“Sola Scriptura” “Solo Scriptura” “Nuda Scriptura” “Nada Scriptura”
What is Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura is a Latin phrase meaning “scripture alone.” It is a Christian bibliological doctrine. It means that the Bible is the sole source of authority (either explicitly or implicitly) for Christian faith and practice. If only the canonical Scriptures are completely inspired and the only encapsulation of all truth, then only the Scriptures are authoritative in a way nothing else is. “The scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice” has been a common way Baptists have stated their belief in the Bible.
On Facebook awhile back, Alexander Thomson wrote “there is a growing attempt to argue that ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not ‘Solo Scriptura; and that resort to Scripture-only proof is ‘Biblicism’.”
A cadre of evangelical theologians today like to contrast “Sola Scriptura” with phrases such as “Solo Scriptura” and “Nuda Scriptura” – or draw a hard line between only and alone (which, of course, are English synonyms). Some of them may merely be trying to correct radical errors of individualism.[i] Others, however, are watering down the strength of Sola Scriptura.[ii]
Jeremy D. Myers, a former pastor who would like to redeem Christians from their biblical faith and practice, defines “Solo Scriptura” thusly: “‘Solo’ Scriptura is the idea that we can learn all matters about faith and practice using the Bible alone, plus nothing else.”
Marty Foord, a lecturer at the Evangelical Theological College in Singapore tells us that “sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is the only authority for believers.”
Canadian minister Lawson Murray expands the idea, claiming, “Protestant reformers made a distinction between the principles of ‘sola Scriptura’ (Scripture alone) and ‘nuda Scriptura’ (bare Scripture). ‘Sola Scriptura’ has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as the Christian’s supreme authority in all spiritual matters. ‘Nuda Scriptura’ is the idea that the Bible is the Christian’s only theological authority in all spiritual matters. The best transliteration for ‘nuda Scriptura today is ‘solo Scriptura’ (just me and my Bible).”[iii]
Greek Orthodox Archpriest Andrew Stephen Damick (who doesn’t believe in either sola or solo) piles on against the “Protestants,” writing, “Solo scriptura, it is argued, is what most Evangelicals would probably understand as their basic matrix of church authority—the Bible is above everything. Some might say that the Bible is the only authority in church life, while others might say it is the primary authority in church life, but it’s still over everything.” In the end he concludes, “this ‘sola’ vs. ‘solo’ business is really a distinction without a difference” and that “sola” is really “just a better-read version” of “solo.” I sort of agree, though I would change “better-read” to “more sophisticated.”[iv] After receiving a thoroughly “liberal” education, some want a more sophisticated way to explain Sola Scriptura. They elevate themselves above being so simple in belief as to receive the phrase from a children’s song, “the Bible tells me so.” (Cf. Matthew 18:1-4.)
Many “Protestants” now nuance the terminology. They may argue that the Bible is not the “only authority,” just the “supreme authority.” It is not the “sole authority,” but “an authority” (or “final authority”) above other “lesser” authorities.[v]
We do not (and should not) reject the teaching of God’s people in his churches through the years, neither what someone has written in a commentary or theological book, nor how the Holy Spirit has led someone else to understand the passage – but we still stand on “Scripture alone,” “Only Scriptura,” and/or any or whatever term means that the only authority for our faith and practice is found in the Bible. The book of Acts extols the virtues of the Bereans, who would not take the word of an apostle, if such word did not agree with Scripture (Acts 17:11). The Bible trumps every Roman pope and every little Baptist “pope.” It is above all of them, the one and only and final authority. We do not use the Scriptures as our “sole resource” – but it is the “sole recourse.” There is no higher court of appeal.
If we do not believe that the Scriptures, inspired by God, throughly furnishes us with all we need for every good work, including doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then we have gone over to the other side![vi]
Beware of the new nuancers. The nuancing of the term “Sola Scriptura” is an admission that the term is not “sufficient” and may even suggest that those nuancing the term do not really believe the Scriptures themselves are sufficient! In the end, the fight against “Sola Scriptura” or “Solo Scriptura” may leave us with “Nada Scriptura.”[vii]
[ii] “Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science.” I do not disagree with anything here by John McArthur, but I wonder why he found it necessary to write it. Which advocate of Sola Scriptura is arguing that we should go to the Bible to learn the rules of Chinese grammar, for example?
[iii] He did not cite any Reformer or Radical Reformer who used this term positively. I get the impression that it is primarily a new term to try to encapsulate an older idea. It does seem that Calvin may have at least once used “ex nudis scripturis” to describe depending on the scripture alone (Concerning Scandals, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978, p. 18). Anabaptist/Baptist leaders (if properly understood) might well be described as holding a sort of “Nuda Scriptura” view without appealing to such terminology (i.e., correctly understanding that “Sola Scriptura” demonstrates their belief). Additionally, the reason many of these teachers did not accept the traditions of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches is not because they totally rejected any continuity of teaching the Bible. Rather it was because they rejected the Catholic and Orthodox as being part of that continuity; that is, they are not true churches in the New Testament sense.
[iv] This may be seen in those who argue for replacing “sola” with “prima.” Are they not tacitly admitting they do not even believe “Sola Scriptura” – or at least that they think “sola” and “solo” are equivalent terms.
[v] If it is the “final authority” then it is the “sole authority” – other things called authorities are not authorities, merely servants or helps.
[vi] Many “highly educated” students are coming out of Baptist and Protestant seminaries with the idea that the Bible itself does not teach Sola Scriptura. Consider the teaching and implications of these texts: Deuteronomy 12:32, Revelation 22:18-19, do not add to or take away from God’s word; Psalm 119:89, God’s word is settled, forever; Isaiah 8:20, for truth and light, we must speak according to the word; Mark 7:6-9, the traditions of men vs. the commandments of God; Romans 10:17, the word is foundational to our faith; 1 Corinthians 4:6, do not think above what is written; Galatians 1:8, there is only one gospel, not many; Ephesians 6:17, the word of God is the sword of the Spirit; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, we have the resource to prove all things and hold fast the truth; 2 Peter 1:3, we are given all things that pertain to life and godliness; Jude 3:5, the faith is once delivered; 1 John 4:1, the word necessary to try the spirits.
[vii] “Nothing Scripture,” that is, without any biblical authority. (Sorry for switching from Latin to Spanish. ... Not really.)
2 comments:
Well written. Thank you.
E. T. Chapman
You're welcome. Thanks for reading and commenting. I appreciate it, brother.
Post a Comment