Sola Scriptura: Our Only
Model
II Tim. 3:14-17; I
Pet. 4:11
But
continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and
hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned
them;
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:
That the man of
God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good
works.
If any man speak, let him
speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let
him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God
in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to
whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever.
Amen.
In the last words that Paul wrote
before his martyrdom, he challenged Timothy concerning
the place Scripture must have in his life and ministry.
He made it clear that “wisdom,” and salvation itself,
come from Scripture alone. He went on to say that
Scripture alone is profitable (useful, beneficial, advantageous)
for doctrine (teaching), reproof (conviction and
punishment and involves exposing false teaching),
correction (setting things right, bringing them back to
where they are supposed to be), and instruction in
righteousness (training in what is right). The result of
all that, Paul concludes, is that Timothy will be
perfect (mature) and thoroughly furnishedunto
all good works (fully equipped for worship, holy
living, and Christian
service).
In the early church,
therefore, Scripture was elevated to its rightful
position as sole, sufficient authority. It was
absolute and ruled unilaterally in all matters. Sadly,
however, it was not long that this began to change. One
example, which is quite probably the first major
departure from Scripture after the apostolic days, was
the decision to regard the terms “bishop” and “elder”
(or “pastor”) as different positions in the
church hierarchy. Now, the incontrovertible fact is that
the early church viewed all these terms as referring to
one and the same person. This fact is beyond any doubt,
as is found in the writings of the Church Fathers, such
as early 4th Century scholar Hilary and late
4th Century Roman scholar Jerome, as well as
contemporary theologians of Jerome, such as Chrysostom,
and in-turn his successors: Pelagius, Theodore of
Mopsuestia, and Theodoret. This was changed, however,
supposedly to fight heresy. As early as the
2nd Century, “bishops”
were elevated over “elders.” Bishops soon became rulers
over groups of churches, and some bishops were even
elevated over other bishops, and were eventually called
cardinals. Ultimately, in the western church (Roman
Catholicism), one bishop emerged as supreme over all.
Between 313 and 590, the bishop at Rome was considered
“first among equals,” but in 590 the Roman bishop was
given supremacy over all other bishops. In the strict
sense of the term, this bishop (who in 590 was Gregory
I) became the first “Pope.” The Papacy then, to prop up
their teaching of “apostolic succession,” had to go back
through history and arbitrarily choose certain men
(several of very questionable character) through whom
they could trace the pope back to
Peter.
It was, therefore,
one early, deliberate, calculated departure from clear
Scripture precedent that created the hierarchy of Rome
that exists to this day (and sadly even in some
protestant denominations). Worse, the result was that
this “supreme bishop,” the Pope, became the absolute
authority over the church and every member of it. When
the Pope speaks ex cathedra (“from the chair”),
his declarations are not only equal to Scripture,
but are superior to Scripture. Prior to the
Reformation, the laity was forbidden even to read
Scripture. All interpretation was in the hands of the
Pope and other officers of the Church. The official
Catholic interpretation of Scripture was dubbed with the
name Magesterium, and it was
the church that gave birth to the Scriptures, not the
Scripture who bore the Church.
It was the
Reformation, however, that met this apostasy head-on and
rejected it in its entirety.
In July 1519, at the Leipzig Debate with John Eck, when
Eck accused Luther of appealing to Scripture alone and
not papal authority, Luther responded:
A simple layman armed with
Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council
without it. . . . [N]either the Church nor the pope can
establish articles of faith. These must come from
Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject
pope and councils.
In October 1520 came a
papal bull (Latin, for “seal,” as in a seal an official
document) condemning Luther and his writings and
demanded that he recant. Luther defiantly refused;
instead of burning his own writings, he publicly burned
the papal bull, saying that the bull condemned Christ
Himself. What a scene!
