, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible
as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine
Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas). By contrast, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that the Scriptures are an important but not exclusive part of the Sacred Tradition from which the Churches derive their doctrines. These bodies also believe that the Church has authority over the Scriptures because it actively selected which books were to be in the biblical canon, whereas Protestants believe the Church passively recognized and received the books that were already widely considered canonical.
is one of the five solas
, considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Reformation. The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is viewed as subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church. Luther said, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it". The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority and to reject what Catholics
considered to be Apostolic Tradition as a source of original authority alongside of the Bible, wherever Tradition did not have biblical support or where it supposedly contradicted Scripture.
Sola scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice. As Martin Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.
may be contrasted with prima scriptura
, which holds besides canonical
scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he or she should live. Examples of this include the general revelation
in creation, traditions, charismatic gifts
visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura
suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God
and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.
Sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority, other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, biblical commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach. Even though most protestants look at scripture alone and no other authority, some theologists say that the Bible itself teaches against sola scriptura. They believe that if a person believes in the whole Bible then that person cannot not believe in sola scriptura. These theologists believe that those following the concepts of sola scriptura have personally perverted the meaning of either the Bible or sola scriptura.
Singular authority of Scripture
The idea of the singular authority of Scripture is the motivation behind much of the Protestant effort to translate the Bible into vernacular
languages and distribute it widely. Protestants generally believe each Christian should read the Bible for themselves and evaluate what they have been taught on the basis of it. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, motivated by their belief that authoritative doctrine can also come from tradition, have been more active in translating them as well as the Bible into the vernacular languages, though this has not always been the case. Traditions of these non-Protestant churches include the Bible, patristic
, and liturgical
texts. Even prior to the Protestant movement, hundreds of vernacular translations of the Bible and liturgical materials were translated throughout the preceding sixteen centuries. Some Bible translations such as the Geneva Bible
included annotations and commentary that were anti-Roman Catholic. Before the Protestant Reformation, Latin
was almost exclusively utilized but it was understood by only by the most literate.
According to sola scriptura, the Church does not speak infallibly in its traditions, but only in Scripture. As John Wesley stated in the 18th century, "In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church. For this reason, sola scriptura is called the formal cause or principle of the Reformation.
Protestants argue that the Scriptures are guaranteed to remain true to their divine source; and, thus, only insofar as the Church retains scriptural faith is it assured of God's favor. Following such an argument, if the Church were to fall away from faith through Scripture (a possibility which Roman Catholics deny but Protestants affirm), its authority would be negated. Therefore, the early Protestants targeted for elimination traditions and doctrines they believed were based on distortions of Scripture, or were contrary to the Bible, but which the Roman Catholic Church considered scripturally-based aspects of the Christian faith, such as transubstantiation, the doctrine of purgatory, the veneration of images or icons, and especially the doctrine that the Pope in Rome is the head of the Church on earth (Papal supremacy).
Scripture and Tradition
The Roman Catholic Church against which the Reformers directed these arguments did not see Scripture and the Sacred Tradition
of the faith as different sources of authority, but that Scripture was handed down as part of tradition (see 2 The 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2). Accepted traditions were also perceived by the Roman Church as cohesive in nature. The proper interpretation of the Scriptures was seen as part of the faith of the Church, and seen indeed as the manner in which Biblical authority was upheld (see Acts 15:28-29). The meaning of Scripture was seen as proven from the faith universally held in the churches (see Phil 2:1, Acts 4:32), and the correctness of that universal faith was seen as proven from the Scriptures and apostolic tradition (see 2 The 2:15, 2 The 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2). The Biblical canon
itself was thus viewed by Rome as part of the Church's tradition, as defined by its leadership and acknowledged by its laity.
However, this view of scripture and tradition was not universally accepted. Throughout the history of the Church, movements have arisen within the Church or alongside of it which have disputed the official interpretation of the Scriptures. The leaders of these movements were often labeled heretics and their doctrines were rejected. According to Irenaeus, the Judaistic Ebionites charged less than one hundred years after the Apostles that the Christians overruled the authority of Scripture by failing to keep the Mosaic Law, see also Biblical law in Christianity. Later, Arius (250-336), once he had been made a presbyter in Alexandria, began arguing that the teaching concerning the deity of Christ was an invention of men not found in Scripture and not believed by the Early Christians. The Church held that when disagreements over Scripture arise, the correct interpretation of the Bible will be consistent with how the Church authorities have believed in the past (see 2 Tim 2:2, 2 The 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2) , as revealed by the Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Apostles of Jesus and Fathers of the Church, the decisions of the Bishops of Rome and similar sources of Tradition.
