SOLA SCRIPTURA - PRINCIPLE IN THE CONTEXT OF 
THE REFORMATION AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT

Stanley

Introduction

The concept of sola Scriptura, the Bible is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian[1], came out obviously from the 14^th century onward. It was a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship of Scripture and tradition. In other words, it is the debate between the belief that only the Scripture was the sole source of divine revelation and authoritative doctrinal norm, that is to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the “rule of faith,” and the belief that tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation.[2] I will explore its meaning, function and development, and I will conclude with a short evaluation.

Meaning, Function and Development of Sola Scriptura

Doctrinal diversity happened within the church in the early 14^th century since “the emergence of several different theological schools of thought; disagreements on the sources of theology and their interrelationships; disagreements concerning theological methodology; the rise of lay piety; and general confusion regarding the official teaching of the Church on certain doctrines – most notably the doctrine of justification.” A debate came up again with the Reformation, which concerned the source and norm of the Church’s doctrine and practice in the 16^th century. Oberman observes, quoted by Mathison, that “traditionally this is described as the clash of the sola Scriptura – principle with the Scripture and traditional-principle.”[3]

The Reformers tried to reform the Church by returning to her ancient beliefs and practices. Their principle is not to reject the Church or the apostolic faith, but to remove the abuses that had come to cripple the Church and obscure that faith. The most important thing that drew Luther’s angry attention was the dispensing of indulgences during the time of Pope Leo X (1513-1521), which caused Luther’s 95 theses nailed at the door of the Castle Church on October 31, 1517. Luther’s fist public hints of the concept of sola Scriptura was at the Leipzig debate between himself and John Eck. He said, “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” Luther did not attack and reject the true Catholic tradition but certain “traditions” – customs and ceremonies. He attempted to distinguish Scripture from the multitudes of conflicting authorities that existed in the Church – Roman ecclesiastical institution with the pope as its head.[4] He never really sought to eliminate tradition altogether. What he really attempted to do was to use the Bible to get rid of those parts of the Roman tradition that were corrupt.[5]

The Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura did not ever mean, Richard Muller observes, that “all of theology ought to be constructed anew, without reference to the church’s tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete confronting the naked text.” But unfortunately, the so-called “revisionist doctrine of solo Scriptura,” which said Scripture is the only infallible authority and rejected the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds, came up within the individualistic view of the radical Reformation and combined with the rationalism of the Enlightenment and the populism of the new democracy in America during 18^th century.[6]

In the time of Enlightenment, especially in the 18^th century, the traditional claim of the Bible: authenticity, veracity, integrity of text, goodness and pertinence of teachings, was challenged as human rationalism arose. Therefore, it is said that the Enlightenment was generally hostile to the Bible because of the corrosive rationalism it brought to bear upon it. Especially Baruch de Spinoza tried to “liberate civil society from theocracy based on biblical authority the adversaries of the Bible would owe such a profound debt – to exploit the techniques of liberal interpretation the better to display the Bible’s deficiencies.”[7] He regarded miracle stories in the Bible as natural effects, which surpasses, or is believed to surpass, human understanding.[8]

Concluding Evaluation

Throughout the development of the concept of sola Scriptura, there are many interpretations on it. For some people, it means believing the Bible only as authoritative and complete, and rejecting traditions and creeds. For some people, it was a threat to the church. For others, it functioned as defender of apostolic faith. Sometimes it was used to unify churches as the same time as division among them. Therefore, how it functions in our context is one of the challenges today.

From the texts we have read and lectures from Prof. dr. Kirn, I come to realize that there are many different concepts or functions of sola Scriptura among Christians. I would like to give evaluation with my context as a Chin Baptist in Burma. Generally, we can say that our belief on the Bible in Burma is more on solo Scriptura (Biblicism or Bible-believers) than sola Scriptura. The Bible is believed to be written as dictation from God to be interpreted literally. We don’t have a clear understanding of sola Scriptura. This false understanding of sola Scriptura with solo Scriptura cause more schism than unifying between Christian denominations and believers.

I agree with Mathison that “the issue of the doctrine of sola Scriptura did not concern the status of Scripture as much as it concerned the interpretation of Scripture.”[9] “The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is rendered either meaningless or unusable without a reliable hermeneutical program,” McGrath states.[10] Therefore, proper hermeneutics, relevant to the context where the Gospel is preached, is also very important in the concept of sola Scriptura. Scripture and hermeneutics (interpretations) must go together hand in hand “to lead the way into and point toward the Scriptures.”[11]

From the above idea, it is clear that the Reformers’ idea of sola Scriptura is not to reject Church tradition for our faith and practices. Therefore, we need to go back to the real concept of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, i.e., regarding the Scripture as the sole authority of our faith and practices, interpreted by the church without neglecting our traditions (including creeds and beliefs) or the “rule of faith.”

As taught and brought up within a Baptist circle that Scripture is the only authoritative Word of God for faith and practice, and neglecting or rejecting traditions for faith and practice, it is a very big challenge to introduce the classical Reformers’ doctrine of sola Scriptura!

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura (accessed in December 13, 2011), http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html (accessed in December 13, 2011), Keith A. Mathison, Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes, and The Shape of Sola Scriptura, (Moscow ID: 2001), 85.

[2] Keith A. Mathison, Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes. See more in Keith Mathison, A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura, and The Shape of Sola Scriptura, (Moscow ID: 2001), 86.

[3] Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, (Moscow ID: 2001), 84.

[4] Ibid, 85, 90-92, 95, 97, 99

[5] Fr. John Whiteford, Sola Scriptura: In the Vanity of Their Minds on http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx (accessed in December 15, 2011).

[6] Keith A. Mathison, Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes. See more in Keith Mathison, A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura.

[7] B. E. Schwartzbach, “Bible,” in Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment, vol. 1, 148, 149, 152.

[8] J. Israel, Radical Enlightenment, (New York, 2001), 219, 221.

[9] Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, (Moscow ID: 2001), 85.

[10] A. E. McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, 2^nd ed., (Oxford, 2006), 148.

[11] T. F. Lull, Martin Luther’s Theological Writings, 2^nd ed., (Minneapolis, 2005), 71.