This post explains the most important change in my thinking as I shifted from evangelicalism to Orthodoxy: the change from a Protestant understanding of the Bible to an Orthodox one. More than any other, this was the issue that convinced me about Orthodoxy. I am going to be as thorough and careful as possible in explaining my reasoning for rejecting sola scriptura and embracing the eastern understanding of Sacred Tradition. For this reason, the post has been split into three parts. In this part, I'll explain and defend the doctrine of sola scriptura as best I can. In the next, I'll explain why I no longer find it believable. In the third part, I'll describe Tradition as I understand it now.
What is sola scriptura?
Sola scriptura (Latin for "Scripture alone") is a central and distinctive part of Protestant theology. Basically, it is the teaching that as the divinely inspired word of God, the Bible is the ultimate authority in belief and practice for the Christian; that is, Scripture alone gets the final word in these matters. Based on sola scriptura, Luther said, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it."
- Inspiration: First and foremost, sola scriptura means that the Bible is inspired by God, so that its words are not merely human words but the very words of God himself. "All scripture is inspired by God", says 2 Tim 3:16-17, "and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2 Pet 1:20-21 says that "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The Bible is truly unique in this manner. Wayne Grudem writes, "The Bible alone is the Word of God written. There are no other written words of God anywhere else in the entire world. And the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God written. Every single bit of this book in the original documents has a fundamentally different character from every other bit of writing in the entire world." The Bible is God's self-revelation to us, a much-needed message of truth and salvation.
- Perspicuity (clarity): Sola scriptura also holds that Scripture is perspicuous, that is, clear and understandable rather than confusing or muddled, at least regarding matters of salvation. This means that the Bible's message of salvation is freely available to anyone who can read it and whose heart is open to God's voice. This is a corollary of inspiration, Scripture's being the word of God; why would God speak to his people in an unclear way? "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace." (1 Cor 14:35) No pope, council, bishop, or other external guide is needed to unlock the meaning of Scripture; it is available to everyone who sincerely seeks it. The Westminster Confession says that "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."
- Authority: Third, it means that the Bible is not merely informative but authoritative in matters of faith and practice. Everything the Bible says must be accepted as the truth, everything it promises can be relied on, and everything it commands is morally normative for us. This is also a corollary of inspiration; the Bible is God's word, and God does not (indeed, cannot) lie (Num 23:19, Pro 30:5, Tts 1:2), and his promise proves true. (Psa 18:30) It is unthinkable that God would mislead or misinform us in his inspired word. (Whether the Bible can err in nonsalvific matters of science or history is beyond the scope of the present post) Regarding this the Westminster Confession says, "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God." Again, Scripture is alone in this regard; or more accurately, though there may be lesser theological and ecclesial authorities in a Christian's life, the Bible stands above them all and judges them all; because it is God's inspired word, nothing else can override or contradict it.
- Sufficiency: Finally, sola scriptura believes that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is sufficient for all matters of faith and practice. Its message, and the truths that can be reasonably inferred from it, give us everything we need to know to live and worship as Christians; we don't need to look anywhere else to find anything necessary to our faith. Regarding this, the Westminster confession states that "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." This is not a denial of the usefulness of traditions, creeds, and theological writings old and new, but these things are only true and valid insofar as they align with what Scripture says. They never reveal anything new, as if man could add to the word of God, but may be helpful for elaborating on what the Bible says. Again, recall that 2 Tim 3:16-17 says that "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Scripture is sufficient to lead us to a complete faith, so we need look nowhere else. Anything not found in Scripture or inferred from it is not binding on the Christian.
In summary, sola scriptura means that the Bible alone is necessary and sufficient to establish the Christian faith in its belief and practice, and to govern God's Church. Everything that is obligatory for all Christians to believe is found in it, anything not in it is thus not essential for being a Christian. In all of this, the Bible is able to stand alone as the inspired word of God. It needs no supplement and needs no church or council to establish its authority; it is self-contained and needing nothing from man, like God himself.
