Understanding Sola Scriptura and Its Role in Church Authority Today
-
Is Scripture the church’s ultimate authority? This article explores the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura, which upholds the Bible as infallible above all church traditions.
-
Can tradition override the Bible? Protestant thinkers like Oscar Cullmann and Everett Ferguson argue that tradition must submit to Scripture, not govern it.
-
Why Sola Scriptura still matters today. From early church councils to modern debates, the article shows why Scripture remains the final standard for Christian faith and life.
In RENEW.org Network and among Protestants, we take the position that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority. Protestants often describe this position as sola Scriptura. Gavin Ortlund, author of What It Means to be Protestant, defines it this way:
“Sola Scriptura is essentially the claim that scripture is the only authority standing over the church that is incapable of error. In this sense, scripture, unlike tradition or human authority is infallible—as the final authority for Christians and the church.”[1]
Popes, councils, preachers, and all other post-apostolic organs of the church are fallible and must be evaluated by the infallible words of Scripture.
When I was in college, my philosophy professor confronted me for not accepting the official Roman Catholic position (their sacred tradition) on the role of priests in the local church. At that time, I did not know early church history well enough and how Roman Catholics understood tradition to be confident in my answer to him, so I was just quiet at that time. But I turned around the next day and called Everett Ferguson, a respected expert in early church history. Ferguson, in turn, recommended the writings of a European church historian, Oscar Cullmann. Cullmann’s writings really helped me.
Sola Scriptura: “Popes, councils, preachers, and all other post-apostolic organs of the church are fallible and must be evaluated by the infallible words of Scripture.”
Cullmann wrote an essay in the 1950s titled The Tradition. Since that time, Protestant scholars have pointed to it as one of the most helpful contemporary statements on the relationship of Scripture and church tradition. It is in step with what the Protestant Reformers taught in the 1500s.
Cullmann was in good relationship with Roman Catholics, and he was an observer of their important Vatican II council in the 1960s. He faced their questions and positions fairly, but sums up how Scripture remains the ultimate authority over all church traditions, authorities, ancient or modern, with these words: “The early church did not fix a norm for others, but for itself, and committed the church for all future centuries to this norm.”[2] When church leaders accepted the canon of Scripture, they committed all church leaders and churches of all time to make Scripture, not tradition, their ultimate authority.
Again, the church leaders in the late 300s who acknowledged the apostles’ writings did not give us the Bible. Again, they simply recognized the writings of the apostles that had created the church and that were already authoritative over the church because of their apostolic authorship. They made a commitment that the church of all time was to be subject to these books above all others. Under God’s hand, the apostolic teachings in the New Testament (and the Old Testament too) were fixed as the “canon.” Thus, they are the foundational documents and the ultimate, final standard for the church of all time.[3]
Sola Scriptura: “The apostolic teachings in the New Testament are the foundational documents and the ultimate, final standard for the church of all time.”
In affirming which books were authoritative and inspired, the early church recognized that, without a superior written norm, it could not keep itself or the apostolic teachings pure. Clark Pinnock summed up the authority of the Bible over any ancient or modern form of Christianity with these words:
“By accepting the norm of Scripture, the church declared that there was a standard outside herself to which she intended to be subject for all time….The church can fall into error and needs the Bible to measure herself by. In turn, the church serves the canon by continuing in the truth and faithfully proclaiming the Word of God.”[4]
So, as I try to gently share with people who make statements like my Catholic professor made back then: there is no authority higher than or superior to the New Testament. It is the church’s ultimate and final authority.
So, what about the role of sacred tradition? Does church tradition provide authority for the church as well? Let’s consider the perspective presented by both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Both churches teach that both Scripture and sacred tradition are their final authority. In addition, their commitment to their sacred traditions means that their traditions exercise authority over Scripture when there are points of conflict.
Sola Scriptura: “There is no authority higher than or superior to the New Testament. It is the church’s ultimate and final authority.”
