Joshua, perhaps I can add some understanding from a Lutheran (LC-MS) perspective on Sola Scriptura. We hold to Sola Scriptura, that is, Scripture alone is the source of all Christian doctrine and life. Scripture is therefore Norma Normans (the norm that norms). Not everyone agrees, as you said, what Scripture teaches. During conflict with Rome and then conflict with the Reformed and Anabaptists, Lutherans wrote out their positions on various doctrines. Some they found agreement, others they did not. These were eventually collected in 1580 and published in the Book of Concord. We (the LC-MS, etc…) hold these as authoritative because (as opposed to as far as) they teach what Scripture teaches. These are not sources of doctrines, but witnesses to Scripture doctrines. We refer to them as Norma Normata (a norm that is normed). So, for example, the Book of Concord begins with the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian), the earliest agreed upon witnesses. From there other 16th Century documents were added. Brain slip, but I think the Catalogue of Testimonies, is either includes or appended. This includes various statements from early church fathers agreeing with the witness of the Lutheran reformation. Although authoritative secondarily, these merely bears witness to Scripture. Martin Luther summed up our position well. (Paraphrasing) “the early Church, Popes, bishops, and councils disagree and contradict themselves at many times and places. Scripture alone can be trusted as the source of all Christian’s doctrine. No one can be saved by the Faith of another. One must believe for himself. Scripture alone can I trust.” As I said, that’s a paraphrase. Ultimately, Scripture alone can be fully trusted. True Christian unity confessed, for example in the Apostles Creed and explained to me by one of my seminary professors, is an article of faith that is believed. In other words, it lies hidden beneath outward, visible distinctions that are like a shattered glass. I hope this clarifies, at least, the Lutheran position on Sola Scriptura as opposed to Scripture and the Church as sources of doctrine. Thank you also for your kindness and openness in discussing such matters. God’s peace!
Hey Justin, I really appreciate your feedback and the Lutheran perspective. It was enlightening to understand that view on all of this! I learned a bunch about the Lutheran tradition that I didn't know before.
As it relates to the substance of the conversation: I understand the appeal of holding Scripture as the sole authoritative source in Christian life, especially given the concern about man-led institutions. While I don’t agree with sola Scriptura, I recognize it as a reasonable and conservative approach.
With that said, it seems we might actually agree on my main point: that Christians need an authoritative source to aid the interpretation of Scripture. There is a risk of reading Scripture on our own and deducing doctrines based on personal interpretation; it can lead to a lot of misunderstanding and confusion.
As you mention, the Lutheran tradition holds the Book of Concord as an authoritative source, which implies a recognition that we need a credible, authoritative 'teacher' for what Scripture teaches. That’s essentially my point, though we can debate the doctrinal details.
One thought I had when reading your comment was this:
Can a secondary source [Book of Concord] authoritatively interpret a primary source [Holy Scripture]? Of course, the validity of the interpretation in the secondary source would be contingent upon its alignment with the primary source (i.e., Scripture). If an interpretation is contradicted by Scripture, for example, it would be erroneous.
This concept is also held within a Catholic view, where Tradition and Scripture are seen as two parts of a single deposit of faith, with Tradition helping to illuminate and clarify the meaning of Scripture. So, in a similar way, Catholic Tradition can't contradict Scripture.
In the end, I’d assess from your comment that we aren’t in complete disagreement on my overarching topic: that we, as Christians, need an authoritative interpretation of Scripture via a Spirit-filled Church. From there, we can expound on that concept and explore our doctrinal differences, like sola Scriptura and the role of Church authority. It seems we share more common ground than we might have initially realized.
If I misinterpreted anything you said, please correct me, but other than that, I mirror your sentiment and appreciate your kindness and openness in discussing this.
