Sola Scriptura: Defining our Terms

For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.

Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.

They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants.

Ps 119:89-91

I just got done judging a speech and debate tournament, and one of the things that hit me was how focused the participants were on ‘defining their terms’. Now, part of that was because the particular type of debate that I was rather focused on some vague terms that seriously needed defining. If the topic has been ‘Should the United States have invaded Iraq?’ there would have been a lot less wiggle room. Most people have a pretty good idea of what is meant by ‘The United States’, ‘invaded’, and ‘Iraq’. Perhaps a lot of people don’t know about Puerto Rico’s status, and fewer about the Mariana’s Island’s (I don’t even know much about that latter), but, for the most part, we understand what is meant by ‘The United States’.

Sola Scriptura

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

The statutes 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 judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

Ps 19:7-10

So when I read an article entitled ‘Sola Scriptura is self-refuting’ I was intrigued, and one of the first things I did was to look for the author’s ‘definition of terms’. Unfortunately, I didn’t really find anything specific.¹ The first thing I found that seemed to come close was this:

scripture alone does not claim to be the sole authority. There is no specific scripture that claims that scripture alone is the sole authority for a Christian.

Which would seem to define ‘Sola Scriptura’ as ‘Scripture is the sole authority for a Christian’. Which I translate to mean ‘all Christians’. (The argument would be very different, and very odd, if it were to mean that Scripture was the sole authority for one particular (and unnamed) Christian.)

Later we see the terms used as ‘only authority’ and ‘exclusive authority’. And that fit with most of his arguments: they were assuming that ‘Sola Scriptura’ meant ‘Scripture as the sole authority’.

Letter Exchange

A quick note: I reached out to the author of the piece offering to do a ‘letter exchange’ with him. I have had several really fun and profitable exchanges with various authors over the years, including with Andrew Dad Explains, and Fallible Father in particular. I find them a great way to profitably exchange ideas. The author has yet to decide if he would like to do that, but I wrote this anyway :)

Toward a Definition

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Matt 22:29

Now, I would be willing to argue that rest of the post strays a bit from that definition from place to place, but the first thing I would need to say is that… that’s not the definition.

In the debates I judged one of the big tricks was that everyone got to define the terms. There were no definitions handed down from on high. But even there each debater was faced with the fact that their opponents were also defining the terms. So they couldn’t just run with their own definition.

So one thing that has to happen in a debate like this is that each side defines the terms. The problem here, however, is that one side is literally saying that the other side is wrong. It is the side of the reformers that invented the term ‘Sola Scriptura’, and holds to it. So, it is rather problematic for the other side to invent terms. They are literally arguing against a term that was invented by, and claims to be held by, the other side. Thus, they get to define the term… the thing that they (in this case ‘we’) claim to believe.

Calvin

In order to uphold the authority of the Scripture, he declares that it is divinely inspired; for, if it be so, it is beyond all controversy that men ought to receive it with reverence. This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. Whoever then wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit.

John Calvin on II Timothy 3:16

Now, the first problem that we face when discussing this term is… Calvin wasn’t a calvinist. The ‘five solas of the reformation’ were not actually terms invented by the reformers to describe their teaching. They were terms invented years, decades, and even centuries later to describe their teachings… teachings that the later writers claimed to share.

So the first thing we must note about the term ‘Sola Scriptura’ is that it is a summary term, meant to stand in for ‘The teachings of the reformers (and in particular John Calvin) about how we should treat Scripture.’

In other words, the phrase ‘Sola Scriptura’ is meant to be a short phrase that points back to a much, much larger teaching… not to be a teaching in itself.

A Poor Summary?

