepted, an atmosphere much different than those of later times, as we’ll see.
The need for a more developed theistic philosophy made itself apparent when, as Christianity developed and thrived, suspicion from Jews, politicians, and pagans grew. Christian interest in building a more thorough, philosophically literate theology came about, particularly in the era of the church fathers, for two reasons: the first “was clearly due primarily to a cause external to Christianity, namely hostile attack; but there was also another reason for this growth … The more intellectual Christians naturally felt the desire to penetrate … the data of revelation and also to form a comprehensive view of the world and human life in the light of faith” (Copleston: Volume II, p. 14). Moreover, since the philosophy and theology of most Christians of the Patristic period was less developed than their medieval - and certainly 16th Century - counterparts, they borrowed terms and theories from, and showed preference for, the predominant philosophy: Platonism.
The pinnacle of such philosophical integration is arguably found in Saint Augustine, preeminent theologian of the early church. Compared to previous theologians in earlier centuries, Augustine had a deeper understanding and clearer exposition of select doctrines of the faith, such as original sin, the existence of God, and the nature of grace. What does this have to do with Scripture? Though his opinion on Sola Scriptura is certainly not as explicitly and exhaustively developed as the Reformers, Augustine declares that “I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles” (Mathison, p. 40). One difference between him and Luther, for example, is that Augustine possibly believed in the inspiration of certain apostolic traditions. Yet it seems reasonable to assume that he would have held apostolic tradition high because he believed it to be divine, and that he would have removed it from a position of divine authority if he was convinced of its purely man-made quality. In other words, his priorities are still correctly arranged because the words of God are, in his view, more binding than the words of man. Thus, the Platonist focus on transcendental grounding may be found in Augustine’s emphasis on divine authority.
In the Middle Ages, concerning philosophy and theology, we find a similar case to the Patristic period but with noticeable differences. St. Thomas Aquinas, the most eminent theologian of the late Middle Ages, distinguished between theology as emphasizing divine revelation and philosophy as emphasizing human reason unaided by revelation. “The theologian … although he certainly uses his reason, accepts his principles on authority, on faith” (Copleston: Volume II, p. 312). This is in contrast to earlier Christian thinkers who integrated philosophical language into their theology but didn’t necessarily treat philosophy and theology as separate fields. “St. Augustine could make no very rigid distinction between philosophy and theology, even though he distinguished between the natural light of reason and supernatural faith” (Volume II, p. 243). However, it’s still true that “owing to the common background of the Christian faith, the world presented itself for interpretation to the mediaeval thinker more or less in a common light” (Volume II, p. 8). In other words, Christian medieval thinkers had essentially the same worldview even if their philosophies were more systematic than in the past.
During the Middle Ages, the issue of the relationship between philosophy and theology was intrinsically tied to the authority of Scripture. “In the tenth and eleventh centuries the beginning of a trend away from the Augustinian concept of reason and revelation may be detected” (Mathison, p. 69). This trend was resisted by philosophers such as Aquinas who critically accepted Aristotelianism as largely true but supplemented this relatively complete and autonomous philosophy with theology. The problem was that “once philosophy was recognized as an intrinsically autonomous discipline, it was only to be expected that it should tend in the course of time to go its own way and that it should, as it were, chafe at its bonds and resent its position as handmaid of theology” (Copleston: Volume III, p. 7). This was essentially consummated in the thought of William of Ockham who drove the metaphorical wedge between philosophy and theology; “the nominalists left faith hanging in the air, without any rational basis” (Volume III, p. 11). Naturally then, an appeal to and reverence for divine scriptural authority was seen as less necessary or perhaps trivial at worst.