A brief history of sola scriptura
Though others had similar ideas before him, the German monk Martin Luther is the most influential exponent of sola scriptura to those who hold it today. Knowing the historical context from which sola scriptura arose is helpful for knowing its purpose and meaning.
Luther grew up during a time of great trouble in the Church. The papacy was corrupt; it had endured centuries of schism and heavily political clashes with kings and rivals. More recently, several popes seemed more interested in the arts than in wisely heading the Church. Corruption was also widespread among lower-level prelates, who were not above using their positions for personal profit, at the cost of the poor they were supposed to defend. Even worse, the Church's theology seemed to be corrupt. It actively stoked parishioners' hopes for heaven and fear of hell to drive people to the sacraments, rationalizing problems in this life by explaining that it was only a training ground in righteousness for the next. A variety of means were introduced to speed the faithful along the path to salvation which seemed to have no biblical foundation, such as the seven sacraments, pilgrimages, relics, indulgences, and heavenly intercession from Mary and the saints.
This theology of salvation drove a young Martin Luther, who was plagued with thoughts of his own sin and unworthiness, to an Augustinian monastery to pursue holiness as seriously as possible. He tried every measure that his superiors prescribed, but nothing seemed to be able to ease his conscience. He was tormented by thoughts of his own unworthiness compared to God's perfect holiness. How could anyone stand before such a perfect judge? It was then that Luther had his "evangelical experience", the realization of justification by grace through faith. The Reformation had begun.
This, however, put him in a bind with his order and with the Church in general. Luther believed that the Bible truly taught justification by faith, yet it contradicted the Church's teaching about salvation, which it claimed was consistent with the biblical teaching. As in his above-quoted statement from the debate at Leipzig, Luther rejected the authority of the Church as the interpreter of Scripture, which he felt it had corrupted and misused. The Church would no longer be over the Scripture, free to misuse and add to it, but rather Scripture would be over the Church, establishing the rule of faith alone. As this paper argues, Luther did not completely reject the idea of tradition, but held that the Bible, not the Church, was the arbiter of it. Only traditions that were supported by Scripture would be allowed. The word of God was not subject to the traditions of men.
Protestants today continue to apply Luther's ideas. They continue to defend the sufficiency of Scripture alone over against any competing authorities such as the Church or tradition. Sola scriptura means that the Bible must never be subordinated to these things, and its authoritative teaching must never be added to. The result would be a return to the teachings of medieval Rome, which are found nowhere in the faith of the apostles as witnesses by Scripture.
The case for sola scriptura
God's word and human tradition
The first thing to observe is that the Bible draws a strong distinction between the words of God and the words of man. Paul warns the Colossians about being led astray by human tradition: "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. (Col 2:8) In the beginning of his letter to the Galatians, he says that "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:10-11) Similarly, God warns Jeremiah about prophets who don't speak the word of the Lord: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes; they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD." (Jer 23:16) In a few more words, Paul tells the Corinthians:
and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. ... God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. ... And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. (1Co 2:4-5, 10, 13)He congratulates the Thessalonians for their discernment of the word of God from the word of men: "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers." (1 Ths 2:13) Jesus criticizes the pharisees for their elevation of human tradition over the word of God: "So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God." (Mat 15:6) And, of course, the two verses that most clearly testify to the inspiration of the Bible make clear that this means it is the word of God rather than of man.
...from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:15-17)
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2Pe 1:20-21)The import of these verses is clear: God wants us to be on our guard, distinguishing between human and divine words, never allowing the former to impinge on the latter. Furthermore, God expressly commands us not to add to his word (Deu 4:2, Rev 22:18-19).