It was then in April 1521
that Luther was summoned to the final showdown at the
Diet (assembly) in the city Worms. The Roman Church
requested that Emperor Charles V, himself a Roman
Catholic, deal with the case of Luther, which he agreed
to do. On that fateful day, the crowd that gathered was
enormous, so huge, in fact, that it was difficult for
Luther and his supporters to even reach the conference
hall. Besides the Emperor, there were 206 high ranking
officials, including dukes, archbishops, bishops,
ambassadors, and papal nuncios. The diet began on April
17 with the brilliant Johann von Eck serving as the
presiding officer. He asked Luther pointedly if he was
the author of the numerous writings that had been placed
on a table in the conference hall and asked if he was
willing to retract the doctrines in them that
contradicted the accepted doctrines of the Church.
Luther admitted he was the author but asked for some
time for reflection before answering the other charge.
After all, Luther knew that his answer might very well
cost him his life, and we can only imagine the pressure
he felt. After a night of much prayer, Luther was asked
again in the crowded hall if he was willing to retract
his teachings. To this he replied the now famous
words:
Unless I am convinced by
Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority
of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each
other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I
cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against
conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand; I
cannot do otherwise. God help me.
Amen.
[i]
The hall exploded in
uproar, with everyone speaking at once. The Emperor was
enraged and left the hall, later saying that “he could
not see how a single monk could be right and the
testimony of a thousand years of Christendom
wrong.”
Do we not hear
similar words today? We hear, “That’s the way we’ve
always done it,” or, “That’s what I was taught,” or,
“That’s the tradition of our denomination.” As in
Luther’s day, there is much in the Church today that not
only is not based on Scripture, but much of which
even contradicts Scripture. In my humble view, in
fact, the key to Luther’s statement is that to go
against a conscience that is “captive to the Word of God
. . . is neither right nor safe,” for that is precisely what is happening today.
The church is simply not captive to Scripture, not
driven by God’s Word alone.
What, then, is the
church guided by instead? In the final analysis, every
aspect of the church today is driven by popular
culture. Instead of
pointing people to God’s Word alone for answers to life
problems, they are given “therapeutic counseling” to
make them feel better about themselves in their world.
Instead of giving people the biblical Gospel of sin,
salvation, and service, we appeal to their felt needs so
they will feel comfortable. Instead of preaching the
pure truth of Scripture, we entertain the MTV generation
so it will enjoy coming to church.
Everything today, from Bibles,
to church programs, to tee shirts, is marketed using a
pretty wrapper that appeals to what people want, that
is, to the flesh. We submit again, it is culture
that rules the Church not Scripture. Thankfully, some in the church are seeing the
problem. One writes, for example:
. . . sola
Scriptura meant that the Word of God was sufficient.
Although Rome believed it was infallible, the official
theology was shaped more by the insights of Plato and
Aristotle than by Scripture. Similarly today, psychology
threatens to reshape the understanding of the self, as
even in the evangelical pulpit sin becomes "addiction";
the Fall as an event is replaced with one's "victim"
status; salvation is increasingly communicated as mental
health, peace of mind, and self-esteem, and my personal
happiness and self-fulfillment are center-stage rather
than God's holiness and mercy, justice and love, glory
and compassion. Does the Bible define the human problem
and its solution? Or when we really want facts, do we
turn somewhere else, to a modern secular authority who
will really carry weight in my sermon? Of course, the
Bible will be cited to bolster the argument. Political
ideology, sociology, marketing, and other secular
"authorities" must never be allowed priority in
answering questions the Bible addresses. That is, in
part, what this affirmation means, and evangelicals
today seem as confused on this point as was the medieval
church.
[ii]
Indeed, we are as
confused today as in the days of Reformation. Sadly,
however, such comments are in the minority. Gone is the
Reformation principle of sola Scriptura—Scripture
alone. So central was this, that it has been called the
“formal principle” of the Reformation. By “formal” is
meant that this principle is the authority that forms
and shapes the entire movement
from beginning to end. Scripture alone, then, gave form
to everything involved in the Reformation. Without that,
there could be no form, no content, and no truth because
all of those demand an authority. Without authority,
there can be nothing else.
