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.

THE EXTENT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

STANLEY

Introduction

There are two issues concerning the extent of the NT canon. First is the missionary teaching of the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Even if we say that the New Testament is not to be treated as a book that dropped straight down from heaven, there are many Christians who believe that the Bible was written as dictation from God, therefore, not to be criticized nor to add nor remove any text from it.

The second issue is a question that can we declare our canonical Bible an authoritative one from which nothing can be removed or into which nothing can be added because of our standard of faith and practice? What if the modern research finds the other writings of Paul or other apostles?

I will try to respond with two points: historical explorations and theological reflection.

Historical Explorations

The formation of the NT canon has been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of their respective faiths.[1] Stephen Voorwinde states that the NT canon “came senkrecht von oben. Its recognition by the Church was not immediate, but was historically qualified.”[2]

During the apostles’ time (ca. 95-150 CE), the early church did not have fixed NT canon. The apostles were the witnesses of the salvation revealed in Christ. During this period, not only writing texts but also oral traditions were also very important. Therefore, until before the middle of the second century CE, we can say, the early church did not need the authority of fixed NT canon though there was awareness of the need of it.

Between 140 and 220 CE, some heretical movements rose up that made more progress for NT canon, namely Marcionism, Gnosticism and Montanism. It cannot be denied that they challenged the church to have more solid foundation on what they really believed and their stand on the Bible (NT). In other words, they were forces for NT canon, intentionally or unintentionally – they made collections of writings which can be called their canons.[3]

Eckhard J. Schnabel  adds another factor for canonization, i.e. persecutions, particularly the Great Persecution under Diocletion between CE 303 and 305, and states, “As Christians were willing to die for the possession of their sacred holy books they had to be certain which books were Scripture and which could he handed over to the authorities.”[4]

During this period, there were some canonical processes like the Muratorian canon[5], Irenaeus’s canon (ca. 130-200)[6], Tertullian’s canon (ca. 130-220)[7], Origen’s canon (ca. 185-254)[8]. After exploring these processes, Stephen Voorwinde concludes that “by the end of the second century the canon was taking shape throughout Christendom. Twenty-three of the twenty-seven books are unquestionably part of the authoritative collection at this time.”[9]

The period between 220 and 400 was the most important decision making process for NT canon. Eusebius (ca. 260-340) came up with 27 canonical books of the NT (with recognized and disputed). Athanasius (296-373) also came up his collections exactly the same with our NT in CE 367. The 27 NT canon was also confirmed by church councils such as the Greek church, the Latin church, the Syrian church and the Ethiopian church. From this time on there was no real challenge to the canon until the time of the Enlightenment.[10]

For the conclusion of the historical considerations, I want to quote the statement of Bruce Metzger, quoted by Eckhard J. Schnabel, which says, “the collection of NT books was, on the historical level, (a) the result of different factors operating ‘at different times and in different places,’ and (b) due to the self-authenticating calibre of the canonical books as ‘a clear case of the survival of the fittest’.”[11]

Theological Reflection

As the NT canon is also a concept of authority over the faith and practices of the churches and individual believers, I will try to give theological reflection on the extent of the NT canon. From the historical considerations, the canonization of the NT took very long period. It is very difficult or even impossible to complete without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Without the presence of the Holy Spirit and wisdom and courage from God, it is impossible to overcome and pass throughout this challenging history. Therefore, the inclusion of 27 books in the NT canon is not a mistake and without doubt.

Although the NT canon was affirmed by church councils (or church fathers), the NT canon is not just the product of the apostles nor of church leaders and councils but of the promise of God. Stephen Voorwinde states,

“The Church did not give authority to the canon rather it recognized its authority. … the canon selected itself than that the Church selected it. … Canonicity is something in the book itself, something that God has given to it, not a favoured status that the Church confers upon it.”[12]

In theological reflection, criteria for canonicity of the NT are also prominent. Many modern Protestants point to the four criteria: (a) apostolic origin - attributed to and based upon the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions); (b) universal acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century); (c) liturgical use - read publicly when early Christian communities gathered; (d) consistent message - containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.[13] There are still questions and challenges over these criteria like the inclusion of some disputed letters, different canonical books within Christian communities, use of selected-portions in liturgies.

As we have heard from the lecture, Eckhard J. Schnabel also includes the “rule of faith” for the prerequisite for canonical status, stating “A basic prerequisite for canonical status in the early church was conformity to the ‘rule of faith’ (regula fidei) or “rule of truth’ (regula veritatis).”[14]

Conclusion

In both historical and theological reflections, there are still questions and challenges that cannot be dealt completely. But we should not assume that the canon was done easily and without care. It was closed with care and concern.

Most of the Christians do not have clear understanding between canon [15] and inspiration. It is very important to introduce that “the concept of inspiration is much broader than the concept of canon, even than the Bible itself.”[16] The canons listed in the Bible are usually considered "closed."[17] Therefore, we need to introduce the idea that “in a sense, canon is close, but is still in the process of interpretation, reading or understanding.” In other expression, I agree with Prof. Roukema’s word that ‘practically, the canon is closed but theoretically, it is still open.’

Although the NT canon that we have will not be complete and cannot solve all the problems like the infancy of Jesus Christ, it is not deficient for our faith and practices. In preaching, many pastors use stories both from apocrypha and other texts other than the biblical texts as complements. Therefore, it is my idea that we should not neglect apocryphal books and other texts but use as “complimentary texts of the canonical Bible” or “companions to the Bible.”

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon accessed in December 9, 2011.

[2] Stephen Voorwinde, The Formation of the New Testament Canon (from Vox Reformata 60 , 1995) accessed from http://www.bible-researcher.com/voorwinde1.html in December 9, 2011

[3] Stephen Voorwinde. See more in Eckhard J. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Schnabel, “History, Theology and the Biblical Canon: An Introduction to Basic Issues,” in Themelios 20.2 (1995): 19-24 accessed from http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/canon_schnabel.pdf in December 9, 2011.

[4] Eckhard J. Schnabel, 20.

[5] The Muratorian Canon, believed to be written in Rome towards the end of the second century, was discovered in 1740 by L. A. Muratori, which lists all the books of our NT except Hebrews, James and 2 Peter.

[6] In his collection, Irenaeus included the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture but not in the list of apostolic writings. He did not include Hebrews, and it is uncertain whether he accepted  the general epistles (except 1Peter, 1 and 2 John).

[7] There were 22 books in Tertullian’s canon – the four Gospels, Acts, the 13 epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation, but not Hebrews.

[8] According to F. F. Bruce, Origen “acknowledged the four canonical Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation.”

[9] Stephen Voorwinde, Eckhard J. Schnabel, 19.

[10] Stephen Voorwinde. See more on Eckhard J. Schnabel, 19.

[11] Eckhard J. Schnabel, 20.

[12] Stephen Voorwinde. The same idea can be read in Eckhard J. Schnabel, 21.

[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon accessed in December 9, 2011.

[14] Eckhard J. Schnabel, 20.

[15] Stephen Voorwinde, He stated that “The term "canon" as we use it when referring to the canon of Scripture is therefore not a use of the term in its biblical sense, but conforms to ecclesiastical usage from the fourth century onwards. This is also the way the word was used at the time of the Reformation. Particularly in the Reformed confessions the term is used almost exclusively of the "rule," "norm" or "established list" of the Scriptures.”

[16] Harry Y. Gamble, “Canon: New Testament,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, 1992, 858.

[17] I read in somewhere that the idea of the canon as closed came from Augustine’s teachings.