The apostolic tradition
In light of this, what do we make of the fact that the New Testament often mentions (and clearly ascribes importance to) tradition? (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Ths 2:15, 3:6) We must draw a distinction between human tradition and inspired tradition. The tradition of teaching and belief that was central to the early Church was the apostolic tradition, the word of God in oral form, which testified to Jesus, the truest Word of God (Jhn 1:1, Hbr 1:1-2, Rev 19:12). Jesus appointed his apostles as his chosen representatives to the world and the early Church after his ascension. As he said to them, "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me." (Mat 10:40) It was the true testimony to Jesus Christ from the men who knew him best, to whom he promised his Spirit to teach them all things and remind them of what he taught them. (Jhn 14:26) After Jesus' ascension, his apostles had everything they needed to pass on his gospel uncorrupted to the early church. This is how Paul can say that "the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:11-12), even though he was likely instructed in the basic gospel by the disciples at Damascus after his conversion (see Acts 9:19). What Paul means in his letter to the Galatians is not the immediate means by which he came to know this gospel, but its ultimate source: Jesus Christ himself.
But the apostles did not stay forever. Soon enough they died, often violently. How was the gospel, the apostolic tradition, the true testimony to the living Word of God, to be preserved after their passing? The answer: in writing. The New Testament is simply the apostolic tradition in written form. We see evidence for this in 2 Ths 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." What Paul means here is not that the apostolic tradition exists in two parts, an oral part and a written part. Rather, he is saying that the oral and written parts are equivalent; they have the same content. In 1 Cor 4:6 he also commands us "not to go beyond what is written", which means that anything in the oral tradition not in Scripture would thus be in conflict with it. The two kinds of tradition are thus in agreement. The written tradition is simply the continuing form of the oral tradition, preserved well beyond the lifetimes of the apostles. It is to this form of the apostolic tradition that we must hold fast today. Subsequent traditions of the church aren't intrinsically bad, but they are merely human traditions and are only acceptable if they are in agreement with Scripture.
We get further evidence that the apostolic tradition is coextensive with Scripture in the writings of the early church fathers. We never see them appeal to another source of authority than the Scriptures (such as extrabiblical tradition) in refuting heresy or establishing the basic doctrines of the faith. The great ecumenical councils, which formulated the orthodox understandings of Christology and the Trinity (among others) do not base their decisions on tradition or the "authority of the Church", but on the Bible. Even the apostles themselves, when writing Scripture, seemed to prefer to appeal to Scripture (the Old Testament) rather than their own authority. Jesus himself, when tempted by Satan (Mat 4:1-11), refutes him with Scripture. Is any more evidence necessary for the sufficiency of Scripture alone as the objective standard for establishing true belief, governing the Church, and leading men to salvation?
The clarity of Scripture
Since Luther took great pains to free Scripture from the need for interpretation by the Church, a bishop, or any other human authority, I will say a bit more about its perspicuity. In this extended passage from 1 Cor 2, notice how Paul contrasts "lofty words or wisdom"/"plausible words of wisdom"/"the wisdom of men" with the simplicity of this gospel of "Jesus Christ and him crucified."
When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him," God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1Co 2:1-14 RSV)True, this wisdom of God is "secret and hidden", but not because God spoke confusingly. Rather, it is hidden because people reject God's word even as they rejected God himself: "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." What is needed to understand the gospel. this apostolic tradition that Paul proclaimed to the Corinthians, is not some special qualification or authority in the Church, but simply the Spirit who is given to all believers: "And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
Similarly, in Psalm 19:7-9 David says of the law (word) of the Lord:
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;Look especially at the second affirmation: "the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple" or the similar Psa 119:130: "The unfolding of thy words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple." This ties in well with the previously-mentioned argument for perspicuity based on God's nature. Scripture is his word, and we can trust that if God speaks to us he means to be understood, not just by a religious elite but by everyone, since he "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim 2:4) You don't need some special understanding to read God's word; it imparts understanding to the reader.
the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever; the ordinances of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether.