The purpose of
sola scriptura, then, was to reposition the Bible
as the final authority over the Church. That is why
we deal with it first. Without it, the other “solas” are
meaningless because they have no foundation or
authority. While Roman Catholicism had elevated the
Church and the Pope over Scripture and therefore made
the Scripture inferior to the Church, the Reformers
(Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others) reaffirmed the
authority of Scripture. To them Scripture was the
norma normans (determining norm) not a norma
normata (determined norm).
Scripture is not determined by anyone; rather it is the
“The Determiner.”
Many Scriptures proclaim
the centrality and sufficiency of Scripture. In addition
to our text (II Tim. 3:14-17), we
read:
Deuteronomy 4:2: Ye shall
not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall
ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I command
you.
Psalm 19:7: The law of the
LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of
the LORD is sure, making wise the
simple.
Hebrews 1:2: [God]
in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.
Revelation 22:18-19: For I
testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are
written in this book: And if any man shall take away
from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall
take away his part out of the book of life, and out of
the holy city, and from the things which are written in
this book.
One term used in the Bible,
however, is especially fascinating and pivotal. It is
the term oracles of God, which appears three times in
Scripture: Romans 3:1-2; Hebrews 5:12; and I Peter 4:11,
which is of the greatest
significance:
If any man speak,
let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man
minister, let him do it as of the ability which God
giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through
Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever
and ever. Amen.
Throughout the ages, men
have tried to divine the future. Examining the entails
of animals, interpreting dreams, gazing at crystals,
observing the movements of fish in a tank, snakes in a
pit, and the stars and planets in the sky have all been
used to try to divine the future. During the Shang
dynasty in China, shoulder blades of oxen and bottom
shells of tortoises were inscribed and heated. A message
was then derived from the cracks formed by the heating.
One of the more
interesting methods of divination was that of listening
to and watching the movement of birds. In Rome, public
officials called “augurs” (Latin for “bird”) would
listen to birds to decide whether or not an official
ceremony should proceed. Others would watch the flight
of birds, deducing meaning from what direction the birds
went. Our English word “auspices” in fact, comes from
the Latin auspicium, which comes from
auspex, “bird seer.” So when
we speak of an “auspicious” occasion, we are actually
speaking of an occasion that is favorable because the
birds say it is.
If such things sound
foolish, what can we say of modern oracles, such as
reading palms and tea leaves, consulting horoscopes,
interpreting dreams, practicing religious rituals,
following man’s rationale, and accepting the
pronouncements of a Pope or councils? Why do men do such
things? Because they have abandoned the Word of
God.
Like the Romans, the
Greeks had their pagan oracles, which they referred to
using the Greek words manteion and
creoterion. This is not the word Peter uses,
however. He uses the Greek logion, which comes
from logos, “word” (Lk. 5:1; Jn. 17:6; Acts 4:29,
31; 8:14; Col. 1:25; I Thes. 2:13; Tit. 1:3; Heb. 13:7;
etc.). Used in this way, logos speaks of the
utterance of God. Think of it!
It is His very utterances that God has committed to men.
Through our Bibles, we hold in our hands the very words
of the same God who spoke other words to call the
universe into eixistence.
Sadly, some
translators criticize the translation of logion
as “oracles,” saying that even though this is a
legitimate translation, it seems unsuitable here. The
NIV translators, for example, render this as “the very
words of God.” They argue that since “oracles” refers to
pagan religions and rites, then this was the furthest
thing from Paul’s mind. (Other modern translations also
are incorrect: BBE, NLT, ISV, Phillips, the Message,
NCV, NET, NRSV, TEV, TLB.) We would submit, however,
that the KJV translators knew more than the critics (as
did even the translators of the NASB, ESV, and HCSB).