I'm a Methodist and was raised Methodist and am studying in a Methodist seminary. I find that I also have trouble with sola scriptura. Not because I think that Scripture isn't authoritative, but rather because I think that it can be easily twisted. For instance, my background is in studying literature, and it amazes me all of the wildly different view points that folks can come up with based off their interpretations of a single paragraph of a single work. I also have seen many literature scholars force a certain interpretation to back up their own personal agenda without regarding authorial intent or the whole picture. So, in that way I think that while Scripture says what it says and it is authoritative, we cannot interpret it without the aid of the Spirit. I agree with what you said about a Spirit-filled community interpreting the Scripture. I find that, in my opinion, the most reliable source for interpreting Scripture is the early Church Fathers. There's a reason I like them so much, and it's not because they have an understanding of Scripture that is solid and single. Many contemporary Christians, as you said, think their interpretation is the only correct one. What I like about the Fathers is that they simply say, "Well, I don't really know." They acknowledge the beautiful and divine mysteries of God and His Word. Now, that's not to say that they don't take a stand on anything. They most certainly do stand against heresies. But what they acknowledge is that God is so transcendent of us that we'll never fully understand everything, but that our lives should be based around seeking understanding of Him as a pursuit. The mistake I think a lot of Protestants make is that they think they can figure it all out because to not have it figured out is a bad thing. The Fathers say, "We'll work to figure it out, but we won't figure everything out... Isn't that great?" After all, if we knew everything about God, I'm not sure He'd be worth worshiping. That's why I love the Fathers and that's why I think we can reliably turn to them for Scripture interpretation. I wish more Protestants gave them the time instead of rejecting them as similar to the Pharisees. The Fathers see the beauty in mystery, whereas modern Christians get frustrated with such things. I don't know. I probably generalized a lot in this comment, but it's just my two cents. Thanks for your article. I enjoyed it!
Well said in many ways, Samuel. I share several of your thoughts here! I rarely think there are Christians that don't believe Scripture is authoritative–to your point, it's what they take away from it that we have disagreement. A Spirit-filled and led Church that can collectively make authoritative interpretations for the rest of us to follow is essential, as it reduces the amount of *personal* bias contained within it. This is particularly so when the Church has a diverse (culturally, philosphically, etc) body of scholars.
But when we do so, it does require a certain level of humility on our part to listen; that child-like faith as Christ calls of us. I particularly like what you said about the Early Church Fathers being humble in their understanding/interpretation. It's okay not to know everything, and frankly, it would take something special away if we did, to your point. The mystery of our Lord is one to perpetually seek understanding in (and perhaps is part of His design).
I appreciate all of your kind words here. It means a lot when I can read comments like these. It's a real honor that you took the time to write out your takeaways and feelings in a personal note like this. Thank you, Samuel!
One difference that I notice between Catholics and so-called protestants is that Catholics take an us vs. them mentality when talking about the Church. I don't see the Catholic Church as united or as authoritative. I see it as just one more denomination, albeit an old one.
Sola Scriptura is perfectly valid. Where Christians disagree, one or more or all are not fully walking in the Spirit (yes, that's a lot of us). The proper approach to a doctrinal discussion is: let's see what the Bible says. If both/all parties are honest, they can seek the truth together. If one has an agenda other than truth (trying to prove a point), it will not work.
Based on my experience, I wouldn't look to Reformed communities for honest discussion. There tends to be a lot of theological pride and insistence on "correct theology" (they should trademark the phrase).
Tradition is useful as a starting point, but it must always be supported by Scripture, or it is not authoritative.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply Jonathan. Hopefully, I can manage something decent in my response, and that it's not too much to respond to (I feel blessed that you took the time to comment, nonetheless).
---
There's some here I agree with, some I disagree, but here are a few points I felt noteworthy:
1. I'd agree on the point of Christians struggling to not walk in the Spirit (all of us). It's one of my concerns broadly, as we're seeing the number of Christians nose dive in society.
2. Catholics also believe in referencing Scripture as an authoritative "check and balance." But I'd say you share a lot of wisdom in an honest, good-faith communal "all parties" approach that's not as present in other traditions, I've seen.
The primary point of this post was to recognize the challenge of the using of one's *personal* opinion on their own interpretation of Scripture to form the basis for important doctrine.
While we may disagree on the solution, I think your view provides a Spirit-guided answer. I respect that.
3. I made sure to recognize explicitly that I don't want to create a straw man of other Protestant theology using Reformed perspectives, hopefully that was clear and respectful. And I wasn't using that instance in isolation, but my broader life experience, as well.
