Sola Scriptura is a principle of religious authority which gained great visibility during the Protestant Reformation. It was employed to point to the Bible as the only normative authority for Christian belief and practice. Although the phrase gained prominence during the Reformation, it was not a creation of the Reformers; it was already in currency during the Middle Ages.¹ The contexts in which the phrase has been used, however, create nuances of meaning which should not be confused. For our purposes in this article, we shall focus on the meaning of the phrase as used in the context of the Reformation. Within this context, we hope to explore the intent of the phrase and its motivations.

Sola Scriptura in the Reformation: Its Intent

The name of Martin Luther (1483-1546) is so inextricably linked with the Protestant sola Scriptura concept that it is impossible to discuss the concept without reference to him. The idea was at the heart of Luther’s struggles with the Roman Catholic Church, but the struggle was not for the formal recognition of the Bible’s authority. As a standard for revealed truth, the Bible had been acknowledged through the centuries, including the Medieval Catholic church. Thus Luther shared the common theological assumption of the formal, normative authority of the Bible with his opponents.² Luther’s break from medieval theology on the Bible was his denial of the assumed compatibility between the Bible and the church’s hermeneutical tradition. At the heart of the Reformation sola Scriptura principle, then, was the issue of biblical interpretation, the right understanding of the Bible. The Reformation opposed “the arbitrariness,” which, “despite the recognition of Scripture as God’s Word, neglects its concrete authority.”³ Sola Scriptura, in the context of the Reformation, served to focus attention on the Bible as a principle of interpretation against competing principles.⁴

In Luther’s day, the main competing principle of interpretation was tradition. It is important to emphasize that Luther’s critique of tradition was, first and foremost, not as a source of religious authority. His complaint fell heavily on the use of tradition as a principle of interpretation. He confronted the position that Scripture can be properly understood only by a few and that it was not a sufficient principle to say that it must be interpreted in accordance with its own spirit.⁵ John M. Headley captures the essence of the principle of tradition that Luther was combating, noting that “such a principle leads to the burial of Scripture and theology’s immersion in the commentaries of men, where the sophists seek not the substance of Scripture but what they may notice in it.”⁶ To see the sola Scriptura principle as a critique of the hegemony of tradition (regarding interpretation) over the Bible clarifies the importance of the term sola.

The term sola addresses the Reformers’ critical intent regarding the role of the Bible in the Church. It is generally agreed that for Luther and the Reformers, “sola Scriptura refers to Scripture as both the source and norm of the Christian gospel . . . and the source and norm of the church’s doctrine.”⁷ Sola Scriptura, thus, construes the Bible as norma normans (the ultimate norm that rules over other norms), not norma normata, that is, a rule that is ruled by other norms, such as tradition, reason, or religious experience. In order to fully appreciate the sola Scriptura’s construal of the role of the Bible in the Church, however, it should be pointed out that the principle implies a certain “logical geography” that needs to be outlined briefly. In the words of Graham Cole, “sola Scriptura, in systematic perspective, is an implicate of the perfections of Scripture. The appeal to Scripture alone makes little sense if Scripture is without authority, or is unnecessary for human welfare, or is unclear as to its meaning, or is insufficient in terms of its divine intent.”⁸ The authority of the Bible, its necessity, its clarity (perspicuity), and its sufficiency, these constitute what is traditionally known as the perfections of Scripture. To talk about sola Scriptura without these perfections of Scripture is to fail to capture the profundity of the issues that the concept was designed to counteract.

Authority of Scripture

Luther’s words at Worms, on April 18, 1521, represented the Reformers’ view on the authority of the Bible that was bound with their concept of sola Scriptura. “Unless I am convinced,” he said, “by the testimonies of Scripture or evident reason (rationes evidente)—for I believe neither the Pope nor Councils alone, since it is established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves—I am the prisoner of the Scriptures cited by me, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God; I neither can nor will recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.”⁹ J. I. Packer marks the intent of these words by Luther: “What Luther thus voiced at Worms shows the essential motivation and concern, theological and religious, of the entire Reformation movement: namely, that the Word of God alone must rule, and no Christian man dare do other than allow it to enthrone itself in his conscience and heart.”¹⁰