However, the Reformers believed some tradition to be very seriously in conflict with the Scriptures: especially, with regard to teaching about the Church itself, but also touching on basic principles of the Gospel. They believed that no matter how venerable the traditional source, traditional authority is always open to question by comparison to what the Scriptures say. The individual may be forced to rely on his understanding of Scripture even if the whole tradition were to speak against him. This, they said, had always been implicitly recognized in the Church, and remains a fail-safe against the corruption of the Church by human error and deceit. Corruptions had crept in, the Reformers said, which seriously undermined the legitimate authority of the Church, and Tradition had been perverted by wicked men.
Sola scriptura is a doctrine that is not, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 "expressly set down in scripture". However, it is claimed that it passes the second test of being part of "the whole counsel of God" because it is "deduced from scripture" "by good and necessary consequence", citing passages such as Isaiah 8:20: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.". Jesus is also typically understood by Protestants as expressly nullifying unscriptural traditions in the (Jewish) church, when he says, for example in Mark 7:13: "thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."
Mathison's Apology & Explanation on Sola Scriptura & Tradition
Keith Mathison, author of The Shape of Sola Scriptura
(2003), uses a historical approach in explaining the history and formation of sola scriptura
. Mathison (2003) classifies the formation of "Tradition" over the history of Christendom, asserting four categories:
- Tradition 0: often defined as solo scriptura. This view of scripture can be defined as the use of only scripture and nothing else. This view prohibits the use of any other tradition outside of the scripture in any form or fashion, and often leads to subjectivism and individualism.
- Tradition I: also defined as sola scriptura. This term is defined as the Scriptures are the sole infallible authority, and interpretation of the Scriptures is done in and by the Church within the context of the regula fidei, or rule of faith.
- Tradition II: known as a two-source concept of tradition. This view proposes that Divine Revelation consist equally of both Scriptures as well as a secret oral tradition handed down through the ages. This is the typical Roman Catholic position dogmatized since the Reformation.
- Tradition III: a relatively new Roman Catholic position, states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth.
Mathison (2003) explains the doctrine of sola Scriptura in his book asserting that there are four major tenants of sola scriptura:
- It is the sole source of revelation. This means that the scriptures are perfect and complete, inerrant and infallible, and sufficient as our sole source of revelation.
- It is the sole infallible authority and norm. The Scriptures are inspired and are the very words of God, and therefore they are without error (inerrant) and incapable of being in error (infallible). They are also authoritative, meaning that they are binding on us as the Word of God.
- It is interpreted in and by the Church. The Scripture is truth, but the church is the custodian and pillar of truth. Because the church is the body of Christ, and is a spiritual entity, the church has the authority to interpret correctly the spiritual word of God. The church is given authority by Christ to teach and preach the Scriptures, and has authority to set normative doctrinal boundaries for the Scriptures and its members.
- It is interpreted in the context of the regula fidei, or the rule of faith. The regula fidei is a summary of the apostolic doctrines and provides the hermeneutical context for the Church to interpret Scripture. This tradition is incorporated in the creeds and confessions of the Church, which serve as a written summary of what the Church believes the Scriptures to say.
Roman Catholic position
Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics
, on the other hand, argue the belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, and destructive of unity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm) The Roman Catholic Church does not deny the fact that Christ and the apostles
founded the church by preaching and exacting faith in their doctrines. Those who received their word as revelation from God did so solely on their divine authority, and if in the time of the apostles, faith consisted in submitting to authorized teaching, Roman Catholics teach it does so now also since the foundation of the church is thought to be immovable.
The Roman Catholic position is that it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of the Bible. They take faith to consist of submitting to authority in which the last word rests with the teacher, whereas with private interpretation, the last word rests with the reader. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith and causes divisions in the people of God.
Pope Pius XII revolutionized Catholic biblical approach in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, in which he promoted unlimited biblical research, biblical discussions and more bible orientated sermons. During Vatican II, the Catholic Church, while maintaining that the bible is a part of tradition, attempted to give additional weight to bibilical basing of its teaching.
continues to be a doctrinal commitment of conservative branches and offshoots of the Lutheran churches
, Reformed churches
, and Baptist
churches as well as other Protestants, especially where they describe themselves by the slogan "Bible-believing
" (See Fundamentalism
Divisions of Protestants
The Reformation proceeded in three general directions: the Lutheran
exclusivists, the Reformed
and the Anabaptists
. The Lutherans aimed at establishing an evangelical consensus immediately, but the Reformed brought diverse groups into international association with one another on more liberal principles, which damaged hopes of union with the Lutherans. Meanwhile, the Anabaptists espoused an alternative view of history in which the true Church became hidden or lost through the Great Apostasy
dating from Constantine
. From that time forward fragmentation based on sola scriptura
has predominated within Protestantism, although rare movements toward union have achieved success.