4. I referenced Jason Staples to illustrate an articulate perspective on the challenges with sola Scriptura. From my understanding, he is no Catholic, and was actually introduced to him by a Protestant friend.
His post I referenced is a meaty read, but a solid one if you're interested on learning more on that take (he is a much better writer than me).
My hope is not that this would come off as "us vs. them," but could spur decent thoughts / conversation around what I believe to be an important topic.
And to recognize that a Spirit-filled body of believers, i.e. the Church, is a neglected component to guiding us to the truth in interpreting Scripture.
First, let me say that I respect you a good deal. I'm not trying to attack or put you down.
We in the West like to be certain about things. I am no exception. We like systematic theologies and confessional creeds and catechisms. We like our denominations and theological clubs. (Kind of astonishing, given the way Paul begins 1 Corinthians). There are some things in the Bible that are absolutely plain and we can be certain about. These are essential doctrines. I am abbreviating here, but to be a Christian, you must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that He died for your sin, and rose again, and is alive, and will return.
The epistles make it clear that Christian conduct is achieved by walking in the Spirit, not by following rules. We ought as a church and as individuals to be utterly dependent on the Spirit and on Scripture. It's okay to wrestle with Scripture. It's okay to get it wrong if you are willing to change your mind when you learn more. What is important is that the Spirit is having His way with you.
I had a discussion with a Catholic substacker who was much less polite than you. He couldn't or wouldn't understand that I am content having an imperfect understanding of the Bible, because the Holy Spirit shows me what He wants me to know when He wants me to know it. It isn't my theology that saves me or enables me to do good works, but my relationship with the living Christ. I wish all Christians would be a little less sure of themselves on whatever their pet doctrine is, and be content to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord.
Thank you, Jonathan. Your kindness and respect mean a lot to me, and I hope none of my words come across as an attack either. In a secular world, the last thing I'd want is to be off-putting to fellow Christians.
I find everything you're saying akin to the child-like faith that Christ asks of all of us–though it's not easy. We're often driven to seek definitive proof, especially Western culture like ours that values independence and self-reliance, sometimes to our detriment (and ignorance).
It's unfortunate about the Catholic Substacker you mentioned. True respect and affection for our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters are central to Catholic teaching, and it's disheartening to see that fall short. We're explicitly called to "accept them with respect and affection as brothers" (from the Catechism).
In a similar way, I'm perfectly content having an imperfect understanding of Scripture and Christian doctrine–I'm by no means a theologian. But I'd like to take the time I have in this life to understand it as fully as I can; not in a proud, intellectual way, but as a means of knowing Christ more deeply and His will for us.
Nonetheless, while I broadly agree with you, I wouldn't understate the importance of our doctrines, as it shapes how we honor and worship Christ, how we live as Christians, and how we treat other people. But the essential component of Christian living is walking in the Spirit, justly, with love, mercy, and humility, as you said.
Great thoughts here. I’d add, also, that most (all?) scripture was written to diverse communities of people trying to follow God. Thus —to add an option that I didn’t see in the poll—our interpretation and application should also be done in the context of diverse communities trying to follow God. One person’s perspective may give me an extra insight into a text I would not have seen before if I only studied it on my own, and moreover often it is only when we try to put scripture into practice alongside others that we are sharpened as disciples. The historical church can help with that by giving us perspectives from across the centuries, and the local church can give us a place to try to put it into practice. But it does feel like a distinct category from the others you had in the poll
That's an interesting add! I would agree that the historical Church can offer value, particularly as you inch earlier, closer to the Apostolic Age. The Holy Spirit works within all of us and can guide us to understand His Word more, even in the context of individual interpretation. The one thing I love about Holy Scripture is how powerful it is; how you can read it 10x over and take away different insights and lessons.
To complete my comment directly related to your response:
Diverse communities is definitely something I missed on the poll. Reflecting back on it, I think I could have been more clear on the question, like "What source do you PRIMARILY rely on for interpreting Holy Scripture with confidence?" You definitely offered some good considerations on the importance of that.
Because in the end, I think people generally use multiple sources, like a combination of all of those–so in hindsight, I could have made that revision and then maybe added yours. Hopefully next time I'll get it better!
