John C. Peckham
A great deal of debate and confusion exists about what sola scriptura means. This Latin phrase stems from the Protestant Reformation, often translated as “Scripture alone” or “by Scripture alone.” Its historical meaning is a matter of considerable dispute, leading to various understandings of what this phrase means in practice.
This chapter offers a constructive approach to what this principle should mean for the Seventh-day Adventist Church today. Prior to delving into this matter, I will briefly consider two main dangers concerning this concept.
There are two primary dangers in approaching sola Scriptura: isolationism and creedalism (or some other form of communitarianism). By isolationism, I mean the tendency of some to think their theological understanding is the product of “me and my Bible” alone.1 Such an approach favors a private interpretation of Scripture that lends itself to idiosyncrasies and divisiveness. Furthermore, the one who practices it often mistakenly confuses one’s private interpretation with the meaning of the Bible, unwittingly shifting authority from Scripture to oneself.
Creedalism, on the other hand, makes creeds or confessional statements the normative standard for the interpretation of Scripture. Although many creedalists formally uphold the supremacy of Scripture, creedalism results in shifting functional authority from Scripture to whatever confessions, creeds, or statements the community adopts. Creedalism is one kind of communitarianism among many that is rapidly growing among Protestants.2 By communitarianism, I mean any approach that proposes a normative standard beyond Scripture that is determined by the community, whether it is a community-determined rule of faith or the community itself.
Beyond these, an additional danger exists of attempting to avoid one of these “ditches” by overcorrecting and ending up in the other “ditch.” We can be so wary of isolationism that we fall into the practice of creedalism, or vice versa. This chapter reminds us to be aware of these dangers; but at the same time, it also suggests a working approach to sola Scriptura that might help us steer a course between either extreme—both in terms of our individual reading of Scripture and our reading of Scripture together as a church.
The Danger of Isolationism
In reality, no person reads Scripture in a way that is entirely free from the influence of factors outside the Bible. Each person reads Scripture from his or her own perspective. There is no neutral standpoint from which we can approach Scripture. Each of us brings a framework of previous understandings to our interpretation of the Bible, whether we intend to or not. Whereas the influences of known presuppositions can be mitigated and corrected, one cannot arrive at an interpretation that is free from all presuppositions.
For one thing, we automatically bring to our reading some previous understanding of the meaning of the very words we read. Further, whereas I am no advocate of any normative tradition or creed, tradition simply refers to that which has been passed down; and we are all deeply affected by traditions, from inside and outside the church. Some are good, while others are not so good; but we cannot escape the fact that we are always affected by tradition in some way. Indeed, Scripture itself has been passed down to us (cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). Yet, Scripture also strongly cautions against the “tradition of men” (Col 2:8)3 and any tradition that invalidates “the word of God” (Mark 7:13; cf. Matt 15:2–6; Gal 1:14–16).
If we think that we are not influenced by presuppositions or traditions, then an even greater tendency exists to read presuppositions into Scripture, often called eisegesis. The very expectation that we can read Scripture in isolation from other factors makes us more susceptible to the danger of unintentionally allowing such factors to determine our reading. The attempt to read Scripture in isolation, with the goal of keeping our reading from being infected by things outside of Scripture, often has the opposite effect.
Such an approach often leads to a simplistic and superficial reading of Scripture that fails to dig deeply into God’s Word and thus we miss many of its treasures. Although the gospel message of Scripture is so simple that even a child can understand, Peter taught that “some things” in Scripture are “hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort” to “their own destruction” (2 Pet 3:16). A superficial approach to the Bible ignores this inspired counsel and breeds overconfidence. This leads some to extreme forms of individualism and separatism. As Woodrow W. Whidden II argues, the result “has all too often been highly individualistic persons with a very autocratic sense of their exclusivist strangle hold on truth.”4
In this and other ways, the attempt to read Scripture entirely by one-self is detrimental to the individual and the church. Such an endeavor requires a rejection of what could be learned from others who have studied the text deeply, and it often harbors an anti-intellectual bias that serves neither the reader nor the church.
The Danger of Communitarianism
No one should develop his or her theology in isolation from the Christian community (cf. Heb 10:23–25). Fellowship and study within the church are essential, and much can be learned from resources, such as good commentaries, and from dialogue with competent interpreters (cf. Acts 8:30–35). Yet, communitarianism goes beyond the healthy role of the community by elevating the community or its resources to a level that inevitably competes with Scripture, subjecting infallible Scripture to fallible human opinions, intentionally or not.
