Key Texts: Heb. 4:12; 1 Cor. 4:6; Isa. 8:20; Titus 1:9; 2 Tim. 1:13; Luke 24:27, 44, 45.
Part I: Overview
The Bible and Protestantism are intertwined in a common history. It could be said that the history of Christianity is in some sense the history of the interpretation of the Bible. Sola Scriptura—by Scripture alone—has been the battle cry of the Protestant Reformation. Sola Scriptura elevated the role of Scripture to the sole standard and normative source for theology. Additionally, sola Scriptura was an instrument for criticizing ecclesiastical power structures and longstanding church traditions. It gave the Bible back into the hands of ordinary people. As such, sola Scriptura is the critical governing principle that directs the life of the church. It denotes the conviction that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the one and only criterion for Christian faith and living. What we believe in matters of faith is true only if our beliefs correspond to the witness of the whole of Scripture, to all of Scripture (tota Scriptura). This precept implies the unity of Scripture and the premise that the Bible is sufficiently clear in what it states.
Thus, sola Scriptura is far more than just a Reformation slogan. Without the Bible, the Reformation would not have been able to accomplish what it did. Sola Scriptura also implies a number of important principles for the interpretation of Scripture that are inextricably intertwined with the sola Scriptura principle. This week we will look more closely at some of these principles of interpretation.
Part II: Commentary
When we affirm the importance of sola Scriptura for our faith, we acknowledge the unique divine authority of the Bible over any other source that might influence our theology. Sola Scriptura does not mean solo Scriptura (unaccompanied scripture). There are other sources that are inevitably part of what we believe. But Scripture alone is the ruling norm and final authority over every other source when it comes to matters of faith and practice. Scripture stands above any creed of the church. Scripture is not subject to the judgment of science or the voice of the majority, nor of any tradition, reason, or experience. In the words of Ellen G. White: “But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.”—Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 595.
The Bible has this magisterial role because of its divine origin and authority. Thus, we should not say less than what Scripture affirms. Nor should we add to the words of Scripture and go beyond its clear teachings. At the end of the last book of the Bible, we read the following warning that can be applied to all of Scripture: “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18, 19, NKJV).
Why do you think it is important not to add to or take away from the words of Scripture? What would happen if we added to, or subtracted from, its truth? What would such addition or subtraction mean for the authority of Scripture? What does this answer tell us about the authority of the person who adds or takes away sections of Scripture?
Scripture alone is the ruling norm for our faith. This precept implies a number of other aspects and principles, as follows:
The Unity of Scripture
That Scripture can function as a theological guide and norm is possible only because of its internal unity. This unity is the result of its divine inspiration. Unity is not superimposed on Scripture but flows out of its divine origin. The Bible itself testifies to this unity by the fact that New Testament writers quote from basically all of the Old Testament (the Scripture of their times); also the words of Jesus and the New Testament writings were put on the same authoritative level as the Old Testament (see Luke 10:16, 2 Pet. 3:16). Thus, no part of Scripture is more authoritative than another part. The New Testament is not above the Old Testament; and the Old Testament is unfolded in the New Testament.
If there were no divine inspiration, there would be no unity in Scripture. Without God’s inspiration, we would have only disparate and contradictory biblical writings. Without the unity of Scripture, we would not be able to develop a comprehensive biblical theology. We could talk only about the diverse and inconsistent theologies of various biblical writers. Only the unity of Scripture allows us to take all of Scripture into consideration and to compare Scripture with Scripture. If there were no unity of Scripture, we could no longer compare Scripture with Scripture. We could no longer refer back to Scripture to settle questions. The unity of Scripture has far-reaching implications for our theology. Without a basic unity of Scripture, we would not be able to distinguish truth from error. Nor could we any longer oppose theological heresy. Without the unity of Scripture, we would end up with a plurality of disparate beliefs in the Bible, and the Bible would be full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Thus, the Bible would have effectively lost its ability to be the norm and guide for what we believe, and it could not be used to bring theological unity among the believers.
Application
Today there are some who claim that the New Testament is more authoritative than the Old Testament. They state that the Old Testament teaches wrath and vengeance and a salvation that is based on our works, whereas in the New Testament we find love and mercy, forgiveness and grace. Thus, there is no unity of thought. Hence, the New Testament, and especially the words of Jesus, are placed above the words of the Old Testament. How would you respond to such a position? Where do you see problems with this approach? What implications does this view have for the authority of the Bible?
The Clarity of Scripture
When we appeal to Scripture alone, we also implicitly express our conviction that what Scripture states is sufficiently clear to be understood so that we can put it into practice. Perhaps the most difficult texts in the Bible are not those that challenge us in our limited understanding. Rather, the most difficult texts may be those that we clearly understand but often resist following. The Bible can be clearly understood by children and adults alike. Yet, there is an infinite scope to Scripture’s truths beyond what we know. Thus, even the most educated minds have ample room to grow in to deeper understanding and knowledge.
