The Shape of Sola Scriptura

by Keith A. Mathison

In his defense of apostolic Christianity, Irenaeus developed the concept of the regula fidei or the “rule of faith.”10 The regula fidei was essentially the content of the profession of faith that every catechumen was asked to recite from memory before his or her baptism. It was a summary of the faith taught by the Apostles and committed to their disciples.

The error of the heretics, according to Athanasius, is not in their appeal to Scripture but in their appeal to Scripture taken out of the context of the apostolic faith, that which Irenaeus referred to as the regula fidei.

Heiko Oberman describes the characteristics of this early patristic position. As he explains, this one source concept of “tradition” has two primary qualities: 1. The immediate divine origin of tradition together with the insistence on a clearly circumscribed series of historical acts of God in the rule of faith or the rule of truth. 2. The rejection of extra-scriptural tradition.49 For the sake of clarity, Oberman terms this “single exegetical tradition of interpreted scripture ‘Tradition I’.”

Vincent of Lerins (d. ca. 450) Little is known of the author of the Comonitory.

The object of the book is to provide a standard or rule by which apostolic Christian truth may be distinguished from heresy.74

first by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. . . . Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Ecclesiastical understanding could not add anything to the Scripture. But it was the only means to ascertain and to disclose the true meaning of Scripture. Tradition was, in fact, the authentic interpretation of Scripture. And in this sense it was coextensive with Scripture. Tradition was actually Scripture rightly understood.

Even the most godly of the fathers “are in principle magistri probabiles, teachers whose utterances are probable but do not yet constitute proof.”

Of special importance for our study is the gradual development of an even newer concept of tradition within the church.

immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary,

the definition of papal infallibility

the bodily assumption of the immac...

A Tradition III concept is in the process of being developed by those who tend to find in the teaching office of the Church the one and only source for revelation. Scripture and tradition are then not much more than historical monuments of the past.

Rome is moving towards a one-source concept of tradition,

With Tradition III Rome has, in effect, freed herself not only from Scripture but also from the burden of her own past authoritative doctrinal decisions.

The issue was “the authority of Scripture considered as a property of the written Word according to which the Word has a canonical, normative, or regulatory function in all debates concerning Christian doctrine.”

“Every understanding and exposition of Scripture is to be in agreement with the faith. . . . For everything that is said concerning Scripture or on the basis of Scripture must be in agreement with all that the catechism declares or that is taught by the articles of faith.”

“Flacius . . . understands Scripture as the norma normans theologiae and the creeds and confessional writings of the church as norma normata: the creeds and confessions express the contents and general theological sense of Scripture and, this being the case, any interpretation that differs from that offered in the creeds and confessions must be a denial of the true sense of Scripture.”30

In other words, Scripture must be interpreted according to a rule of faith, and that rule of faith is the apostolic faith.

It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word (WCF, xxxi, 2—emphasis mine). We see then that according to the Westminster Divines the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is the Supreme Judge “by which all controversies of religion are to be determined,” and that “It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith.” In other words, the authority of Scripture is the final authority which inherently resides in the Word of the Living God, but that authority must be applied ministerially by the Church. The Scripture must be read and interpreted by the Church in order to judge anything, and in cases of doctrinal controversy that ministerial authority belongs to the synods and councils of the Church. The sole infallible authority of Scripture and the interpretive ministerial authority of the Church must be distinguished, but they cannot be separated.

One of these was called the Christian Movement. Hatch describes their religious innovations: Taking seriously the mandate of liberty and equality, the Christians [The Christian Movement] espoused reform in three areas. First, they called for a revolution within the church to place laity and clergy on an equal footing and to exalt the conscience of the individual over the collective will of any congregation or church organization. Second, they rejected the traditions of learned theology altogether and called for a new view of history that welcomed inquiry and innovation. Finally, they called for a populist hermeneutic premised on the inalienable right of every person to understand the New Testament for him or herself.

People were expected to discover the self-evident message of the Bible without any mediation from creeds, theologians, or clergymen not of their own choosing. This explicit faith that biblical authority could emerge from below, from the will of the people, was the most enduring legacy of the Christian movement.