A popular book by Eve Tibbs which promotes Eastern Orthodoxy is called A Basic Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology. It puts the priority of tradition over Scripture front and center:
“For the Orthodox Church, there is only one source or authority, and it is the Tradition of the Holy Spirit. Since Scripture exists within Tradition, Scripture can never contradict Tradition.”[5]
Seen this way, scriptural interpretation is beholden to tradition, such that one’s understanding of Scripture can never contradict tradition. Again, tradition exercises authority over Scripture such that there is an immunity to course correction when tradition and Scripture are at odds. The Eastern Orthodox church feels justified in finding its unique identity (as the one true church, as we’ll see in chapter 6) in its tradition. Author Eve Tibbs describes the framework of tradition over Scripture:
“As Metropolitan Ware points out, ‘Scripture exists within Tradition. To separate and contrast the two is to impoverish the idea of both alike.’ Holy Tradition might be thought of as the ‘umbrella’ context under which all aspects of faith and life in the Orthodox Church are properly understood. Holy Scripture exists within Holy Tradition, as does a whole panoply of expressions of the Apostolic Christian Faith: The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the dogmatic decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils, the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church, the threefold pattern of ministry.”[6]
“For the Orthodox Church, there is only one source or authority, and it is the Tradition of the Holy Spirit.”
Although the official Roman Catholic position on this topic is a little more nuanced than the Orthodox position, they too give tradition authority over scriptural interpretation when the two conflict. For example, it is a major stretch to try to find within Scripture the authority of a Pope over the church. It’s even more difficult to find a celibacy requirement for priests, as Scripture teaches that a group of elders/overseers should be the leaders of location congregations. Yet Roman Catholics favor tradition over Scripture on this point, following their sacred traditions. The whole system of celibate priests, celibate bishops, and papal authority is based not on Scripture but tradition.
There are three related questions on the role of sacred tradition and Scripture that will be helpful for us to address.
First, could there be unrecorded “oral apostolic traditions” that went back to the apostles and were passed on in the early church that show an equal authority with Scripture? Ortlund points out that claims about these traditions in the early church were murky and contradictory, and there is no ground or basis for seeing them as having an equal authority with Scripture. Some assert that a tradition must have existed that gives authority to someone like the Pope (even though such claims of papal authority do not come until the medieval period). But we see no such early tradition in the early church, and one has to already be trying to find papal authority in the New Testament in order to find it there.
“One has to already be trying to find papal authority in the New Testament in order to find it there.”
Second, could there have been written traditions connected to the apostles that held authority on par with Scripture? For example, in the 100s through the 300s, the early church had apostolic writings (i.e., in the New Testament) and summaries of the teaching of the apostles in what was often called the “rule of faith” or the “canon of truth.” These statements were essentially summaries of what was taught and preached during this period. The eminent church historian Everett Ferguson collects these summaries from the early church in a book titled The Rule of Faith: A Guide. The rule of faith was a summary of the preaching and the main elements in the gospel, as taught in the churches.[7] Again,
“The rule of faith summarized the preaching and teaching of the evangelists and teachers in the church, that is, the objective faith of the church.…Each evangelist and teacher had his own way of presenting the message of salvation in Christ, according to his understandings and concerns, the needs of the hearers, and the circumstances of the time.” [8]
Sometimes those who want to advocate for a tradition with equal authority to the apostolic writings will point to these statements. But they are diverse, fluid statements. Oscar Cullmann puts it this way:
“The rule of faith, though transmitted in oral form, was accepted as a norm alongside scripture only because it was considered as having been fixed by the apostles. What matters is not whether the apostolic tradition was oral or written, but that it was fixed by the apostles.”[9]
“The rule of faith was a summary of the preaching and the main elements in the gospel, as taught in the churches.”
Ferguson states that “the rule of faith was a summary of apostolic preaching and teaching, to be found most authoritatively in written form in the Scriptures.”[10] So, the rule of faith expresses what is taught in Scripture—and it is a guide to understanding Scripture—but Scripture remains the ultimate authority.