Joshua, perhaps I can add some understanding from a Lutheran (LC-MS) perspective on Sola Scriptura. We hold to Sola Scriptura, that is, Scripture alone is the source of all Christian doctrine and life. Scripture is therefore Norma Normans (the norm that norms). Not everyone agrees, as you said, what Scripture teaches. During conflict with Rome and then conflict with the Reformed and Anabaptists, Lutherans wrote out their positions on various doctrines. Some they found agreement, others they did not. These were eventually collected in 1580 and published in the Book of Concord. We (the LC-MS, etc…) hold these as authoritative because (as opposed to as far as) they teach what Scripture teaches. These are not sources of doctrines, but witnesses to Scripture doctrines. We refer to them as Norma Normata (a norm that is normed). So, for example, the Book of Concord begins with the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian), the earliest agreed upon witnesses. From there other 16th Century documents were added. Brain slip, but I think the Catalogue of Testimonies, is either includes or appended. This includes various statements from early church fathers agreeing with the witness of the Lutheran reformation. Although authoritative secondarily, these merely bears witness to Scripture. Martin Luther summed up our position well. (Paraphrasing) “the early Church, Popes, bishops, and councils disagree and contradict themselves at many times and places. Scripture alone can be trusted as the source of all Christian’s doctrine. No one can be saved by the Faith of another. One must believe for himself. Scripture alone can I trust.” As I said, that’s a paraphrase. Ultimately, Scripture alone can be fully trusted. True Christian unity confessed, for example in the Apostles Creed and explained to me by one of my seminary professors, is an article of faith that is believed. In other words, it lies hidden beneath outward, visible distinctions that are like a shattered glass. I hope this clarifies, at least, the Lutheran position on Sola Scriptura as opposed to Scripture and the Church as sources of doctrine. Thank you also for your kindness and openness in discussing such matters. God’s peace!
Justin
Hey Justin, I really appreciate your feedback and the Lutheran perspective. It was enlightening to understand that view on all of this! I learned a bunch about the Lutheran tradition that I didn't know before.
As it relates to the substance of the conversation: I understand the appeal of holding Scripture as the sole authoritative source in Christian life, especially given the concern about man-led institutions. While I don’t agree with sola Scriptura, I recognize it as a reasonable and conservative approach.
With that said, it seems we might actually agree on my main point: that Christians need an authoritative source to aid the interpretation of Scripture. There is a risk of reading Scripture on our own and deducing doctrines based on personal interpretation; it can lead to a lot of misunderstanding and confusion.
As you mention, the Lutheran tradition holds the Book of Concord as an authoritative source, which implies a recognition that we need a credible, authoritative 'teacher' for what Scripture teaches. That’s essentially my point, though we can debate the doctrinal details.
One thought I had when reading your comment was this:
Can a secondary source [Book of Concord] authoritatively interpret a primary source [Holy Scripture]? Of course, the validity of the interpretation in the secondary source would be contingent upon its alignment with the primary source (i.e., Scripture). If an interpretation is contradicted by Scripture, for example, it would be erroneous.
This concept is also held within a Catholic view, where Tradition and Scripture are seen as two parts of a single deposit of faith, with Tradition helping to illuminate and clarify the meaning of Scripture. So, in a similar way, Catholic Tradition can't contradict Scripture.
In the end, I’d assess from your comment that we aren’t in complete disagreement on my overarching topic: that we, as Christians, need an authoritative interpretation of Scripture via a Spirit-filled Church. From there, we can expound on that concept and explore our doctrinal differences, like sola Scriptura and the role of Church authority. It seems we share more common ground than we might have initially realized.
If I misinterpreted anything you said, please correct me, but other than that, I mirror your sentiment and appreciate your kindness and openness in discussing this.
Peace be with you!