In religious faith we have but one Father and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed book—(A.B. Grosh, Universalist minister). I have endeavored to read the scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever—(Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ). Why may I not go to the Bible to learn the doctrines of Christianity as well as the Assembly of Divines?—(Jeremy Belknap, Liberal Boston clergyman). Lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, “what saith the scriptures”—(Simeon Howard, Liberal clergyman). The whole is written from the scripture account of the thing and not from any human scheme—(Charles Chauncy, on his published defense of universalism).

Essentially what we see in eighteenth-century America is the wholesale adoption of an extreme version of Tradition 0. The doctrine of Scripture and tradition espoused by the Reformers (Tradition I) was completely rejected in favor of a radically individualized doctrine of scriptural authority. These men and women retained the Reformation slogan sola scriptura, but their doctrine was far removed from the doctrine of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Unfortunately, it is this eighteenth-century populist doctrine of Scripture which is often confused with the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. The simple fact of the matter is that the doctrine commonly held today has much more in common with Enlightenment rationalism than with Reformation theology.

According to the teaching of the early Church and of the magisterial Reformation, a rejection of this rule of faith as a hermeneutical boundary is a rejection of the perspicuity of Scripture; a rejection of the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church; and a rejection of the Christian faith.

Protestants do not regard “common consent” either as an informant or as a ground of faith. With them the written word is the only source of knowledge of what God has revealed for our salvation, and his testimony therein is the only ground of our faith. Whereas, with Romanists, tradition is not only an informant of what is to be believed, but the witness on whose testimony faith is to be yielded. It is one thing to say that the fact that all the true people of God, under the guidance of the Spirit, believe that certain doctrines are taught in Scripture, is an unanswerable argument that they are really taught therein, and quite another thing to say that because an external society, composed of all sorts of men, to whom no promise of divine guidance has been given, agree in holding certain doctrines, therefore we are bound to receive those doctrines as part of the revelation of God.56

The Patristic and Reformation argument for the rule of faith as a necessary hermeneutical boundary is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic argument for a second source of revelation and an infallible teaching magisterium.

In our own day the confusion over the definition of sola scriptura is astounding. The majority of evangelicalism has adopted Tradition 0 and convinced itself that this was the doctrine of the Reformers. The ideas of the rule of faith as a hermeneutical boundary or of the Church as a subordinate ministerial authority are virtually anathema in modern individualist evangelicalism.

In other words, the fact that Scripture alone is our infallible authority does not mean that we can interpret Scripture alone. The sola scriptura of Luther and Calvin is not the Reformation doctrine unless it is understood within the context of Tradition I. Scripture is the sole infallible authority and the sole source of revelation, but it must be interpreted in and by the Church within the hermeneutical boundaries of the rule of faith (Christian orthodoxy—as defined for example in the Nicene Creed). A doctrine of scriptural authority separated from its apostolic ecclesiastical and hermeneutical context is neither Reformational nor Christian.

It must be remembered, however, that they continued to teach that this authoritative Scripture must be interpreted in and by the Church within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith. Because Tradition I was becoming identified with the Protestant position, Rome reacted by dogmatizing Tradition II at the Council of Trent. In recent centuries Rome’s position has begun to develop into a Tradition III view in which the real source of revelation is neither Scripture nor tradition but instead is the living magisterium. Whatever Rome says today is the apostolic faith. Scripture and tradition are then interpreted by Rome to support whatever Rome teaches.

Many of the Radical Reformers of the sixteenth century not only rejected Tradition II but also Tradition I. They advocated Scripture not merely as the only infallible authority, but as the only authority altogether. The true authority of the rule of faith and of the Church was completely rejected by the radicals. According to this Tradition 0 position, there is no sense in which tradition of any kind has any true authority. The individual believer needs only the Holy Spirit and the Scripture.