This translation much more powerfully demonstrates to
the English reader the contrast between men’s
oracles and God’s oracles. Roman Catholicism, for example, makes no
apology for following the oracles of the pope. Paul’s
point, in stark contrast, is that God entrusted His
oracles to men and that these oracles are infinitely
superior to man’s.
First Peter
4:11, therefore, is a tremendously powerful and
significant statement: If any man speak, let him speak
as the oracles of God. In other words, if a man
has something to say, it had better be the Word
of God. Notice that the verse does not say that
whatever a Bible teacher or preacher (or Pope, for that
matter) says is the oracles of God. On the
contrary, the verse declares that whatever a man says
must conform
to the oracles of God. We have just the opposite today,
however. A preacher can get on TV or radio and utter
anything about God and most Christians think it is
great. “After all,” they say, “he’s talking about Jesus
so it must be good.” But the question this verse demands
we ask is: do his words really conform to the oracles
of God? Is this man really speaking the utterances of
God?
Not only does this verse
clearly condemn Roman Catholic dogma, but it also speaks
directly to Evangelicalism today, which is driven more
and more by pop culture, each person’s individual
feelings and “felt needs,” as well as those who claim
new revelation through visions and inner urges.
Likewise, many preachers, teachers, and leaders today
are saying many things, but many of them simply do not
conform to the oracles of God. Their words do not come
from Scripture.
If I may be bold and blunt
for a moment, if a man is not going to minister and
preach according to the oracles or God, then he should
just keep his mouth shut, and most certainly get out of
the pulpit. Our sole authority is the oracles of God,
nothing less, nothing more. In other words, as Paul told
Timothy, the only thing we should be doing is preaching
the Word, as declared in II Timothy
4:1-4:
I charge thee
therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who
shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and
his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out
of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all
longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when
they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own
lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having
itching ears; And they shall turn away
their ears from the truth,
and shall be turned unto fables.
If there was, in
fact, one thing that the Reformers returned to, it was
biblical, expository preaching. Prior to the
Reformation, this had vanished from the church, and it
has all but vanished in our day, having been replaced by
topical, issue-oriented, political, and psychological
sermons that accomplish nothing spiritual, much less
anything eternal. The popular notion of our day, as
mega-church guru Rick Warren has clearly stated it, “The
ground we have in common with unbelievers is not the
Bible, but our common needs, hurts, and interests as
human beings. You cannot start with a
text.”[iii] Such a statement is almost
beyond belief!
The Reformers, in contrast,
were totally committed to the text and its exposition.
Luther, for example, often preached four times on
Sundays and left behind some 2,300 sermons. In direct
contrast to the devaluation of preaching in the Roman
Church, Luther’s preaching, as well as all Reformation
preaching, was instructive, expository, and built on the
text alone. “My best craft,” Luther said, “is to give
the Scripture with its plain meaning; for the plain
meaning is learning and life.”
The pulpit was the
absolute heart of Calvin’s ministry. During his four
years in Strasbourg, he preached almost everyday and
twice on the Lord’s Day. In Geneva, from 1541 until his
death in 1564, it was also twice on Sunday, and every
other week he preached each weeknight. His Sunday
sermons covered the New Testament, his weeknight sermons
the Old Testament. Those sermons were recorded by a
stenographer and became, along with his other lectures,
the basis of his many commentaries. The pulpit truly was
the heart of his ministry, as he moved through the
Scriptures verse-by-verse, book-by-book, always seeking
the natural meaning of the text followed by its
application. He also correctly believed that preaching
was the primary task of the pastor and was how God
educates His people. Commenting in I Peter 4:11, in fact
he wrote in his Institutes:
What else is this than to
banish all the inventions of the human mind (whatever be
the head which may have devised them), that the pure
word of God may be taught and learned in the Church of
the faithful,—than to discard the decrees, or rather
fictions of men (whatever be their rank), that the
decrees of God alone may remain
steadfast?
