Sola Scriptura

"The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby" (John White, 1993).

So there it is. The dividing line. The pinnacle of the Reformation: the doctrine of sola scriptura ("scripture alone"). If you are interested in defining truth in any other standards than by the words of the Bible, Aaron has a warning for you: "What you are considering...is the end of the Reformation heritage."

Well, that does sound big. And, I do not take it lightly, though I'm really not sure what is at stake. That's really the point of all this hullaballoo in the first place. I want to understand this whole "Reformation heritage" and its implications for me and how I live and breath and have my being. Can I place my weight on the Reformation heritage. Aaron, you seem to think so, eh? That scripture alone is all that is necessary (key word: necessary) for faith and practice. I might be able to buy that... I really might. Especially since the operative word is "necessary." That still gives freedom for me to believe that truth can be found, seen, observed in many other places, even in culture, and that truth can be not only revealed in Scripture, but also illumined by tradition, enlivened in experience, and confirmed by reason (see: Wesleyan Quadrilateral of Methodism). It's just that all the we NEED is the Bible. Well, okay... maybe.

I just don't know. I definitely have big questions about this whole sola scriptura thing. I wish I could just live by "sola fide" (faith alone) and leave it at that; if we could just forget about the Bible and stick with our intuition that tells us, as the Beatles sung, "All you need is love... Love is all you need," then we wouldn't have to wrestle. We could simply live it up, indulge in the culture and then justify it by articulating how truth permeates culture, and thus, going to a movie ends up being potentially just as important as meditating in prayer. And, while I do, in fact, see the truth of Christ permeating even culture, as friends like Craig have beautifully shown me, I can see the importance of the Christian church having a "rule of faith" such as the Bible on which to place its weight. I just don't know.

A concern: help me if I'm off track, folks, but there seems to be something intrinsic to an orthodox Reformed theology that naturally lends itself to an overreliance on the system and a dangerous and gross underemphasis on the value of the Holy Spirit working in the life of the individual believer to uncover truth (i.e. "experience," see the Wesleyan Quadrilateral). Does this sort of fundamentalism lend itself to viewing the Bible as a paper pope? I have come to believe that this cannot help but be the case. Why? Because viewing the Bible as a revelation of self-contained truth seems to greatly diminish my need for tradition, experience, and reason in affirming my comprehension of, even relationship with... Christ. And, because the notion of the true free will of humans is seriously hamstrung under orthodox Reformed theology. Yes, it pays lip service to mystery but my experience of that theological expression is that this is, in a sense, disingenuous in that it is contradicted by the real-world experience of its adherents. The Reformation heritage then becomes just another knife used to dice this beautiful ancient Eastern text and construe it to conform to a theological construction, which was never the intended purpose of the writings' revelation, Jesus Christ; that is, Jesus Christ was never intended to be a theological construction. Is the truth to which we anchor our life encoded or embodied? I think we have to be sensitive (and ultimately responsive) to the fact that there is a difference between being only concerned with Christ as truth and being concerned with the entire canon of Scripture as self-contained truth. Whether or not I end up agreeing with sola scriptura, Aaron, I cannot agree that this epistemological divide in Christianity does not exist.

Neo, in A New Kind of Christian, wrote: "I think that when you let go of the Bible as God's answer book, you get it back as something so much better... It's a book that calls together and helps create a community, a community that is a catalyst for God's work in our world." That's nice, don't you think. ;) I say that with the sarcasm that you might have added, Aaron. But the truth is, I much prefer to view Scripture this way. Is it the "right" way to view Scripture? Only as a "record" of Christ. Not truth itself. I just don't know.

I had coffee today with Tom Tsagalakis, a Greek Orthodox priest, my former professor, and a friend. He is such an incredible man to sit and talk with. Anyhow, he affirmed this notion to me: that Scripture calls together a community of love, of Christ. It teaches us about God's revelation of Himself to Mankind, but was it ever meant to be God's revelation itself? Sure, "Christ speaks to us in Scripture and nowhere else" (Aaron). But, does that justify our modern systematization of Scripture? I just don't know. I want to know.