Recognizing the many errors inherent in this doctrine, many evangelicals who wrongly believe it to be the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura have left evangelical Protestantism for Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

Those who desire to maintain Tradition I (expressed by the Reformers in terms of sola scriptura) must fight a simultaneous battle for this precious truth on two fronts. On one front, we must continue to reject any two-source theory of tradition such as that dogmatized by Rome at the Council of Trent. Neither the older Roman doctrine of Tradition II nor the more recent Roman doctrine of Tradition III has any real scriptural or patristic support. On the other hand, we must also adamantly reject the modern evangelical doctrine of Tradition 0. Anarchy is not the cure for tyranny. The autonomy of the individual is equally as dangerous as the autonomy of the pope or of the Church. We must point out to both the advocates of Tradition 0 and to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox opponents of the Reformation that Tradition 0 is not the Reformation doctrine. Those who advocate Tradition 0 under the banner of Martin Luther, John Calvin and the slogan sola scriptura do so either out of ignorance or dishonesty. Those who critique the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura by equating it with Tradition 0 create an easily demolished strawman. The position of the classical Reformers and their heirs was and is Tradition I—the position of the apostolic Church.

The historical survey showed that the concept of Scripture and tradition which could most legitimately lay claim to being the doctrine of the early Church is that concept we have referred to as Tradition I. This was the consistent teaching of the early Church for at least the first three centuries of her existence. The question that should be asked at this point is whether this was the doctrine of the Apostles of Christ.

No one approaches Scripture without any preconceived notions or presuppositions, and if someone believes that he is able to do so, he has already implicitly adopted the position we have termed Tradition 0—which itself is a presupposition.

We do not live in a period of continuing revelation. This is not simply a Protestant doctrine.

The difficulty with Sungenis’s argument is that he is arguing from the standpoint of Tradition II (or possibly Tradition III) against those who adhere to Tradition 0.

However, we must remember the concept we referred to as Tradition I, the teaching of the early Church and many of the classical Reformers. According to this concept, Scripture is to be interpreted according to the apostolic rule of faith—the apostolic revelation. And this is exactly what happens in Acts 17 at Berea. Paul’s message is the apostolic revelation. He is bringing the apostolic revelation to bear upon the Old Testament Scriptures.

What the Bereans were attempting to determine was whether Paul’s message was in fact revelation from God. To do this they had to first establish its consistency with what they already knew to be revelation from God.

As shown earlier, Tradition I does not deny the existence and necessity of the Church as a subordinate authority. Nor does it deny the necessity of the apostolic rule of faith as the hermeneutical context of Scripture. But according to Tradition I, Scripture is our sole God-breathed authority, and this makes it our sole inherently infallible authority.

This leaves only one question. Does any of the “God-breathed” oral revelation communicated by the Apostles to the Church survive today outside Scripture? Those who advocate Tradition 0 say no, but this is difficult for them to conclusively prove using nothing more than the New Testament. Those who advocate Tradition I say “yes” in the specific sense that the apostolic rule of faith remains the hermeneutical context of Scripture, but “no” in the sense that this rule of faith is not a second source of revelation “outside” or “apart from” Scripture.

For centuries, the view the fathers held was Tradition I—Scripture is the sole source of revelation which is to be interpreted in and by the Church within the context of the rule of faith.

The problem is that Tradition II itself is a novel doctrine.

There are debates over the interpretation, but the linguistic and contextual evidence favors the view that Peter is appealing to the Scriptures to confirm his witness.

most surely believed among us,

Literally, we could say that the Apostles “traditioned” the gospel “tradition” to the Church.

If the Church is in possession of the full apostolic tradition, then we must ask why Luke found it necessary to write down these “things believed among us,” this “tradition.”

D.A. Carson explains the meaning of the “tradition of the elders.” The “tradition of the elders,” the “tradition of men” (Mk. 7:8; Col. 2:8), “your tradition” (Mt. 15:3, 6; Mk. 7:9, 13), and the “tradition of the fathers” (Gal. 1:14) refer to the great corpus of oral teaching that commented on the law and interpreted it in detailed rules of conduct, often recording the diverse opinions of competing rabbis. This tradition in Jesus’ time was largely oral and orally transmitted; but the Pharisees, though not the Sadducees, viewed it as having authority very nearly equal to the canon.

The “commandments of men” are being used by the Pharisees to set aside the “commandment of God.”