[iv]
If I may quote
again, even more powerfully did Calvin write in his
commentary of I Peter, which was in-turn was based upon
his preaching:
In the meantime, we learn
from these words of Peter, that it is not lawful for
those who are engaged in teaching to do anything else,
but faithfully to deliver to others, as from hand to
hand, the doctrine received from God; for he forbids any
one to go forth, except he who is instructed in God’s
word, and who proclaims infallible oracles as it were
from his mouth. He, therefore, leaves no room for human
inventions; for he briefly defines the doctrine which
ought to be taught in the Church. . . . This was, indeed, commonly the case formerly with
false prophets; and we see at this day how arrogantly
the Pope and his followers cover with this pretense all
their impious traditions. But Peter did not intend to
teach pastors such hypocrisy as this, to pretend that
they had from God whatever doctrine it pleased them to
announce, but, he took an argument from the subject
itself, that he might exhort them to sobriety and
meekness, to a reverence for God, and to an earnest
attention to their work.
Oh, how
we need
that
challenge in our day! If I may quote Calvin one more
time, he added in his Institutes, “The ministry of the Word . . . and how far our
reverence for it should go, that it may be to us a
perpetual token by which to distinguish the
church.”[v] In other words, it
is our love for and preaching
of the Word that demonstrates
our true love for God and distinguishes us from Rome.
We would go so far as to
submit that Calvin would agree with the statement that a
“church” that does not have preaching at the core is not
a biblical church. We need to carefully consider that
point. There are countless evangelical “churches” today,
but if Calvin was right—and according to what the Bible
says, he was—then many of those “churches” are not truly
churches at all. They are entertaining, they are
appealing, they are great social centers, but they are
not New Testament churches. Where the Word of God is not
exposited as the central ministry, there is no true
church.
Huldrych Zwingli, while not
of the notoriety of Luther and Calvin, valued preaching
even more than they and was inexhaustible in the pulpit.
He maintained that preaching is the sign of the true
pastor. He said this was so because, as he put it, he
submitted to “the tyranny of the book.” He was committed
to the Bible as the direct Word of God and practiced the
plain, simple exposition of it. It wasn’t popes or
councils that should rule the Church in Zwingli’s view,
rather the Scripture alone, and he maintained that
“preaching is the sign of the true
pastor.”
[vi] Many preachers in the
years to come followed his example. Likewise, John Knox
was not only a doctrinal preacher but also an incredibly
stirring one. He preached daily during his pastorate at
Saint Giles, Edinburgh.
We would close,
therefore, with this statement on sola
Scriptura, as stated in The
Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing
Evangelicals on April 20, 1996:
We reaffirm the inerrant
Scripture to be the sole source of written divine
revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. The
Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our
salvation from sin and is the standard by which all
Christian behavior must be measured.
We deny that any creed,
council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience,
that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary
to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal
spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of
revelation.
Dear Christian
Friend, Scripture alone, then, is the only
model, the only form and
shape of the Christian faith. It is Scripture alone,
which is the Word who became flesh, empowered by the
Holy Spirit, that is the sculpture, the artist, the
architect of our faith. Scripture alone is the blueprint
and owner’s manual that dictates everything about
building and maintaining the Church and each of its
bricks. To depart from this foundation is to abandon the
Christian faith and return to the darkness of Rome. Let
us, therefore, say with Luther, “Here I stand; I cannot
do otherwise. So help me God.”
[i] As report by Roland
H. Bainton, Here I Stand
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978), p.
144.
[ii] Michael Horton, from an
address, “Reformation Essentials,” delivered at a
conference jointly sponsored by the National Association
of Evangelicals and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
held at the Trinity campus in Illinois; May, 1989.
(http://www.monergism.com/
updates/reformation_essentials_by_mich.php)
[iii] Rick Warren, The
Purpose Driven Church, p. 295
(emphasis added).
[iv]
Institutes, IV.8.9 (Beveridge
translation).
[vi] Cited in The
Company of the Preachers (p. 174) from G. R. Potter,
Zwingli (Cambridge University
Press, 1976), pp. 135,
378.
