Sola Scriptura

Yes, it's in there

Sola scriptura is the concept that inspired scripture should be the ultimate authority for all matters of faith and practice. According to this approach, anything not compatible with scripture is not compatible with legitimate Christianity. It doesn't view the Bible as the only valid source for knowledge or practice, but as the only legitimate authority on spiritual matters.

I was recently questioned on the concept of sola scriptura by someone concerned over some content of the Got Questions website. Their concern was twofold: 1) If sola scriptura isn't actually taught explicitly in the Bible, is it a valid doctrine; and 2) how does that place sola scriptura in relation to quasi-biblical ideas such as infant baptism. Plus, there was some unease over Luther's theological quirks. Actual question and my response below.

The article the questioner is referring to is published at Got Questions.org.

...First of all, [the article] says: “Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While *this is true*, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. ... So, while *the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura*, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message.”

How can the leading doctrine of our Reformation not be explicitly taught in Scripture? And how can we believe in a doctrine that isn’t explicitly taught in Scripture anymore than Infant Baptism is? It makes me shudder to the core.

And the article says “infant baptism” is a Roman Catholic invention, yet Methodists, Anglicans, Reformed, and Lutherans believe and defend this teaching. The article says Luther stood by Sola Scriptura, yet he rabidly defended infant baptism all his life and hated Baptists. How can this be?

I don’t know how I can be Protestant after hearing this answer. It scares me to think we broke apart the Church for a doctrine that we admit is not clearly taught in the Bible. Help?

Luther and the other Reformers recognized that the teachings of the Bible – words actually recorded under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – did not support many concepts being taught by the Catholic Church. They also recognized Jesus’ own teachings on the subject (see below). When confronted with this contradiction, Catholic leadership responded by appeals to “tradition”.

It’s true that sola scriptura isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible; this doesn’t mean that it’s not mentioned at all. Jesus clearly stated that God’s people ought to rely on His Word for doctrine, not human habits or preferences. Refer to Mark 7:5-13. Here, Jesus is speaking with the Pharisees, who added their own traditions onto God’s Word (the scriptures of what we now call the Old Testament). Eventually, those traditions became dominant to the point of blatant contradiction. Jesus even gives an example of how this worked itself out in the lives of the Pharisees.

Take special note of Mark 7:6-9:

[Jesus] replied, ‘Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.” You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.’ And [Jesus] continued, ‘You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!’

That is a clear summary of sola scriptura. According to Christ, the Pharisees’ error was “letting go the commands of God”, meaning scripture, in favor of “human rules.” He is stating that doctrine ought to rely on God’s Word, not human tradition. In particular, traditions that defy or dilute the message of the Gospel have no place in a believer’s life. Combining this with the Bible’s encouragement to use scripture for learning and doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16; Acts 17:11), we see sola scriptura being taught without being explicitly referenced.

Popularity does not mean accuracy. Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, even Baptists are free to believe whatever they want, but that doesn’t make it correct. That’s precisely what bad traditions are: habits that mutate into religious laws. It’s also true that an in-depth study of Luther’s life shows him to be an unpleasant and often cruel person. His theology was far from perfect. That makes no difference whatsoever about the truth of sola scriptura.

God used Luther in a powerful way, despite his shortcomings, just as He does with each of us. Jonah was a spiteful, disobedient, heartless man. When the people of Nineveh repented, and were spared, Jonah responded with anger (Jonah 3:10-4:3). One can only imagine what sorts of things Jonah said or did that aren’t recorded in the Bible. Samson was a womanizer. David was a murderer, as was Moses. None of those change the fact that God used these people to accomplish a purpose. That Luther wasn’t a perfect person, or a perfect theologian, shouldn’t discourage a person from belief in the truth.

Infant baptism, prayers to saints, prayers to Mary, purgatory, and so forth, are contradictory to the Bible. In response to the Reformers’ claim that scripture did not support those practices, the Catholic Church attempted to “certify” texts that had never been considered part of the canon before, at the Council of Trent. The same council continued the practice of equating tradition with Biblical commandments in terms of authority.

This mindset, not sola scriptura, should be blamed for “breaking apart the church”. In truth, the true church is the body of believers, which cannot be broken. A more accurate view would be that those who rejected the Bible in favor of human tradition abandoned the (true) church.