Various forms of communitarianism are rapidly growing among Protestants. As Peter Leithart puts it, “Evangelicalism is awash in the 3Rs: retrieval, renewal, and ressourcement.”5 “Retrieval” (or ressourcement) calls Christians to “retrieve” the classical Christian tradition as the norm or rule of faith. This movement is rooted in the developments leading up to, and influential on the ecumenical trajectory of, the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church (1962–1965).6
Today there are a number of fast-growing Protestant communitarian movements. Each emphasizes (to some extent) the community’s normative role in deciding theological truth. Whereas most of these continue to claim that Scripture holds primacy, and some even advocate the phrase sola Scriptura, many add that something outside Scripture must provide the rule or key to interpreting Scripture. This means, however, that biblical interpretation is controlled by a standard external to Scripture, thus undercutting Scripture’s functional authority.
Some of these approaches strongly advocate retrieval of the first few centuries of Christian tradition, whether emphasizing primarily the ecumenical creeds (and/or the creeds or confessions of their denominations) or the broader tradition of the patristic age of at least the first five centuries. These approaches go by labels such as paleo-orthodoxy, consensual orthodoxy, ancient-future Christianity, and others.7
On the other hand, some approaches view the contemporary community as the authoritative standard. For instance, some postconservatives8 emphasize that the Spirit guides and even “inspires” the contemporary community, which should engage with Scripture and tradition but should also expect to be led by the Spirit in surprising new directions.9 At the popular level, Brian McLaren and others have taken one stream of such thought to form movements such as the emerging church.10
In both paleo-orthodox and postconservative kinds of approaches, the community—past or present—becomes the normative rule in a way that tends to displace Scripture as the rule of faith and practice. If biblical interpretation is determined by a standard outside of Scripture, then Scripture’s authority is functionally superseded by that external standard. Whatever one concludes regarding just how Luther himself understood sola Scriptura, the consistent adoption of the normativity of the community or community-determined standards would have excluded the Protestant Reformation from taking place and likewise would have rendered impossible the origination of Seventh-day Adventism.
What Sola Scriptura Should Mean
How, then, might we approach sola Scriptura and avoid the pitfalls of isolationism and communitarianism?11 If none of us can read Scripture in a way that is entirely free from the influence of extrabiblical factors, can sola Scriptura be practiced at all?
While no approach by itself will guard against all pitfalls, I propose here what I call a canonical approach to sola Scriptura, which takes Scripture to be the unique rule (canon), or standard, of faith and practice while recognizing that we never approach Scripture alone.12 Specifically, canonical sola Scriptura recognizes Scripture’s unique (sola) authority in the following three ways:
1. Scripture is the unequaled, and uniquely normative source of divine revelation, divinely commissioned to function as the rule of faith and practice.
2. Scripture is the fully trustworthy and uniquely sufficient rule of faith and practice.
3. Scripture is the final norm of faith and practice that is normative for all others, including relative to theological interpretation.13
In other words, Scripture alone is the uniquely normative, divinely commissioned, trustworthy and theologically sufficient, and interpretatively normative rule of faith and practice. Here, normative authority means an authority that functions as the “norm” or “standard” or “rule” of faith and practice over and against other factors.
As such, canonical sola Scriptura rejects the supposition of any normative authority other than Scripture (except God himself), including any norm that is to govern biblical interpretation, whether a creed, group of people, or an individual. If Scripture is to rule, its interpretation cannot be ruled by anything else, including one’s private interpretation. This is why interpreters individually and collectively should return to Scripture to continually test interpretations against the standard of the canon (rule) itself. As I have put it elsewhere:
If Scripture is to function as the final norm of theological interpretation, it must be allowed to norm and potentially correct even traditional theological interpretations and metaphysical frameworks. Because all interpretations are fallible and influenced by some vantage point and conceptual framework, all theological interpretations should be continually subjected to, measured by, and tested by the infallible standard of Scripture via a continuous hermeneutical spiral.14
In this regard, four integral corollaries of canonical sola Scriptura indicate further how sola Scriptura should function. First, tota Scriptura holds that all of Scripture (as a unified collection) serves as the infallible source, sufficient basis, and final norm of theological interpretation (2 Tim 3:16). Thus, we should not emphasize parts of Scripture while neglecting or downplaying others. The whole canon of Scripture must be allowed to function as the rule of our faith and practice.
