I have too often heard the modern refrain, “No creed but Christ, no law but love.” This relatively simple platitude is viewed by many as a spiritually deep proclamation of their commitment to the historic and profound battle cry of the Reformation, Sola Scriptura. Adherents to this catchphrase are not just those who would align themselves with the emergent church movement or the contemporary charismatic crowd. Within the circles in which I run (the politically-conservative, family-friendly, and culturally-concerned crowd) a similar sentiment exists, and is growing. Like any movement, any revival, any reformation, there are those who identify a problem and set about attempting to correct it. Many today are rightfully concerned with some very real problems in Western Christendom, such as the failure of the church to pass the baton of faith to the next generation, the moral decay impacting many denominations, or the troubling trend to ignore clear directives in Scripture on the polity of home and church.
A similar event happened in the days of the Reformation. There were many significant issues within the church that needed to be addressed. One of those was the dangerous position of Rome that the traditions of the church supplemented biblical revelation. In some circles, tradition was even seen as superior to the Word of God.
This error was zealously confronted. And so, the call of the Reformers was a return to an understanding that the Word of God was the sole infallible authority, and that this Word was given to the church. And (here is the part we struggle with) the church is not the individual. It was within the church that key doctrines were to be defined. This responsibility was based on biblical precepts (Matt 16:19, Acts 6:2–4, 15:6-29). Of course, the teachings of the church were not to be seen as infallible. However, interpretations that were in concord with the historic doctrinal constructs of the Apostles and Prophets (Eph 2:20) should be those that guided the church.
But how soon we forget. Just like the days of the Reformation, there are real issues confronting the church of Jesus today. And, as a result of these problems, we have more and more disenfranchised Christians reacting by setting up independent “shops” with little concern for the historicity of the church. Disconnected house churches are spreading like wild fire across the US and beyond. Within many of these fledgling bodies, the creeds and confessions are considered irrelevant. Church history is an enigma; and a false understanding of the priesthood of the believers maligns the biblical offices of elder and deacon. Even more troubling, the historic doctrines of the Church, which have been called the rule of faith, are often ignored. And yet, these groups claim they are within the bounds of Sola Scriptura.
However, some theologians better describe this tendency as “solo” Scriptura. Instead of seeing God’s Word as the sole infallible authority, the Bible is seen as the only authority. “Solo” promoters assert that the interpretation of Scripture is not to be based on the historic work of men and counsels over the ages; instead, it is open to one’s private and individualistic interpretation. One’s personal reading and understanding of Scripture is all that matters.
The Solo Scriptura position inevitably results in a form of relativism. The final arbiter of the truth of a passage is the individual’s interpretation. And thus, the Word of God is not the final authority. Rather, what we believe to be right is the final authority. If there is discord between two competing interpretations, the individual, by himself, gets to make the final call. The ultimate source of truth is one’s own judgment, which is clearly often relative and subjective. This sets up a structure that is obviously capricious and possibly damaging, especially if this is an approach taken by leadership.
There is also the problem with Scripture itself. How do we even know what is the true inspired Word of God if we cannot place trust in the councils of old? If someone were to question the canonicity of the Book of James and decide to rip it out of his Bible, who would be there to say his decision was wrong? Or, if someone were to hold that the Gnostic Book of Enoch should have a place in the Word of God, what would stand in their way? As has often been pointed out, the table of contents in the front of our Bible is not part of the inspired Word of God. And so, what is to prohibit personal selection of what should and should not be considered part of the canon of Scripture?
Holding to a position of “solo” Scriptura also leads to a continued fracturing of the Church of God. We are an opinionated bunch and when we develop our own personal positions on truth, but positions that may not be in accord with centuries of biblical orthodoxy, we end up splitting and dividing even further. In a time when the church should be standing firm against the work of the enemy of our souls, we are divided and, without Jesus, we would soon be conquered. Of course, there is also the ever present danger of our holding to and teaching heresy.
Now, all this said, it is still important for us, as individuals, to study God’s Word. We should be a people of the Book. And as is the example of the Bereans, we should be searching the Scriptures ourselves to learn more of the wonder of God’s Word and the doctrines of the church. But, again, like the Bereans, we don’t do this in a vacuum. They had the Apostle Paul to guide them. We have the work and study of men of God throughout the ages.
And to make it legal, the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the other elders or members of Providence Church.
