Why “Bible Alone” or Sola Scriptura doctrine has never quite made sense to me

By Andrew R. Duckworth

First, I need to begin by saying I do not fault anyone who adheres to sola scriptura, nor do I fear such people be damned, nor anything of the sort. To me, the problem has always been “sola” and not “scriptura.” Obviously, if someone has an issue with scripture, besides the questions we all ask in coming to faith, then one might rightly ask if they are true adherents of the Christian faith.

Rather, sola scriptura, or scripture alone, has always been something I question for a variety of reasons. The first of them happens to be when such a movement began picking up steam, some time around the 16th century. There were, of course, adherents to a form of it shortly before, but it became popularized in the 16th century. This does not outright negate the legitimacy of sola scriptura, but at least calls it into question. What were those of Christian faith supposed to adhere to before this time? The best of the Protestant theologians would suggest that many traditions had corrupted the message of Christianity, particularly by those of the Roman tradition and the Orthodox traditions, and sola scriptura was a movement to get those who wished to adhere to the fullness of Truth back on track. Yet, this is hardly convincing to anyone who has turned the pages of a history book, particularly those who have taken a look at what the earliest members of the Church had to say concerning Christianity.

To know the history is to come into some understanding of what the first saints understood. The Christian Testament was not written in a day. It wasn’t written in a year. Rather, what we have today was written over several decades and wouldn’t be compiled into the scriptures that we know today for centuries. Also, it was extremely rare for any one church during the earliest days to have a compilation of the Christian testament. Rather, they would have sections, sometimes fragments. They might have several of the letters and maybe one of the Gospels depending on the audience that was gathered (for instance, The Gospel of Matthew is often considered the Jewish Gospel, namely because of the audience for which it was written. It seeks to connect Jesus to the fulfillment of Jewish scripture and prophecy).

The first written gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was an early account of collecting Jesus’s works and sayings. For many years, this was the only account of Jesus’s miracles that people would know of, to our knowledge. Having this understanding of history, it is clear that many during this time would not have a fullness of understanding of the Christian Testament according to the very doctrine of sola scriptura. (For further context, I will always refer to what is commonly called the “New Testament” and “Old Testament” as the “Christian Testament” and the “Jewish Testament.” This is because the terms “old” and “new,” in my opinion, are a bit problematic in that they seem to give a particular connotation that what is “old” is no longer in consideration and what is “new” is of the only importance. Rather, I look at the Christian Testament flowing from the Jewish or Hebrew Testament, being connected. To disregard such connection is to rid the Christian Testament of its necessary context. To disregard the Jewish traditions and teachings is to disregard the entire world in which Jesus the Christ knew, breathed, and, ultimately, taught.) However, even after the eventual compilation of scripture, which Protestants often disagree with Catholics and many Orthodox churches about, there were still churches that relied on incomplete compilations, as well as churches that read from writings that might have been popular at a particular time for a particular cause, but later fell out of necessity or popularity. Ultimately, the printing press changed a lot. Finally, scripture would no longer have to be transmitted from copying with pen and ink or by oral tradition, which is what continued to carry the church in its earliest years. There is only one problem. The printing press was invented in 1440 by Johannes Gutenberg. Before this time, there was little guarantee that ALL churches would have a COMPLETE pen and ink copy of the scriptures, despite the countless hours that monks spent making copies so that churches could have them. So, this now brings into question how anyone before 1440 could possibly adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

I must now address another objection. Many might suggest that, before this time, God would grant grace to those without full knowledge of the scriptures but who adhered to what they understood. However, this seems to be at least borrowing from a common Catholic claim that still holds that people are given grace according to their understanding of God. I feel at least a bit justified in bringing up Christ’s own words on this topic: a house divided against itself cannot stand. Either adhere to sola scriptura completely, or don’t adhere to it at all. Yet, understand what a complete adherence to sola scriptura means. Sola scriptura, meaning “scripture alone,” would necessarily mean that one can only adhere to what is found in scriptures and nothing else regarding matters of the Christian faith.