…

VI. 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.^a Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word;^b and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.^c

…

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

—Westminster Confession of Faith, partial selection from ‘Of the Holy Scripture’

Now, if it be admitted that one cannot reference every particle of teaching on a given subject every time one wishes to speak on that subject, and that one must, therefore, have and use various summaries… is this a poor summary? We start with the teaching of Calvin and the other reformers, we move to the codification of that teaching by various later men, in particular the Westminster Divines, and we move down to the short, pithy, meme-like expression ‘Sola Scriptura’ which fits with some other ‘solas’ and was used as a shorthand to aid in memory… is that a bad expression?

Well, judging by the paper I am referencing, it certainly is problematic. Because, despite the similar sounds, ‘Sola’ in the reformed meme phrase was never intended to mean ‘sole’… or ‘only’ or ‘exclusive’. At best, it means ‘sole’ in the context of ‘compared to’ or ‘set against’ or ‘in the light of’. A father may have wisdom and authority, but… compared to Scripture… his authority and wisdom are non-existent, secondary, or dependent.

Lots of Authorities

Q. 2. How doth it appear that there is a God?

A. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his Word and Spirit only, do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.

Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Scripture… and the Reformed tradition… acknowledge many authorities. The authorities of: the father (an authority that is often denied nowadays), of church elders, of kings…, and even of employers and landowners… are all acknowledged and, often, praised in Scripture. And they are praised and promoted in the Reformed tradition. The Westminster Large Catechism has a huge section on the relations between superiors and inferiors which is, no doubt, offensive to modern sensibilities. (See questions 123-133)

Standing alone on the top step

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

II Timothy 3:15-16

Making a pithy, memorable, yet accurate summary of a complex doctrine is hard. So, with that caveat, let me try… ‘standing alone on the top step’.

And then let me hurriedly explain the analogy. First of all, the top step is not the house. This doctrine of Scripture does not deny, indeed it assumes and teaches, the idea that the Scriptures are subordinate to God. They come from God, the depend upon God. They can only be rightly interpreted by the Holy Spirit.

And they do not deny, indeed it assumes, the idea that there are other steps. That parents, church elders, civil magistrates, even friends, coworkers, bosses, and some random guy you meet on the street might, indeed do, also have authority. Also speak truth.

And it implies that we aren’t yet in the house… indeed that we are standing on the sidewalk outside the house. That we see through a glass darkly.

But all that said, it means that there is only one thing on the top step. You have God represented by the house. You have the Holy Spirit (the analogy gets a bit strained here) standing by your side, explaining. You have the lower steps filled with other people… your father on the step below Scripture, your mother standing with him, church elders and civil magistrates on the step below them… lots of other steps with lots of other people.

But there, standing on the top step, Scripture stands alone. When your father stands against God, when the elders of the church teach heresy, when the civil magistrate leads the nation into evil… Scripture stands against them. When the pastors are evil shepherds, destroying the flock… Scripture stands against them.

Conclusion

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

II Peter 3:16

We need to remember that in any discussion of doctrine our goal should be to promote the truth, not to foolishly hang on to (or blindly attack) any given formulation of that truth. To see where God has spoken in His Word, what He has said, what it means, and how it is to apply to our lives.

And to watch out for those who would wrest the teaching of the church away from what the Scriptures say, insisting on their ability to ‘interpret’ the Scriptures in a way that contradicts it… teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. That is precisely what Christ accused the Jewish leaders of doing, and what the doctrine with the pithy name of ‘Sola Sciptura’ is meant to combat.

—

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Von also writes as ‘Arthur Yeomans’. Under that name he writes children’s, YA, and adult fiction from a Christian perspective. His books are published by Wise Path Books and include the children’s/YA books:

The Bobtails meet the Preacher’s Kid

The Bobtails and the Cousins

The Bobtails go to France

and

No Ordinary School

As well as GK Chesterton’s wonderful book, “What’s Wrong with the World”, for which ‘Arthur’ wrote most of the annotations.

Arthur also has a substack, and a website. On the substack you can listen to some of his published books. Free.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

Sola Scriptura is Self-Refuting

1. The author has since put in a ‘definition’ section.