There’s a big difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura. The more I read of the Reformers and them themselves, the more it comes clear to me that sola scriptura is vastly misconstrued - by adherents and opponents alike.
It was never meant to be an individualistic interpretation, but always within the context of community and the Church catholic.
Looking at Anglican traditional teachings on this, I would have to say that it seems vastly different to how you’ve outlined it here - and how I know many evangelicals do.
Think also of Wesley’s quadrilateral. Protestantism was never a movement towards personal interpretation, but a movement towards seeing scripture as a final authority. It was a move against individual interpretation, actually, which it felt the Catholic Church was actually engaging in at the time - and making such interpretation by popes etc. binding on consciences.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I appreciate the distinction you’ve drawn between sola and solo scriptura. I attempted to maintain such a distinction when I ran in Anglican and Presbyterian circles myself.
That said, even sola scriptura—understood communally—faces significant challenges.
Take Luther’s famous “Here I stand” speech, where he elevated individual conscience over councils and creeds, rejecting Church tradition as the framework for interpretation. This led him to dismiss the Epistle of James, question other New Testament books, and remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament. While claiming Scripture as the “final authority,” his approach set a precedent for subjective interpretation that fragmented Protestantism into countless competing denominations—all appealing to the same Bible.
The early Church, however, embraced Scripture within Apostolic Tradition. St. Irenaeus, for example, affirmed that the Church, through its succession of bishops, preserved the truth entrusted to it by the Apostles (Against Heresies 3.2). Without this tradition, even the biblical canon would not exist. As Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura suggests, *before we come to the Word of God at Genesis 1 we come to the word of the Church at the table of contents.*
Orthodoxy offers a vision of unity: Scripture interpreted within the living body of the Church, which the Apostle Paul called the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Rather than fragmenting the faith, this approach safeguards the fullness of truth entrusted to the Church by Christ Himself.
Thank you again for engaging this important topic.
Thank you for this article!
There’s a big difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura. The more I read of the Reformers and them themselves, the more it comes clear to me that sola scriptura is vastly misconstrued - by adherents and opponents alike.
It was never meant to be an individualistic interpretation, but always within the context of community and the Church catholic.
Looking at Anglican traditional teachings on this, I would have to say that it seems vastly different to how you’ve outlined it here - and how I know many evangelicals do.
Think also of Wesley’s quadrilateral. Protestantism was never a movement towards personal interpretation, but a movement towards seeing scripture as a final authority. It was a move against individual interpretation, actually, which it felt the Catholic Church was actually engaging in at the time - and making such interpretation by popes etc. binding on consciences.
Hey Ryan,
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I appreciate the distinction you’ve drawn between sola and solo scriptura. I attempted to maintain such a distinction when I ran in Anglican and Presbyterian circles myself.
That said, even sola scriptura—understood communally—faces significant challenges.
Take Luther’s famous “Here I stand” speech, where he elevated individual conscience over councils and creeds, rejecting Church tradition as the framework for interpretation. This led him to dismiss the Epistle of James, question other New Testament books, and remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament. While claiming Scripture as the “final authority,” his approach set a precedent for subjective interpretation that fragmented Protestantism into countless competing denominations—all appealing to the same Bible.
The early Church, however, embraced Scripture within Apostolic Tradition. St. Irenaeus, for example, affirmed that the Church, through its succession of bishops, preserved the truth entrusted to it by the Apostles (Against Heresies 3.2). Without this tradition, even the biblical canon would not exist. As Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura suggests, *before we come to the Word of God at Genesis 1 we come to the word of the Church at the table of contents.*
Orthodoxy offers a vision of unity: Scripture interpreted within the living body of the Church, which the Apostle Paul called the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Rather than fragmenting the faith, this approach safeguards the fullness of truth entrusted to the Church by Christ Himself.
Thank you again for engaging this important topic.
All the best,
Jamey