We have pointed out already that both Luther and his opponents affirmed the formal authority of the Bible. It was noted as well that Luther’s break with his opponents consisted in his denial of the a priori assumption of the Church that its traditional teachings were in agreement with the Bible. We can now state more succinctly that with his sola Scriptura principle, Luther’s novel point was to insist that Scripture is its own interpreter, Scriptura sui ipsius interpres. The historical context is worth repeating. A fictional apostolic tradition had developed which was not only regarded in the Church as a source of theological knowledge, but treated as “the necessary warrant for the authority of the Bible, and as the indispensable guide for the interpretation of Scripture.”¹¹ The point needed to be made that the authority of the Bible needed no warrant. The doctrine of the perfections of Scripture, in general, was developed to counteract this tendency. More specifically, the authority of Scripture, as one of its perfections, emphasizes the autopistia nature of the Bible’s authority, namely, “that the truths of the Bible authenticate themselves as divine by their own light.”¹²

Necessity of Scripture

Another of the perfections of Scripture, the necessity of Scripture, was designed to combat two separate tendencies. On the one hand, there was the self-sufficient, Bible-warranting Roman Catholic Church which, though needing tradition, did not really need Scripture in spite of professing it to be a norm. For, “according to Rome it is far more correct to say that the Bible needs the Church than that the Church has need of the Bible.”¹³ On the other hand, there were groups such as the Cathari for whom the Bible was really superfluous. By exalting the inner word against the external, and regarding the Bible not as the Word of God but as a testimony, these groups considered the real Word of God as that which was spoken by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of God’s people. Against both tendencies, the Reformers insisted on the necessity of the written Word of God. In doing so, however, the Reformers were not advancing a theory of absolute necessity which would preclude the Church. Their point was to emphasize the necessity of the written word as a witness to divine revelation. It is Scripture’s nature as witness to divine revelation that makes it necessary. Because it is beyond humans to work out any true knowledge of God for themselves, divine revelation is needed and that is what Scripture provides.

Perspicuity (Clarity) of Scripture

In the context of the Reformers’ struggle with the Roman Catholic Church, the notion of Scripture’s clarity went to the heart of the contest. To ascribe sole authority or necessity to a Bible which is unclear would make no sense. Leading up to the time of the Reformers, a climate had built up regarding the obscurity of Scripture for which reason the laity were not encouraged to read it. “In 1199, Innocent III declared that the desire to read the Bible is to be commended, but that the reading in “conventicles” (without the supervision of the duly appointed priest) is not to be tolerated, because the profundity of Scriptures is such that not only the unlearned, but also the docti et prudentes (taught and pruden/wise ones) cannot grasp its meaning.”¹⁴ Also, the Synod of Toulouse (1229) had forbidden the laity from reading the New and Old Testaments for devotional purposes, except the Psalter.¹⁵ The supposed obscurity of Scripture also was the reason why Fathers and Councils and Popes had been elevated to the position of ultimate interpreters.¹⁶ In The Bondage of the Will Luther argues that Erasmus confuses the Deus Absconditus and profundity of the things of God with obscurity. Furthermore, clarity of Scripture did not mean simplicity. The critical issue has to do with the difference between propositions and statements. For Luther Scripture expresses absolutely clear propositions on its subject matter, although some statements may not be clear to us because of our ignorance of their vocabulary and grammar.¹⁷

Sufficiency of Scripture

It is worth noting that the issue of the sufficiency of Scripture was the immediate background for sola Scriptura. Indeed, the sola in the formulation sola Scriptura was intended to highlight the sufficiency of Scripture. The various doctrines, institutions, and traditions which the church had put in place, with no basis in Scripture, were an indication to the Reformers that Rome deemed the Bible to be insufficient.¹⁸ In the polemical situation of the Reformation, sufficiency had been traditionally described as a clash of the sola Scriptura-principle versus Scripture and tradition-principle. This clash has been formalized in recent times by Heiko Oberman as a conflict between Tradition I and Tradition II perspectives.¹⁹ Oberman defines Tradition I by noting:

In the first case the sole authority of Holy Scripture is upheld as the canon, or standard, of revealed truth in such a way that Scripture is not contrasted with Tradition. Scripture, it is argued, can be understood only within the Church and has been understood within the Church by the great doctors specifically committed to the task of interpretation of Scripture and especially endowed with the gift of understanding this unique source of truth. The history of obedient interpretation is the Tradition of the Church²⁰

