Sola Scriptura: Non-Protestant Understandings

In order to understand what exactly sola scriptura really means, it is helpful to begin with how the critics understand it. Many orthodox and catholic believers attempt to refute this doctrine, but often do not try to understand in a charitable way. The fact that even Protestants are not clear enough on this issue does not help either. A look at various internet sites reveals a few common errors in understanding this doctrine.

First, some suppose that the doctrine of sola scriptura, if true, will bring a unity in the faith on almost anything. Since this has not happened, some suppose that the doctrine is false. However, this is not what sola scriptura was about. Originally, Luther wished only to reform the church and set it back on a path of repentance. So he did hope that sola scriptura would bring unity. But his hopes did not pan out. Although the doctrine of sola scriptura would bring unity, the sinfulness of humanity prevents this from happening. Doctrinal disputes do occur in which both parties claim to adhere to sola scriptura, but only one of them actually does so. There are other disputes in which the participants have pure motives, but have a different amount of understanding of the various parts of the biblical tradition. Finally, some disputes result from differing philosophical viewpoints that are sometimes unrecognized. All of this means that sola scriptura is not a guarantee of unity.

Second, others suppose that the doctrine of sola scriptura means that Scripture "contains all of the material one needs for theology" and that "one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium...to help one understand it". These understandings are close, but not exactly accurate. Luther consulted the early church fathers, the understandings of philosophy, and his peers when understanding scripture. Many in the Reformed branch of the church study history and linguistics in an effort to understand scripture. So they do not believe that scripture contains the only material one needs for theology. Neither do they believe that apostolic tradition is unnecessary. The correct point is to note that all of the Reformers rejected the magisterium of the Roman Church as it is now understood and as it was understood at that time.

Finally, it is sometimes objected that sola scriptura means that scripture must be understood as a divine revelation apart from the church or the Holy Spirit. Sometimes this is taken to mean that understanding of that scripture must be apart from the church and the Holy Spirit. However, neither of these things are what is meant by sola scriptura. Luther and many of the Reformers taught on the inseparability of the Word and the Spirit. They believed that the Word did not function apart from the Spirit, nor the Spirit apart from the Word. They also believed that Scripture was given to the Church, to be preached by the Church and understood by it. So their belief in sola scriptura was quite compatible with placing Scripture with the Holy Spirit and with the Church.

Answering these misunderstandings of sola scriptura gives us a better understanding of what it is. Sola scriptura is a belief that places a source of unity, but not a guarantee of it. It places a source of doctrine, but is placed within human knowledge and understood by human knowledge. It places Scripture as revelation, but not apart from the church or the Holy Spirit. Since these objections arise from Catholic and Orthodox sources, they deal with some common issues related to tradition, human knowledge and the church. Other misunderstandings result from the liberal wing of the church and deal with completely different issues.