This undergirds the second corollary—the analogy of Scripture (analogia Scriptura). This approaches Scripture as a unified and internally consistent collection of writings such that each text is understood in light of the entire biblical canon (Isa 8:20; Luke 24:27, 44, 45). As such, Scripture should be allowed to provide its own norm of interpretation. This closely relates to the often-misunderstood saying, “Scripture interprets itself.” This does not mean that Scripture requires no interpretation. Every reading of Scripture (or anything else) is already an interpretation, and it is obvious that Scripture can be variously interpreted in that so many people and denominations arrive at differing interpretations. Jesus himself pointed out that Scripture can be interpreted in various ways when he asked, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” (Luke 10:26). While Scripture can be variously interpreted, not all interpretations are valid. Interpreters should always seek and engage the broader teaching of Scripture to help understand any part of it, and as noted above, every interpretation of Scripture should be continually subjected back to the rule of Scripture itself.
This brings us to the third corollary—spiritual things are spiritually discerned (spiritalia spiritaliter examinator; 1 Cor 2:11–14). This teaches that the Holy Spirit must be continually sought for guidance and illumination. The biblical canon is the rule because it was given by the Divine Ruler, and as such, one should seek and submit to the guidance of the One who inspired Scripture.
In the final corollary, the primacy of Scripture recognizes that, although Scripture is the uniquely infallible source of revelation, it is not the only source of revelation (e.g., Rom 1:18–23; 1 Cor 14:29), as discussed below.
What Sola Scriptura Does Not Mean
In addition to what canonical sola Scriptura means, it is crucial to clarify what it does not mean. Canonical sola Scriptura does not mean that (1) Scripture is the only source of knowledge; (2) Scripture excludes reason, requires no interpretation, or one’s private interpretation is the correct understanding of Scripture; (3) communities and tradition(s), past and present, should be ignored; or (4) all doctrine requires a direct biblical statement(s).
First, canonical sola Scriptura does not claim that Scripture is the only source of knowledge in general, or of revelation in particular. Scripture itself teaches that there is a partial revelation of God that can be seen through nature, typically called “general revelation” (Ps 19:1–4; Rom 1:18–23).15 Scripture also teaches that there is “special revelation,” genuine prophecy outside of Scripture (Acts 2:17; 1 Cor 14:29).16 However, Scripture is the uniquely infallible source of revelation collectively available today and is thus the prime revelation by which any other supposed source or factor should be judged.
Second, canonical sola Scriptura does not claim that Scripture excludes reason and/or requires no interpretation or that one’s private interpretation of Scripture is the correct understanding of the Bible. Scripture advocates the careful use of reason (e.g., Isa 1:18; Acts 17:2; 18:4), but it is crucial to recognize that we have cognitive shortcomings and are subject to presuppositions, idiosyncrasies, and blind spots.
Third, we can and should learn from communities and traditions, past and present, without treating them as normative. Many errors could be avoided by seriously engaging historical theology. Further, reading within and across communities might allow the wonderful diversity of readers to help individual readers to see beyond their own narrow perspectives. Nevertheless, all traditions must be intentionally and carefully evaluated in the light of Scripture.
Finally, canonical sola Scriptura does not claim that all theological doctrine or church practice requires direct biblical statements. Every doctrine should be grounded in Scripture, and every practice should be governed by biblical principles, but one must also pay attention to what may be demonstrably inferred from what Scripture says and recognize that Scripture does not directly address every issue.17 Since Scripture is selective in what it addresses, ecclesial policy and practice enjoy a wider range of acceptable derivation than does theological doctrine. But just for this reason, ecclesial policy and practice should not be confused with or elevated to the level of theological doctrine, and even church doctrines must be correctable by Scripture.18 Scripture should test all faith and practice, but Scripture itself should never be subjected to any external standard, even the church itself.
Despite the best of intentions, however, it is not possible to ever arrive at a perfectly pure sola Scriptura understanding. Recognition of this fact should, in turn, drive us to even more careful attention to Scripture itself. We should never think that we have finally fully understood everything therein. Whereas Scripture is infallible, human interpretation of it is not.
This sola Scriptura approach thus proposes that all extrabiblical factors, including one’s known presuppositions, insofar as possible, should be intentionally judged by the unique rule (canon) of Scripture. At the same time, it is crucial to recognize that every interpreter and interpretive community is influenced, for good or for ill, by various factors.
This recognition should motivate us to subject ever more presuppositions and factors to Scripture at every opportunity. This requires honest self-criticism and humility, setting aside the faulty notion that Scripture is something to be mastered or that one’s interpretation is a final destination. We should recognize, instead, that coming to know the living God better through Scripture is a never-ending process. There is always more to be mined from the inexhaustible riches of Scripture.