Scripture repeatedly affirms that it is clear enough to be understood by those who read and hear it (see Neh. 8:8, 12; Eph. 3:4; Matt. 21:42; Matt. 12:3, 5; Matt. 19:4; Matt. 22:31; Mark 12:10, 26; Luke 6:3). Because there is a sufficient clarity of Scripture, we are held fully responsible for what we do or fail to do, when we understand it.
What good would Scripture be if it were obscure and unclear? Could it then function as both a norm and a guide? Explain.
Scripture Interprets Scripture
Because of the unity of Scripture, the Bible can function as its own interpreter. One part of Scripture can throw light on other parts. Thus, we should carefully take into consideration the historical and literary contexts of biblical statements, rather than just lumping together passages in which the same word occurs. When we give Scripture a chance to shed light on other parts of Scripture in which the same ideas and words show up, we should take into consideration all that Scripture has to say about a given subject. A careful comparison and study of Scripture should have priority over any commentary or secondary author who writes on Bible topics or gives an interpretation of Scripture. Even Ellen G. White should not be used as a shortcut to careful Bible study. While we may gain valuable insights from her comments, she is no replacement for a thorough investigation of the Bible itself.
Part III: Life Application
We don’t need priests or the teaching magisterium of the church or other authorities to interpret Scripture for us. There is a priesthood of all believers. Yet, there is wisdom in the collective knowledge of those who also study the Bible. God also guides my fellow believers, and new light will stand the test of closest investigation by those who also cherish the message of the Bible. In the words of Ellen G. White: “God has not passed His people by and chosen one solitary man here and another there as the only ones worthy to be entrusted with His truth. He does not give one man new light contrary to the established faith of the body. . . . Let none be self-confident, as though God had given them special light above their brethren. . . . One accepts some new and original idea which does not seem to conflict with the truth. He . . . dwells upon it until it seems to him to be clothed with beauty and importance, for Satan has power to give this false appearance. At last it becomes the all-absorbing theme, the one great point around which everything centers, and the truth is uprooted from the heart. . . . I warn you to beware of these side issues, whose tendency is to divert the mind from the truth. Error is never harmless. It never sanctifies, but always brings confusion and dissension.”—Ellen G. White, Last Day Events, pp. 90, 91.
In what ways are you in danger of making some “new light” so all-absorbing that it creates confusion and brings dissention? Why is there wisdom in consulting with others? What danger is there in accepting “new light contrary to the established faith of the body” of Christ?
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Key Texts: Heb. 4:12; 1 Cor. 4:6; Isa. 8:20; Titus 1:9; 2 Tim. 1:13; Luke 24:27, 44, 45.
Part I: Overview
The Bible and Protestantism are intertwined in a common history. It could be said that the history of Christianity is in some sense the history of the interpretation of the Bible. Sola Scriptura—by Scripture alone—has been the battle cry of the Protestant Reformation. Sola Scriptura elevated the role of Scripture to the sole standard and normative source for theology. Additionally, sola Scriptura was an instrument for criticizing ecclesiastical power structures and longstanding church traditions. It gave the Bible back into the hands of ordinary people. As such, sola Scriptura is the critical governing principle that directs the life of the church. It denotes the conviction that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the one and only criterion for Christian faith and living. What we believe in matters of faith is true only if our beliefs correspond to the witness of the whole of Scripture, to all of Scripture (tota Scriptura). This precept implies the unity of Scripture and the premise that the Bible is sufficiently clear in what it states.
Thus, sola Scriptura is far more than just a Reformation slogan. Without the Bible, the Reformation would not have been able to accomplish what it did. Sola Scriptura also implies a number of important principles for the interpretation of Scripture that are inextricably intertwined with the sola Scriptura principle. This week we will look more closely at some of these principles of interpretation.
Part II: Commentary
When we affirm the importance of sola Scriptura for our faith, we acknowledge the unique divine authority of the Bible over any other source that might influence our theology. Sola Scriptura does not mean solo Scriptura (unaccompanied scripture). There are other sources that are inevitably part of what we believe. But Scripture alone is the ruling norm and final authority over every other source when it comes to matters of faith and practice. Scripture stands above any creed of the church. Scripture is not subject to the judgment of science or the voice of the majority, nor of any tradition, reason, or experience. In the words of Ellen G. White: “But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.”—Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 595.
The Bible has this magisterial role because of its divine origin and authority. Thus, we should not say less than what Scripture affirms. Nor should we add to the words of Scripture and go beyond its clear teachings. At the end of the last book of the Bible, we read the following warning that can be applied to all of Scripture: “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18, 19, NKJV).
Why do you think it is important not to add to or take away from the words of Scripture? What would happen if we added to, or subtracted from, its truth? What would such addition or subtraction mean for the authority of Scripture? What does this answer tell us about the authority of the person who adds or takes away sections of Scripture?