With that, we must dive back into history. What was it that the oldest adherents to Christianity believed regarding baptism? According to the scriptures, we only see people baptized in rivers and generally in their adult form. Yet, archeology and geography paints a different picture. Some of the oldest churches ever discovered have what seem to be baptismal fonts. It is theorized that the necessity of baptism was so emphasized that people of all ages, infants included, would have been baptized at such fonts, not through full submersion, but through other forms. I mention geography for a specific reason. Many churches may not have been close enough to a natural water source to even practice any form of full submersion. This is where the baptismal font would have been something of a necessity. Yet, adherents to sola scriptura would emphasize that a baptism must entail full submersion and, oddly enough, is not necessary for salvation of souls. So, one might ask, what of these souls who did not have full submersion baptism? And, if a baptism is not necessary for salvation, why the preference of one over the other? The necessity of baptism seemed to have been so important to the earliest adherents to Christianity that the baptismal font was important.

Perhaps one of the most striking arguments against sola scriptura is the rather disorganized form in which Protestantism finds itself today: a denomination for practically any and all interpretation of the scriptures. If sola scriptura is adhered to, wouldn’t it necessitate a singular church? Surely adhering to scripture alone can bring forth one outcome, correct? But that is not what sola scriptura has led to. Instead, go to any small town in America, and one will see a wide variety of Protestant churches: Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Church of Christ, the various forms of Pentecostal churches and other charismatics. A decent objection to this argument is that the importance is placed on scripture alone and not necessarily the interpretation of the scriptures. In other words, so long as only the words of scripture are adhered to, interpretation can, to a certain degree, be a secondary issue. Yet, I would counter by saying that interpretation of the scripture is not just one of the mind, but one of linguistics. It should be of no surprise that scripture has been handed down through different languages. And various interpretations of the scriptures exist through the various editions of the biblical texts. Which edition is the correct edition? Some would suggest the King James Version, those that would consider themselves King James Only or King James Exclusivists. This is starting to become a less popular stance, but for many years, this was practically a staple. There is only one issue: the language of the text was manipulated to give it a particular format, sound, and feel, particularly in the more poetic books. It is even said that Shakespeare was involved to some degree, although this seems to be more a story of legend than verifiable fact, particularly regarding Psalm 46. However, I’m inclined not only to pick on the King James Exclusivists, but also other editions of the text. Today, scholars look at the original language and, based on what we know of the history and culture, interpret the language as they understand it. But this seems to me, while it is the most common sense method, to also be particularly dangerous if one is to hold to sola scriptura. How does one know the mind of the author without outright asking the author? Ultimately, we no longer have those authors here to give us the answers. We then MUST rely on our own understanding based on historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts. It seems that if one is serious about adhering to sola scriptura, we should all become fluent in the Greek and Hebrew necessary, as that is the only way to be certain that our adherence is a FULL adherence.

I’ve never been an adherent to sola scriptura namely for other reasons, particularly due to what the earliest adherents of the Christian faith have to say about a number of things that the texts either do not fully outline OR that have a variety of interpretations. For example, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus were firm believers in the very real presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist. Many adherents to sola scriptura, although not all, would suggest that the Eucharist, or communion, is something that is only to be done in remembrance and nothing else. My understanding of the scripture, and even most Lutherans understand this, is that Christ is truly present. Where the Lutherans would deviate from Catholic theology here is the process by which this miracle takes place, and I do believe it to be a miracle still taking place in the Mass daily. It is not only the scriptures that inform me of this, but also the tradition handed down and the rich history of our earliest adherents to the Christian faith.

It is not my intention to sound either belittling or in any way like I am an expert in theology or ancient history. I feel as if it is one’s duty to explore the history themselves as well as take a look at the variety of interpretations and understandings. Ultimately, if one wishes to adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura, as I began previously in the discussion, I don’t blame them. It seems, at face value, to be the only safe way of dealing with scripture. However, one must also take a close look at the history and cultural context and be careful not to disregard them. Ultimately, even if one chooses to adhere to sola scriptura, although I don’t completely understand how it’s possible, it is my hope that they are able to come to a fullness of faith, charity, and love through Jesus Christ.