Solo vs. Sola

Photo courtesy of dualski.com

If you follow my blog, you know that I have been wrestling over the two distinctive tenets of faith that ultimately led to the formation of the Protestant faith: sola fide (faith alone) and sola scriptura (Scripture alone).  In my personal wrestling and research, I have had to confront difficult questions such as:

• Do faith traditions matter?
• If so, how much does tradition matter?
• Who has the final authority--the Church (aka its leaders) or Scripture?

These are no small questions--not for us today, and not for the reformers in the 16th century--but they are essential questions for us to wrestle with if we are truly to understand what we believe as Christians and why.

Let's take a quick look back at 1517, the year that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the doors of the church in Wittenburg.  Now realize that Luther's stance on the authority of scripture over and against Rome had not fully matured at this time--it would be formed out of debates with the Catholic church in the years to come.  One such debate was in 1519 at Leipzig where Luther would debate Johann Eck.  It was here that Eck brought the real issue to the table: who had the final authority...the pope or God's Word?  Eck's stance would claim that Scripture receives its authority from the Pope; Luther would vehemently disagree, stating that Scripture has authority over popes, church fathers, church councils, etc, because they are not inerrant.

Luther's stance, which would come to be known as sola scriptura, would be most famously articulated at the Diet of Worms in 1521, when Luther was told to recant his position.  His response would include the famous line: "Here I stand"... 

"I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise. Here I stand. May God help me. Amen."

For me as a modern day Protestant, the story ended here and my lasting impression of the matter could be summarized as this:

Protestants must throw out all Church authority because the Bible stands alone as the sole authority.

As I have grown in the faith, this summation has become most dissatisfying on many levels.  As a Christ follower, I want to look back through church history and glean wisdom from its rich traditions and heritage and from our first, second, and third century church fathers.  I want to reflect upon the mighty creeds of our faith--the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed--and teach them to my children.  Are these creeds right and true? Can I trust biblical interpretation on the individual level?  Is it really necessary to pit the Church against the Scriptures?  

Oh, but dear friend, it does not have to be like this!  For unbenownst to me, this tenet of "sola scriptura" has been warped into "solo scriptura" in many of our Protestant churches.  You see, it is not the Bible alone (SOLO scriptura)--and it never has been!  The men of the Reformation--Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli-- did not pose a strict either/or dilemma: tradition or Scripture.  In fact, we would be wrong to think that the reformers did not value tradition or see it as an authority (albeit subordinate) in some sense.

This article put out by Gospel Coalition has helped me to better understand this crucial difference between the sola scriptura of the Reformation, and the radicalized version of solo scriptura that so many of our Protestant churches purport.  I'd strongly encourage you to read the entire article, but let me quote a bit for you if you don't have the time:

"I wish I could say that all evangelicals today have a crisp, accurate grasp of sola scriptura. I am hopeful that many understand how a Protestant view of Scripture and tradition differs from Rome's position. However, I am less confident that evangelicals understand the difference between sola and solo scriptura, for in some cases the latter is assumed to be the identity of the former.  Consequently, some evangelicals, intentionally or unintentionally, have followed in the footsteps of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) who said, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.” Ironically, such a view cannot preserve sola scriptura. Sure, tradition is not being elevated to the level of Scripture. But the individual is! As Keith Mathison laments, in this view everything is “evaluated according to the final standard of the individual's opinion of what is and is not scriptural.” To be sure, such a view lends itself more in the direction of individual autonomy than scriptural accountability."

So you see, sola scriptura does not mean that we must throw out the riches of church tradition and history, nor does it mean that we are left only with our individual interpretation of the Scriptures.  It also does not mean we throw out the historic creeds and confessions of the historic church--while they are not infallible sources of divine revelation, they are consistent with Scripture and have withstood the test of time in speaking authoritatively against heresy.  We do not have to throw out the writings of the church fathers--we must simply judge them by the "touchstone of Scripture" and use them as valuable guides in biblical interpretation.  Embracing the true spirit of sola scriptura exhorts us to humbly realize that we are standing on the shoulders of those brave brothers and sisters in the faith who came before us.

So, dear friend, as Protestant believers, we do not have to turn our backs on faith tradition and the church fathers, creeds, and councils, in the name of sola scriptura!  It is not, nor has it ever been, the Bible alone, in that sense.  The Bible as the final authority--yes.  But let us never fall into the trap of pitting the Bible against the Church (or faith against works for that matter) and let us understand the heart of our Christian faith and heritage!