More circumstantially, notice how whenever Jesus corrects someone's reading of the Old Testament, he never seems to sympathize with them or pass any blame onto the Bible's being hard to understand. He always asks "Have you read...?", not "Haven't you understood...?" (See Mat 12;3,5, 19:4, 21:42, 22:31) In Luk 24:25 and Jhn 3:10 he rebukes people for not understanding the Scriptures, not because he is being callous but because Scripture is not, in itself, hard to understand; it shouldn't be hard. We also have abundant evidence that the New Testament epistles were written to be read to the whole congregations of the churches in their destination cities (1 Cor 1:2, Phil 1:1, Col 1:2; see also Col 4:16), again indicating that these epistles were not too difficult for the ordinary people of the churches to understand.
This does not mean that there are not difficult parts of the Bible or that we will understand everything in it, but its message of salvation is never out of reach, even from the simple. And even then, not not everyone will immediately understand this. The great obstacle to our understanding God's word resides not in our head, but in our hearts. A darkened mind is the consequence of a darkened heart (Rom 1:21). In 2 Pet 3:16, Peter does acknowledge that "There are some things in [Paul's letters] hard to understand", but this is not because they are simply unclear but because "the ignorant and unstable twist [them] to their own destruction"; again, the problem is with peoples' disposition, not God's word. Again, as in the 1 Corinthians verse, the illumination of the Spirit is all that is needed to understand.
Whither tradition?
Regrettably, some overzealous Protestants take sola scriptura to mean that all "tradition" is simply bad, and we should reject it all and rely on Scripture alone. This view is often (derogatively) called solo scriptura to distinguish it from the more moderate view. Aside from its failure to contend with the aforementioned value placed on certain "traditions" in the New Testament, this view simply overapplies the reformers' anti-tradition rhetoric. Again, Luther was not categorically opposed to tradition, just the traditions of the Roman Catholic church that were contrary to the Bible. His goal was not to destroy tradition, but merely to set it in its proper place under the direction of Scripture. Therefore, he only got rid of the tradition that he considered unbiblical (unlike the later radical reformers).
There is nothing wrong, then, with getting in touch with the historical and traditional roots of the Christian faith—not just post-Reformation theologians, but the whole history of the Church, "for all things are yours" (1 Cor 3:21). But in this we must be discerning. Sola scriptura means that Scripture is our infallible guide to tradition, not the other way around. No human tradition is infallible, and tradition is only valid insofar as it is supported by Scripture, but in this capacity it is still helpful and authoritative (or rather given authority by its alignment with the Bible), and it can be a rich source of wisdom and perspective. My systematic theology text by Millard Erickson lists four values of tradition: it can give us insight into the Scriptures, help us to detect the essence of doctrines, help us put our beliefs in cultural and historical perspective, and help us relate to those of differing viewpoints.
There is nothing wrong, then, with getting in touch with the historical and traditional roots of the Christian faith—not just post-Reformation theologians, but the whole history of the Church, "for all things are yours" (1 Cor 3:21). But in this we must be discerning. Sola scriptura means that Scripture is our infallible guide to tradition, not the other way around. No human tradition is infallible, and tradition is only valid insofar as it is supported by Scripture, but in this capacity it is still helpful and authoritative (or rather given authority by its alignment with the Bible), and it can be a rich source of wisdom and perspective. My systematic theology text by Millard Erickson lists four values of tradition: it can give us insight into the Scriptures, help us to detect the essence of doctrines, help us put our beliefs in cultural and historical perspective, and help us relate to those of differing viewpoints.
Request for comments
My reason for writing this post was to make sure I have understood sola scriptura and the arguments for it before I start explaining why I disagree. As my thinking drifts farther from its old evangelical home, I am acutely aware of the potential for misunderstanding and attacking a straw man version of the doctrine. So, I invite any of my more theologically-minded readers to comment on anything I missed or got wrong before I proceed.
No comments:
Post a Comment