Third, is there a role for traditions? Yes, we should affirm the helpful role of traditions without elevating them above Scripture. Disrespecting and devaluing traditions without having biblical reason can be an opposite wrong, one which Protestants can be guilty of, even as they give their own traditions a free pass. Protestants, including those within the Restoration Movement, can be impoverished when they are dismissive of church history and God-honoring traditions and caught up in uninformed positions that history has already demonstrated to be untenable. The expression “Those who do not learn from history, are destined to repeat history” is an important truth when it comes to our faith.
Here are just a few of the things we should value from church history, and we should respect the good traditions within it and what they can teach us:
- The rule of faith and the various church creeds in history open our eyes to helpful statements of our faith and ways of framing the truths of Scripture.
- We find historical examples, biographies, victories, and the trials of great Christian examples through 20 centuries and in diverse Christian traditions.
- We can track the consensus beliefs and practices about what Scripture teaches through twenty centuries, in all kinds of cultures and diverse contexts.
- We discover the stability and tested-ness of ancient ways of doing things, such as songs, liturgical practices, common sayings, and the church calendar.
- We find the spiritual disciplines of godly people and traditions who modeled fasting, prayer, meditation, etc.
“We should affirm the helpful role of traditions without elevating them above Scripture.”
Fourth, if we say Scripture is our ultimate authority, does that mean it is our only authority? Anthony Lane states it well when he says, “We are careful to say that scripture is our final authority, but it is not our only authority.”[11] We do not want the people in our churches to be adrift, on their own, without historical guidance. We do not want them to feel that as individuals we have to go back two thousand years and figure it all out for ourselves. Such an approach would be naïve and foolish.[12] We want to be wise and help the people in our churches learn from and see the value in the best, most-established Christian traditions in history. For example,
- Creeds (statements of faith that give guidance to many churches and people)
- Catechisms (summaries of biblical beliefs for newcomers, including key questions and answers)
- Councils (gatherings of church leaders that have met to address tricky issues)
- Confessions (longer statements of faith that help explain doctrines)
- Courageous examples (Christians in history who are great examples for today)
At the same time, each of these traditions (and people) are fallible. That is, they are subject to error and must be evaluated in the light of Scripture.
“Each of these traditions (and people) are subject to error and must be evaluated in the light of Scripture.”
Yet these traditions provide guidance for all of us and especially those who do not have the ability to explore and examine the issues themselves. They also help people to keep from developing private judgments and interpretations that conflict with the gathered wisdom of church history. They represent the learned experience of the historical church.
[1] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2024), 72
[2] Oscar Cullmann, “The Tradition,” in The Early Church (London: SCM Press, 1956), 91.
[3] See Anthony Lane’s helpful and nuanced work on this point, ‘Sola scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan’ in P. E. Satterthwaite & D. F. Wright (eds.), A Pathway into the Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 297-327.
[4] Pinnock, The Scripture Principle, 81-82.
[5] Eve Tibbs, A Basic Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology (Baker Publishing Group, 2021) Kindle Edition, 50.
[6] Eve Tibbs, A Basic Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2021) Kindle Edition, 49.
[7] Everett Ferguson, The Rule of Faith: A Guide (Cascade Companions Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015) Kindle Edition, 35.
[8] Everett Ferguson, The Rule of Faith: A Guide (Cascade Companions Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015) Kindle Edition, 67-68.
[9] Oscar Cullmann, “The Tradition,” in The Early Church edited by A.J.B. Higgins (SCM Press, 1956).
[10] Everett Ferguson, The Rule of Faith: A Guide (Cascade Companions Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015) Kindle Edition, preface.
[11] Tony Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan” in P. E. Satterthwaite & D. F. Wright (eds.), A Pathway into the Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 297-327.
[12] Richard Hughes and Leonard Allen, Illusions of Innocence: Protestant Primitivism in America, 1630-1875 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