Josh
I'm a Methodist and was raised Methodist and am studying in a Methodist seminary. I find that I also have trouble with sola scriptura. Not because I think that Scripture isn't authoritative, but rather because I think that it can be easily twisted. For instance, my background is in studying literature, and it amazes me all of the wildly different view points that folks can come up with based off their interpretations of a single paragraph of a single work. I also have seen many literature scholars force a certain interpretation to back up their own personal agenda without regarding authorial intent or the whole picture. So, in that way I think that while Scripture says what it says and it is authoritative, we cannot interpret it without the aid of the Spirit. I agree with what you said about a Spirit-filled community interpreting the Scripture. I find that, in my opinion, the most reliable source for interpreting Scripture is the early Church Fathers. There's a reason I like them so much, and it's not because they have an understanding of Scripture that is solid and single. Many contemporary Christians, as you said, think their interpretation is the only correct one. What I like about the Fathers is that they simply say, "Well, I don't really know." They acknowledge the beautiful and divine mysteries of God and His Word. Now, that's not to say that they don't take a stand on anything. They most certainly do stand against heresies. But what they acknowledge is that God is so transcendent of us that we'll never fully understand everything, but that our lives should be based around seeking understanding of Him as a pursuit. The mistake I think a lot of Protestants make is that they think they can figure it all out because to not have it figured out is a bad thing. The Fathers say, "We'll work to figure it out, but we won't figure everything out... Isn't that great?" After all, if we knew everything about God, I'm not sure He'd be worth worshiping. That's why I love the Fathers and that's why I think we can reliably turn to them for Scripture interpretation. I wish more Protestants gave them the time instead of rejecting them as similar to the Pharisees. The Fathers see the beauty in mystery, whereas modern Christians get frustrated with such things. I don't know. I probably generalized a lot in this comment, but it's just my two cents. Thanks for your article. I enjoyed it!
Well said in many ways, Samuel. I share several of your thoughts here! I rarely think there are Christians that don't believe Scripture is authoritative–to your point, it's what they take away from it that we have disagreement. A Spirit-filled and led Church that can collectively make authoritative interpretations for the rest of us to follow is essential, as it reduces the amount of *personal* bias contained within it. This is particularly so when the Church has a diverse (culturally, philosphically, etc) body of scholars.
But when we do so, it does require a certain level of humility on our part to listen; that child-like faith as Christ calls of us. I particularly like what you said about the Early Church Fathers being humble in their understanding/interpretation. It's okay not to know everything, and frankly, it would take something special away if we did, to your point. The mystery of our Lord is one to perpetually seek understanding in (and perhaps is part of His design).
I appreciate all of your kind words here. It means a lot when I can read comments like these. It's a real honor that you took the time to write out your takeaways and feelings in a personal note like this. Thank you, Samuel!
I look forward to reading your future work! God bless.
One difference that I notice between Catholics and so-called protestants is that Catholics take an us vs. them mentality when talking about the Church. I don't see the Catholic Church as united or as authoritative. I see it as just one more denomination, albeit an old one.
Sola Scriptura is perfectly valid. Where Christians disagree, one or more or all are not fully walking in the Spirit (yes, that's a lot of us). The proper approach to a doctrinal discussion is: let's see what the Bible says. If both/all parties are honest, they can seek the truth together. If one has an agenda other than truth (trying to prove a point), it will not work.
Based on my experience, I wouldn't look to Reformed communities for honest discussion. There tends to be a lot of theological pride and insistence on "correct theology" (they should trademark the phrase).
Tradition is useful as a starting point, but it must always be supported by Scripture, or it is not authoritative.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply Jonathan. Hopefully, I can manage something decent in my response, and that it's not too much to respond to (I feel blessed that you took the time to comment, nonetheless).
---
There's some here I agree with, some I disagree, but here are a few points I felt noteworthy:
1. I'd agree on the point of Christians struggling to not walk in the Spirit (all of us). It's one of my concerns broadly, as we're seeing the number of Christians nose dive in society.
2. Catholics also believe in referencing Scripture as an authoritative "check and balance." But I'd say you share a lot of wisdom in an honest, good-faith communal "all parties" approach that's not as present in other traditions, I've seen.
The primary point of this post was to recognize the challenge of the using of one's *personal* opinion on their own interpretation of Scripture to form the basis for important doctrine.
While we may disagree on the solution, I think your view provides a Spirit-guided answer. I respect that.
3. I made sure to recognize explicitly that I don't want to create a straw man of other Protestant theology using Reformed perspectives, hopefully that was clear and respectful. And I wasn't using that instance in isolation, but my broader life experience, as well.