The next period of history involves two important movements: the Renaissance and the Reformation. We must remember that in the thirteenth century, prominent thinkers did critique each other’s opinions, but on the whole, they accepted the same faith and the same metaphysics. However, during the Renaissance, “texts were read in a new light. It was a question of appreciating the texts and the thought therein contained for themselves and not just as possible resources of Christian edification” (Copleston: Volume III, p. 18). The development of the human personality thus took on a more naturalistic light. Christian philosophy began to better favor the study of nature since the material world was taken as real and as God’s creation. “God was certainly not denied; but the emphasis was placed, in varying degrees with different philosophers, on nature itself” (Volume III, p. 20). Furthermore, the Renaissance brought about the maturity and autonomy of physical science; scientists explored and established laws that guided natural events. Thus, science was soon to break loose from its role as a field of philosophy just as philosophy broke loose from its role as a tool for theology. “The development of science made it much easier than it formerly had been to consider the world from a point of view which had no obvious connection with theology” (Volume III, p. 421).
This explains some of the context behind the Reformation. What Martin Luther and John Calvin butted up against was the autonomy of man in the church. What later Reformers butted up against was the autonomy of man in the individual. In both the separation of philosophy from theology and the separation of science from philosophy, the autonomy of man was made more prevalent. Luther fought against this fiercely. He argued that in contrast to church councils and popes, “the Scriptures alone, could not and do not err” (Barrett, p. 40) since the Scriptures are divinely inspired. Again, church tradition was not meaningless or inherently false, but its role was ministerial rather than magisterial, “a handmaiden to the biblical witness” (Barrett, p. 45). Moreover, it is easy to see how the Reformers wanted to restore theology to its original status as principal academic/spiritual study, as opposed to chains that inhibited the autonomy of man and thereby the independence of science and philosophy. At the same time, the Reformers grew weary when the abandonment of Catholic tradition led to radical individualism that completely disregarded tradition. “As far as the fathers and councils were consistent with Scripture, Luther said, they were to be listened to and obeyed” (Barrett, p. 55).
John Calvin, along with Luther, was a staunch defender of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Calvin made clear that every matter of church dogma and Christian practice needs to be tested by the Word of God. “The church did not create the Word, but rather the Word, by the power of the Spirit, created the Church” (Barrett, p. 64). For him also, Scripture is from God and whatever it says is directly the words of God. Calvin held not only that Scripture is our ultimate authority but that this authority is not determined by the church but by God himself. “The church receives that which God has already put in place, bearing witness to that which God has declared in his Word” (Barrett, p. 67). Furthermore, he put great emphasis on the fact that our most credible proof for the inspiration of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, not “human reasons, judgments, or conjectures” (p. 67). Similar to Luther, the reason Calvin put Scripture above church tradition and councils is because God does not err; only man errs. “Where a council departs from Scripture … that council’s authority is not to be heeded” (p. 70). Calvin sought to restore the relationship between divine authority and human reason to its correct form.
While the Protestant Reformers may have put a considerable dent in Roman papalism, a new papalism emerged; rather than the pope or church being infallible, the biblical scholar became infallible. “Where the Reformers urged interpreters to approach the text with reverence and hermeneutical humility, the reader was now encouraged to approach the text as its lord and judge” (Barrett, p. 77). In sum, reason won the day and the Bible came to be treated as fallible. Rome’s problem was considering too many things to be divinely inspired, but the problem of the Enlightenment was that many of its thinkers considered nothing to be divinely inspired. According to Enlightenment philosophy, “reason was the golden ticket to a life of total objectivity, free from bias” (Barrett, p. 79). This manifested in a few stages: First, philosophers such as John Locke asserted that Christianity is rational and should supplement natural philosophy. Later, it was claimed that if Christianity is rational, it could be derived from reason itself. Consequently, religion became an unnecessary restatement of natural philosophy. Finally, reason superseded revelation and became the judge of everything. As a result, the Bible was seen to be full of errors.