He defines Tradition II as follows:

In the second case Tradition is a wider concept. It is argued that the Apostles did not commit everything to writing, usually on the grounds that the scriptural authors reported what Christ said and did during His lifetime but not what Christ taught His disciples in the period between the resurrection and the ascension. During these forty days an oral tradition originated which is to be regarded as a complement to Holy Scripture, handed down to the Church of later times as a second source of revelation.²¹

Oberman contrasts the two conceptions of traditions this way:

In the first case Tradition was seen as the instrumental vehicle of Scripture which brings the contents of Holy Scripture to life in a constant dialogue between the doctors of Scripture and the Church; in the second case Tradition was seen as the authoritative vehicle of divine truth, embedded in Scripture but overflowing in extra-scriptural apostolic tradition handed down through Episcopal succession.²²

The position taken by the Reformers was clearly against Tradition II. However, could their position on the sufficiency of Scripture be squared with Tradition I? Keith Mathison thinks “the case can be made that the Reformers adhered to Tradition I.”²³ On this point, Mathison disagrees with A. N. S. Lane whose taxonomy has four components: the Coincidence view (tradition coincides with Scripture; c/f Tradition I), the Supplementary view (tradition is a second source of revelation; c/f Tradition II), the Ancillary view (tradition is an aid for interpreting Scripture), and the Unfolding view (tradition is the process by which the meaning of apostolic doctrine is gradually unfolded).²⁴ Lane identifies the Reformers’ position with the ancillary view. In trying to evaluate the Reformers’ position in relation to Tradition I, two points critical to Tradition I’s position ought to be stated. Although the Bible is maintained as the sole source of revelation and the final authority for doctrine and practice, it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and it is to be interpreted according to the regula fidei (rule of faith).

Luther’s words on Popes and Councils noted in his speech at Worms would seem to deny the validity of Tradition I. It seems that while Luther was not willing to go the way of subjective interpretation of Scripture, and even acknowledge some valid traditions, he was equally unwilling to formally yield biblical authority to Church tradition, or councils and popes. Greg Krehbiel criticizes Mathison’s equation of the Reformers’ position with Tradition I, noting:

But Luther goes too far. He says “I do not accept the authority of popes and councils.” Whatever else Luther may have said, this is the message of Lutheranism – councils have no authority whatsoever. So Luther has demolished any foundation for that ancient doctrine of the church that Keith summarized in chapter one – that the Bible is supposed to be interpreted in and by the church. How can it do that when people say “I do not accept the authority of popes and councils”?²⁵

Luther’s concept of sola Scriptura, from the point of view of Scripture’s sufficiency seems to defy the neat categorizations of Oberman. He denied both extremes of the radical Reformers who would have nothing to do with tradition or Church (Tradition I) and the Roman Catholic Church’s position which subsumed Scripture under tradition (Tradition II). And as is being pointed out here, Luther’s stance did not agree with Tradition I either.

In all of this, what remains clear, however, is the discriminating intent of the Reformation sola Scriptura concept. Graham Cole notes: “the logic of ‘sola’ has to do with the exclusion of rivals. Its use indicates the presence of a limiting principle.”²⁶

Sola Scriptura in the Reformation: Its Motivation

In seeking to explore the motivation for the Reformers’ sola Scriptura principle, we wish to address their rationale for holding so strongly onto the normative, necessary and sufficient authority of the Bible. Why was the Bible authoritative for them? Again our focus will be on Luther. As mentioned before, the issue between Luther and his opponents went beyond the normative authority of Scripture which we have said was held by both camps. Luther’s break with patristic and Medieval theology centered on his rejection of the assumed congruity between Scripture and the church’s tradition of interpretation. At the center of the conflict was the right understanding of the Bible, which has to do with the content of the Bible. It follows that, for Luther, the key issue, and perhaps his primary motivation for defending the sola Scriptura, did not have to do with the formal authority of Scripture. By the formal authority of Scripture is meant the authority that pertains to the Bible by virtue of its divine attributes.²⁷ It appears that Luther’s motivation was based on the material authority of the Bible. This distinction between the formal and material aspects of the Bible relates to Luther’s understanding of the phrase “Word of God.” Luther is noted to have used the terms Word, Scripture(s), and gospel in the same contexts without clearly distinguishing them.²⁸ For him, the Word of God was an overarching term that assumed three forms: the personal Word (Christ), the spoken Word (gospel), and the written Word (Scripture). These forms are distinguished and ranked in that order, although they were not to be separated. Yet, it was clear in this schematization that Scripture, the written Word, had a servant status to Christ, the personal Word. Thus, Luther’s argument against his adversaries could take the following form, “Therefore, if the adversaries press the Scriptures against Christ, we urge Christ against the Scriptures. We have the Lord, they the servants, we have the Head, they the feet or members, over which the Head necessarily dominates and takes precedence.”²⁹