4. I referenced Jason Staples to illustrate an articulate perspective on the challenges with sola Scriptura. From my understanding, he is no Catholic, and was actually introduced to him by a Protestant friend.
His post I referenced is a meaty read, but a solid one if you're interested on learning more on that take (he is a much better writer than me).
My hope is not that this would come off as "us vs. them," but could spur decent thoughts / conversation around what I believe to be an important topic.
And to recognize that a Spirit-filled body of believers, i.e. the Church, is a neglected component to guiding us to the truth in interpreting Scripture.
First, let me say that I respect you a good deal. I'm not trying to attack or put you down.
We in the West like to be certain about things. I am no exception. We like systematic theologies and confessional creeds and catechisms. We like our denominations and theological clubs. (Kind of astonishing, given the way Paul begins 1 Corinthians). There are some things in the Bible that are absolutely plain and we can be certain about. These are essential doctrines. I am abbreviating here, but to be a Christian, you must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that He died for your sin, and rose again, and is alive, and will return.
The epistles make it clear that Christian conduct is achieved by walking in the Spirit, not by following rules. We ought as a church and as individuals to be utterly dependent on the Spirit and on Scripture. It's okay to wrestle with Scripture. It's okay to get it wrong if you are willing to change your mind when you learn more. What is important is that the Spirit is having His way with you.
I had a discussion with a Catholic substacker who was much less polite than you. He couldn't or wouldn't understand that I am content having an imperfect understanding of the Bible, because the Holy Spirit shows me what He wants me to know when He wants me to know it. It isn't my theology that saves me or enables me to do good works, but my relationship with the living Christ. I wish all Christians would be a little less sure of themselves on whatever their pet doctrine is, and be content to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord.
Thank you, Jonathan. Your kindness and respect mean a lot to me, and I hope none of my words come across as an attack either. In a secular world, the last thing I'd want is to be off-putting to fellow Christians.
I find everything you're saying akin to the child-like faith that Christ asks of all of us–though it's not easy. We're often driven to seek definitive proof, especially Western culture like ours that values independence and self-reliance, sometimes to our detriment (and ignorance).
It's unfortunate about the Catholic Substacker you mentioned. True respect and affection for our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters are central to Catholic teaching, and it's disheartening to see that fall short. We're explicitly called to "accept them with respect and affection as brothers" (from the Catechism).
In a similar way, I'm perfectly content having an imperfect understanding of Scripture and Christian doctrine–I'm by no means a theologian. But I'd like to take the time I have in this life to understand it as fully as I can; not in a proud, intellectual way, but as a means of knowing Christ more deeply and His will for us.
Nonetheless, while I broadly agree with you, I wouldn't understate the importance of our doctrines, as it shapes how we honor and worship Christ, how we live as Christians, and how we treat other people. But the essential component of Christian living is walking in the Spirit, justly, with love, mercy, and humility, as you said.
Great thoughts here. I’d add, also, that most (all?) scripture was written to diverse communities of people trying to follow God. Thus —to add an option that I didn’t see in the poll—our interpretation and application should also be done in the context of diverse communities trying to follow God. One person’s perspective may give me an extra insight into a text I would not have seen before if I only studied it on my own, and moreover often it is only when we try to put scripture into practice alongside others that we are sharpened as disciples. The historical church can help with that by giving us perspectives from across the centuries, and the local church can give us a place to try to put it into practice. But it does feel like a distinct category from the others you had in the poll
That's an interesting add! I would agree that the historical Church can offer value, particularly as you inch earlier, closer to the Apostolic Age. The Holy Spirit works within all of us and can guide us to understand His Word more, even in the context of individual interpretation. The one thing I love about Holy Scripture is how powerful it is; how you can read it 10x over and take away different insights and lessons.
To complete my comment directly related to your response:
Diverse communities is definitely something I missed on the poll. Reflecting back on it, I think I could have been more clear on the question, like "What source do you PRIMARILY rely on for interpreting Holy Scripture with confidence?" You definitely offered some good considerations on the importance of that.
Because in the end, I think people generally use multiple sources, like a combination of all of those–so in hindsight, I could have made that revision and then maybe added yours. Hopefully next time I'll get it better!