What followed the eighteenth century Enlightenment was nineteenth and twentieth century Liberalism. “Protestant Liberalism was an intentional renovation of Christian orthodoxy to accommodate Enlightenment thought” (Barrett, p. 91). It sought to tweak Christianity so that it might meet issues raised by the Enlightenment. Sola Scriptura theology sees special revelation as the standard for Christian thinking, but the “theology from below” (p. 92) of Liberalism sees human experience as the standard. In other words, instead of human reason being judged by Scripture, Scripture was to be judged by human reason. Thus, in the Protestant Liberal strain, one can never reach the conclusion that the Bible is inspired and inerrant.
As Liberalism pushed into the 20th century, theologians such as J. Gresham Machen and B. B. Warfield established themselves as the primary opponents of Protestant Liberalism. In fact, Machen believed that “Protestant Liberalism … is not a different type of Christianity, but another religion altogether” (Barrett, p. 112). He also challenged the idea that it doesn’t fundamentally matter whether Jesus was a historical figure or not, quoting from 1 Corinthians to buttress his point. “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins” (15:17). Furthermore, Machen argued that the inspiration of Scripture goes hand in hand with the inerrancy of Scripture; they both flow out of the full doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If the Bible is the Word of God and completely truthful, it should logically be our ultimate authority for faith and practice. Finally, he declares that if we claim to be Christians and yet disagree with Christ’s reverent attitude toward the Scriptures, are we really who we claim to be? “Christianity is founded upon the Bible. … Liberalism … is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men” (Barrett, p. 114).
The 20th century also contained the controversy between Modernism and Fundamentalism. The modernists aimed to basically make Christianity and the Bible less offensive to the modern world, despite the fact that the Christian faith is “a stone to stumble over, and a rock to trip over” (1 Peter 2:8). Fundamentalists responded by defending Christianity as it is and as it should be, along with all the miracles and politically incorrect commands that it contains. As the century progressed and new attacks on or distortions of orthodox Christianity were raised, conservative evangelicals took a stand for the authority and inerrancy of Scripture: “The whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration” (Barrett, p. 28, referring to Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).
The latest challenge to the authority of Scripture has been postmodernism. This new movement consists of two tenets: 1) “For the postmodernist, there is no such thing as objective truth” (Barrett, p. 131). Truth is only relative or subjective. 2) “Second, postmodernism is characterized by deconstructionism” (p. 132). There is no singular meaning for life or reality. What happens when this view is applied to the text of Scripture? The result is hermeneutical non-realism. Thus, postmodernism is, by definition, an enemy to biblical authority “which not only asserts that the reader is subservient to the author [God] … but also holds that meaning and truth are determined by God, not by us, the readers” (pp. 135-6). Moreover, postmodernism has not had its final say and many books critiquing the essential doctrines concerning Scripture continue to be written, even within apparently evangelical circles.
So, why is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura implicitly or explicitly denied in the world today? We can list several reasons.
Man has often sought autonomy either in the church or in himself.
As philosophy became autonomous and distinct from theology, it soon broke from theology and biblical authority.
Similarly, as science matured and became autonomous, it separated from philosophy and theology.
The Enlightenment brought about the exaltation of human reason and the advent of modernism and postmodernism led to the emphasis of subjective experience over objective truth.
Fundamentally, the problem arises when man looks to himself for reliance and ultimate knowledge and not the triune God of the Bible; this is man’s natural tendency because we live in a Genesis 3 world.
Sola Scriptura has never enjoyed long periods of assent in Christendom without faithful Christians having to battle against those that would undermine it. Sola Scriptura has never known peace; it is a garrison of orthodoxy that is persistently challenged. Fallen humanity has always been - and will always be - tempted to echo the words of the serpent in the garden, “Did God really say?” Sola Scriptura stands with the ready answer: “Yes.”
References
Christian Standard Bible. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers (2017).
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy: Volume I, Volume II, Volume III. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press (1946, 1950, 1953).
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press (1994).
Barrett, Matthew. God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture - What the Reformers Taught … and Why It Still Matters. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan (2016).
Mathison, Keith. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, ID: Canon Press (2001).