With the servant form of Scriptures we hit the core of Luther’s understanding of the Bible and its authority. It seems to explain Luther’s emphasis on the material principle of biblical authority. It has been suggested that Luther did not develop a systematic locus “On Holy Scripture” for this very reason.³⁰ It was impossible for him to write formally about the Bible without its content, Jesus Christ and the gospel which speaks about Him. The potency of Luther’s material principle of biblical authority becomes evident in his popular assessment of biblical books. This material principle of authority translated into the critical principle of was Christum treibet (whatever promotes Christ). On this basis, the epistle of James is marked as “an epistle of straw” because it “does not once mention the passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ.”³¹ Similarly, the canonical status of the book of Revelation is questioned. In this particular case, it seemed initially that inspiration would be a decisive factor, for in doubting Revelation’s apostolicity Luther noted, “I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” Yet, it becomes all too clear that inspiration is not the critical factor when he observes that “for me this is reason enough not to think highly of it [Revelation]: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound to do.”³²

So, what is the rationale or motivation for Luther’s sola Scriptura? The answer depends on what one means by Scripture. For Luther, Scripture is the written form of the personal Word to whom it is subservient. In this written Word is the proclamation of the personal Word, the gospel, which is the heart of the Bible. The gospel, as revealed in Scripture is the authority. It is an interpretive authority. It is a material principle of authority. It is the gospel which Luther used to test the decrees of Popes and Councils and found them wanting. This idea is the “canon within the canon” concept which is attributed to Luther. Luther’s “Scripture alone” was at its core solus Christus (Christ alone), and his motivation for defending it was his inestimable value of the gospel which Scripture proclaims. Lotz captures Luther’s motivation for upholding sola Scriptura:

When Christians stand before and under Holy Scripture so as to acknowledge its binding authority for faith and life, they do so because they thereby stand before and under the personal Word of God, Jesus Christ, their Savior and Lord; and because, at the same time, they stand before and under the living Word of the gospel, the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ, through which Christ and his Spirit continually create and sustain faith. I contend, therefore, that, in urging “Scripture alone” Luther was urging “Christ alone.”³³

The foregoing exposition on Luther’s Christological emphasis in the sola Scriptura concept is not intended to deny Luther’s belief in the inspiration of Scripture.³⁴ Even Lotz will say that one may not invoke Luther’s authority to support the view that Scripture as such is not God’s true Word and authentic revelation. Neither may one, in Luther’s name drive a wedge between the written Word on the one hand and the personal and the spoken Word on the other. ³⁵ The Reformers’ concern for careful exegesis and an educated clergy points to their high regard for the words of Scripture as such. Nevertheless, it appears that given the critical issue of the interpretive hegemony of Fathers and Councils and Popes by people who also subscribed to the formal authority of the Bible, Luther found himself perhaps over-emphasizing the material authority of the Scriptures.

Conclusion

Although Luther may have overstressed some aspects of the sola Scriptura principle, he correctly set the Bible against those who recognized it as God’s Word, but neglected its concrete authority. Ultimately, sola Scriptura implies that the Bible stands alone and above other authorities. That is, as norma normans (norm not ruled by other authority) the Scriptures function as the ultimate norm to evaluate and judge tradition, reason, experience, etc. As Seventh-day Adventists, it is our privilege to carry on this reformation principle and uphold the authority, accept the necessity, and recognize the perspicuity of the Scriptures.