Scripture alone is the ruling norm for our faith. This precept implies a number of other aspects and principles, as follows:
The Unity of Scripture
That Scripture can function as a theological guide and norm is possible only because of its internal unity. This unity is the result of its divine inspiration. Unity is not superimposed on Scripture but flows out of its divine origin. The Bible itself testifies to this unity by the fact that New Testament writers quote from basically all of the Old Testament (the Scripture of their times); also the words of Jesus and the New Testament writings were put on the same authoritative level as the Old Testament (see Luke 10:16, 2 Pet. 3:16). Thus, no part of Scripture is more authoritative than another part. The New Testament is not above the Old Testament; and the Old Testament is unfolded in the New Testament.
If there were no divine inspiration, there would be no unity in Scripture. Without God’s inspiration, we would have only disparate and contradictory biblical writings. Without the unity of Scripture, we would not be able to develop a comprehensive biblical theology. We could talk only about the diverse and inconsistent theologies of various biblical writers. Only the unity of Scripture allows us to take all of Scripture into consideration and to compare Scripture with Scripture. If there were no unity of Scripture, we could no longer compare Scripture with Scripture. We could no longer refer back to Scripture to settle questions. The unity of Scripture has far-reaching implications for our theology. Without a basic unity of Scripture, we would not be able to distinguish truth from error. Nor could we any longer oppose theological heresy. Without the unity of Scripture, we would end up with a plurality of disparate beliefs in the Bible, and the Bible would be full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Thus, the Bible would have effectively lost its ability to be the norm and guide for what we believe, and it could not be used to bring theological unity among the believers.
Application
Today there are some who claim that the New Testament is more authoritative than the Old Testament. They state that the Old Testament teaches wrath and vengeance and a salvation that is based on our works, whereas in the New Testament we find love and mercy, forgiveness and grace. Thus, there is no unity of thought. Hence, the New Testament, and especially the words of Jesus, are placed above the words of the Old Testament. How would you respond to such a position? Where do you see problems with this approach? What implications does this view have for the authority of the Bible?
The Clarity of Scripture
When we appeal to Scripture alone, we also implicitly express our conviction that what Scripture states is sufficiently clear to be understood so that we can put it into practice. Perhaps the most difficult texts in the Bible are not those that challenge us in our limited understanding. Rather, the most difficult texts may be those that we clearly understand but often resist following. The Bible can be clearly understood by children and adults alike. Yet, there is an infinite scope to Scripture’s truths beyond what we know. Thus, even the most educated minds have ample room to grow in to deeper understanding and knowledge.
Scripture repeatedly affirms that it is clear enough to be understood by those who read and hear it (see Neh. 8:8, 12; Eph. 3:4; Matt. 21:42; Matt. 12:3, 5; Matt. 19:4; Matt. 22:31; Mark 12:10, 26; Luke 6:3). Because there is a sufficient clarity of Scripture, we are held fully responsible for what we do or fail to do, when we understand it.
What good would Scripture be if it were obscure and unclear? Could it then function as both a norm and a guide? Explain.
Scripture Interprets Scripture
Because of the unity of Scripture, the Bible can function as its own interpreter. One part of Scripture can throw light on other parts. Thus, we should carefully take into consideration the historical and literary contexts of biblical statements, rather than just lumping together passages in which the same word occurs. When we give Scripture a chance to shed light on other parts of Scripture in which the same ideas and words show up, we should take into consideration all that Scripture has to say about a given subject. A careful comparison and study of Scripture should have priority over any commentary or secondary author who writes on Bible topics or gives an interpretation of Scripture. Even Ellen G. White should not be used as a shortcut to careful Bible study. While we may gain valuable insights from her comments, she is no replacement for a thorough investigation of the Bible itself.
Part III: Life Application
We don’t need priests or the teaching magisterium of the church or other authorities to interpret Scripture for us. There is a priesthood of all believers. Yet, there is wisdom in the collective knowledge of those who also study the Bible. God also guides my fellow believers, and new light will stand the test of closest investigation by those who also cherish the message of the Bible. In the words of Ellen G. White: “God has not passed His people by and chosen one solitary man here and another there as the only ones worthy to be entrusted with His truth. He does not give one man new light contrary to the established faith of the body. . . . Let none be self-confident, as though God had given them special light above their brethren. . . . One accepts some new and original idea which does not seem to conflict with the truth. He . . . dwells upon it until it seems to him to be clothed with beauty and importance, for Satan has power to give this false appearance. At last it becomes the all-absorbing theme, the one great point around which everything centers, and the truth is uprooted from the heart. . . . I warn you to beware of these side issues, whose tendency is to divert the mind from the truth. Error is never harmless. It never sanctifies, but always brings confusion and dissension.”—Ellen G. White, Last Day Events, pp. 90, 91.
In what ways are you in danger of making some “new light” so all-absorbing that it creates confusion and brings dissention? Why is there wisdom in consulting with others? What danger is there in accepting “new light contrary to the established faith of the body” of Christ?