Sadly, some church members might get the impression that the important points of Scripture already have been extracted for them. One by-product of this is that some read Scripture without expecting their views to be reformed by it. Mistakenly thinking they have exhausted the important matters of Scripture might lead them to become bored with reading the Bible, sometimes leading to neglect and at other times motivating an unhealthy desire for sensationalistic theories. Either outcome detracts from the sanctification of the mind that might be progressively enjoyed by continually subjecting our understanding to Scripture and allowing it to speak anew each day and renew our minds, “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:5).
Canonical sola Scriptura takes Scripture to be the unique rule (canon) of faith and practice while recognizing that we never approach Scripture alone. As such, individual and collective interpreters should continually submit to all of Scripture (tota Scriptura). This can allow Scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to function as the uniquely infallible, sufficient basis and final norm of theological interpretation. This aims at avoiding both the adoption of an external standard (communitarianism) and the elevation of private interpretation (isolationism).
__________
* This text is revised from the author’s article “Understanding Sola Scriptura: A Working Approach for the Church,” in Here We Stand: Luther, the Reformation, and Seventh-day Adventism, ed. Michael W. Campbell and Nikolaus Satelmajer (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2017), 57–64. Used with permission.
1 This corresponds roughly to what Alister E. McGrath labeled “tradition 0.” Alister E. McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001), 154.
2 Some use Heiko A. Oberman’s label of “tradition 1” to refer to this kind of view wherein Scripture has prime authority but should be interpreted according to tradition. See Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 280–296. However, “tradition 1” is used by some to refer to approaches that are not communitarian but treat tradition as purely ancillary. Tradition 1 is thus too broad a label for our purposes.
3 All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the NASB.
4 W. W. Whidden II, “Sola Scriptura, Inerrantist Fundamentalism, and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Is ‘No Creed but the Bible’ a Workable Solution?” AUSS 35.2 (1997): 226.
5 Peter J. Leithart, “The Word and the Rule of Faith,” First Things, 30 January 2015, http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/01/the-word-and-the-rule-of-faith (italics in the original).
6 See Gabriel Flynn and Paul D. Murray, eds., Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Vatican II included numerous Protestant luminaries invited as delegated observers, including George Lindbeck, who heavily influenced the communitarian trajectory of Protestantism via his postliberal approach.
7 See, e.g., Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy (San Francisco: HarperSan-Francisco, 2003).
8 There is a diversity of opinion among those who take this and other labels, however. The reader is thus cautioned not to use such labels to pigeonhole individuals or groups.
9 See Stanley J. Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006).
10 See Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006).
11 A few parts of this section were taken from my article “The Prophetic Gift and Sola Scriptura,” in Biblical Hermeneutics: An Adventist Approach, ed. Frank M. Hasel, BRISH 3 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2020), 377–404.
12 See the fuller explanation in Peckham, Canonical Theology, 140–165.
13 Although the phrase sola Scriptura does not appear in Scripture, these three tenets are derived from Scripture, which consistently proclaims the divinely commissioned authority of Scripture as the uniquely normative rule (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21; cf. Isa 8:20; 1 Thess 2:13) over and against all other factors (Acts 5:29; cf. Jer 17:9; Matt 15:3, 6). See the discussion in Peckham, Canonical Theology, 145–148.
14 John C. Peckham, Divine Attributes: Knowing the Covenantal God of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021), 30.
15 Nature, properly understood, does not contradict Scripture (Ps 19:1–6); yet post-fall nature includes much that does not reveal God (Gen 3:17, 18; Rom 8:20).
16 Notice that Ellen G. White consistently pointed back to the Bible, advocating a robust conception of sola Scriptura and maintaining that doctrine should be derived from, and understood by, Scripture itself. See Merlin D. Burt’s excellent essay, “Ellen G. White and Sola Scriptura” (paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Presbyterian Church USA Conversation, Louisville, KY, 23 August 2007), https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/Burt-Ellen-White-Sola-Scriptura.pdf.
17 For example, Scripture does not directly address smoking and yet the Adventist position on health and healthful living if grounded in Scripture.
18 See the preamble of the Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Beliefs, which affirms that Adventists “accept the Bible as their only creed” and allow for “revision” based on “a fuller understanding of Bible truth.” “Official Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” Seventh-day Adventist Church, https://www.adventist.org/beliefs/.