Sola Scriptura: The Need for Clarity

It is quite frequent for the Reformed to make or deny appeals to sola scriptura. These appeals are taken quite seriously, but they are not always believed. In fact, some appeal to sola scriptura in one instance to solve a problem that another person declares cannot be solved by sola scripture. This dilemma cannot be solved by mere appeal to sola scriptura. Rather, the doctrine must be clearly set out so that everyone knows what it means and when it applies.

Now some may claim that the doctrine of sola scriptura is already clear enough in the original creeds. There are no problems there, and certainly no need for further work to clear up the matter. Perhaps those who misuse sola scriptura are simply unwilling to believe the Bible. Perhaps they are simply not familiar with the original creeds. This may be true. Regardless of that, the original creeds still have problems with them. Consider the fact that one creed states that the Hebrew MT textual tradition is inerrant. That sort of claim is one that virtually every modern scholar would disagree with. Conservative scholars who believe in sola scriptura do not believe that it implies that sort of thing about the manuscript traditions. The creeds are also vague about the precise relationship of scripture and tradition. For example, just how are we to treat the creeds? Are we to believe in them unconditionally, or only conditionally? There is at least one creed on each side of this question. There are also questions that the creeds do not answer. These include the relationship of the sciences to the Bible, the place of philosophy in theology and the relationship of theology to the Bible. This should be enough to demonstrate that the creeds do not provide enough clarity to the issues involved.

At this point, someone may suggest that the commentary of the Reformers may offer some help with these sort of questions. Perhaps it does. It does not matter though. If the Reformers did offer such commentary, then it has not achieved the sort of status that would allow it to define sola scriptura. Furthermore, a simple seach cannot find anything on what the Reformers did mean by the term. Finally, the fact that the creeds do dispute the various implications of sola scriptura is a good indication that the Reformers themselves did not agree on the subject. So they will not be able to resolve this.

This leaves only one way to resolve these questions. One must investigate the implications of sola scriptura using the resources of the creeds. These implications cannot be obtained by purely historical means, nor can this project be avoided. These implications are not a new definition of scripture. They merely clear up the meaning of the sola scriptura that is already present in the creeds.