Sola or Solo Scriptura?
Miraculously being granted a holiday for two days is my source of bodily joy! For the second half of the year, most of my life has been consumed by work, and the introversion in me hardly swallowed the busyness.
So this 'grace period' is allowing me to rest physically and enjoy studying the life and works of Martin Luther, in time for his 500th year celebration.
Who is this man, and how has he become so popular? I'd rather not delve into these details, but if you're interested, check out the links here, and here.
Aside from the 95 theses he allegedly nailed on the doors of the Wittenberg church, his famous teachings include the Five Solas, of which summarizes the meat of the Reformer's conviction. If time permits, I will gladly share with you my own insights on each of these tenets.
For now, let me zoom in on Sola Scriptura or "Scripture Alone", that speaks of the Bible as the highest authority for faith and practice. It is the source of divine inspiration, inerrant and infallible. Along with most Christians, I nod to this teaching with a double thumbs up. However, the classic Reformers inserts a clause to this by clarifying that Scripture must be interpreted within the confinements of the apostolic rule of faith. Hence, Sola Scriptura was known for another name, that is, Tradition 1.
Up to the 3rd century AD, the way of life taught by Jesus was identical to Scripture. This was happy news for all, until deviations arose from many reasons big and small. Thus, a new stream of doctrine was birthed, rallied by modern Reformers. Solo Scriptura or Tradition 0, replaced the former teaching, highlighting that a person's interpretation of Scripture is sufficient, sacking the requirement to interpret the Bible alongside church tradition and practice. And since Tradition 0 presents an approach parallel with the current Zeitgeist, the appeal has been sustained in most Christian streams.
It appears to me that the point of contention comes in two-fold, namely,
(a) whether Scripture interpretation should be dealt individually or communally, and
(b) if the Scriptures will be the lone reference for God's people way of life.
In my opinion (and in no way do I impose on anyone), every disciple of Jesus reading God's Word has the Spirit dwelling within them, very much able to teach, rebuke, correct and train them as necessary. If Solo Scriptura is correct, then any individual can dissect the Word of God and analyze according to his/her own view.
The weakness, however, hides not in Scripture, but in the lens through which it is interpreted. Bluntly, I mean the so-called 'flesh' masking in the soul. Even the strongest in Spirit is not exempt from such proclivities because they serve a purpose, and that is to establish dependency in Christ. On this merit, I take the stance of communal Scripture interpretation, although it is never without caution.
Take, for instance, Replacement Theology. The conversion of Roman Emperor Constantine in AD 306 brought major Christian reforms, eventually leading to the first Council of Nicaea in AD 325 with him as head. Count around 300 VIP church leaders meeting in one place. This was a serious nail-nibbling business convention. There were pressing church affairs that needed to be dealt. And one would suspect that a gathering that vast could offer promising results. Except that it didn't entirely. The sacredness of the Jewish people's calling were replaced by the new church, along with Jewish faith practices. Even the church 'majority' can be misled.
And yet I do pray, that such events will never repeat, or if so, less frequently. For even the new covenant affirms the upper hand of community in decision-making, especially when church elders qualify as mature in faith.
Now to my latter belief. Many references add to the texture and guidance of Christian living. They can range from supplemental historic books like the Book of Enoch or from late contemporary sources. And yet it is only the Bible that proves necessary and sufficient as basis for Christian doctrine and practice. Every other literature can be treated as secondary. My take is that extra-biblical sources are promising avenues to enrich a believer's faith as long as it does not stand in contrary to Scripture.
These discussions are only a slice of the controversy that the Reformation has brought forth. Truly, this radical feat in history has restored the value of God's Word, and propped as a springboard for widespread fame among the nations.
