Article: What Sola Scriptura Does and Does Not Mean By Dr. Sam Waldron – original source: https://cbtseminary.org/what-sola-scriptura-does-and-does-not-mean-sam-waldron/

Preface:

There is a great deal of discussion in Reformed Baptist circles about What Sola Scriptura Does and Does Not Mean. I thought it might be helpful to you if I offered you some reflections on this issue. There are those who are decrying what they call biblicism. These folks warn us constantly that sola scriptura does not mean solo scriptura or biblicism. There are others to whom I have spoken who have a really hard time thinking of biblicism as something bad and wonder what all the concern is about.

In order to address this subject, I will first attempt to provide a confessional definition of sola scriptura and in this way show what sola scriptura does mean. Having done that, I want to explain briefly what is wrong with biblicism properly defined and how it differs from sola scriptura.

I want to assert that chapter 1 of our Confession (which is entitled, Of the Holy Scriptures) provides us with an extended explanation of what our Baptist forefathers understood sola scriptura to mean when they affirmed it. It takes the diamond of sola scriptura turns it in different ways to show us the various brilliant facets of sola scriptura. With this venerable and extended explanation of sola scriptura in hand, we will attempt to distinguish what is condemned as biblicism from it.

Section 1: What Sola Scriptura Does Mean

I. Paragraph 1: The Necessity of Holy Scripture

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience, although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.  Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

2LCF 1:1

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone provides the saving knowledge which men require to be saved. The 1689 adds the words that I have placed in bold italics at the beginning of the first paragraph of the Confession. The very first assertion distinctive to the 1689 as opposed to the Westminster is sola scriptura. The light of nature has the power to condemn men, but it does not have the power to save them. Scripture alone provides that.

II. Paragraphs 2-3: The Identity of Holy Scripture

Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: [There follow the names of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New.] All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.

2LCF 1:2

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.

2LCF 1:3

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture consists in the 66 books of the Hebrew and Greek testaments alone and does not include the Apocrypha or any other merely human writings.

III. Paragraphs 4-5: Its Authority

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.

2LCF 1:4

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

2LCF 1:5

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is self-authenticating and self-attesting. We do not believe in Scripture because of the testimony of any man or church. The testimony of the church of God in a secondary and subordinate way may move us to esteem Scripture. Yet, the great assertion of Calvin and the Reformed tradition following him is that Scripture is self-attested and not church-attested. Cf. Calvin’s Institutes Book 1, Chapter 7. It attests itself and the Holy Spirit enables fallen men to accept that powerful and self-authenticating testimony.

IV. Paragraph 6: Its Sufficiency 

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

2LCF 1:6a

 

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

2LCF 1:6b

Sola Scriptura means that we need nothing else to know what is for God’s glory, man’s salvation, faith and life. It further means that the proper way to worship God formally and corporately is entirely contained in God’s holy Word. Cf. 22:1: “But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”

V. Paragraph 7: Its Clarity

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.

2LCF 1:7

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is clear enough in itself that unlearned men may by ordinary means obtain a sufficient knowledge for their salvation and life. Though learned studies of the grammatical and historical backgrounds of the Scripture may deepen our knowledge of Scripture, they are not necessary for ordinary men through ordinary means to understand sufficiently what they teach for his salvation and life. If unlearned men may with ordinary means attain a sufficient understanding of Christian doctrine, clearly courses in philosophy are not necessary to rightly divide the Scriptures.

VI. Paragraph 8: Its Availability

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),1 and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar [i.e. common] language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.

2LCF 1:8

Sola Scriptura means that God will preserve the Scriptures so that men have an authentic understanding of their message. Thus, the church may appeal to them as the final authority in religious controversies and is not forced to appeal to other religious foundations.

VII. Paragraph 9: Its Finality (For the Interpretation of Scripture)

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.

2LCF 1:9

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is sufficient for the interpretation of Scripture. It is self-interpreting. Sola Scriptura is seen in the fact that the Scriptures are self-interpreting.

VIII. Paragraph 10: Its Supremacy (For the Resolution of Controversies)

The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.

2LCF 1:10

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is sufficient for the resolution of all religious controversies. Scripture alone is the supreme court of religious truth. Heresy is discovered and determined not by the ancient creeds but by the teaching of Scripture.

Section 2: What Sola Scriptura Does Not Mean

This is a very extensive and variegated understanding of sola scriptura with which the Confession provides us. Clearly, its place in the Confession (as the very first chapter) and its prominence in the Confession (as one of the longest chapters) show its importance for our Baptist forefathers. Given this, the question might be asked, What could remain to be said?

Yet much remains to about what Sola Scriptura does not mean. There are some common misunderstandings of sola scriptura which bedevil contemporary Christian thought. The Confession itself mentions and rejects many of them. Together these deficiencies have been described as biblicism. That is, they compose an exaggerated and unqualified understanding of Sola Scriptura. They are “solo scriptura” and not Sola Scriptura. Let me identify seven such distortions of Sola Scriptura.

I. Sola Scriptura does not mean that all of Christian doctrine is found explicitly in Scripture.

Scripture truth is composed not only of what is taught explicitly in Scripture, but also what is “necessarily contained in Scripture.” This is what the Westminster calls in the same paragraph:  good and necessary consequence. This is the meaning of the contrast in paragraph 6a between expressly set down and necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture. This is a contrast between what is explicit and what is implicit in Scripture. What is necessarily contained in Scripture by good and necessary consequence is Scripture.

Of course, the key word in both the 1689 and Westminster is necessary. The consequences which logical analysis draws from Scripture must necessary. Sola Scriptura means that such consequences as we may draw must be more than compatible with Scripture. They must be deductions which it is necessary to draw from Scripture. Otherwise, we are on the path back to oral traditions that may be compatible with Scripture, but which are not necessary deductions from Scripture.

This means, however, that we must arrive at some truth by the synthesis of Scripture like that in which systematic theology engages. We do not need an explicit proof-text to prove a doctrine if it may be deduced from a synthesis of scriptural premises. Modern, New Testament theologians have fallen into this problem and sadly rejected doctrines like double imputation because of such an insensitivity to the proper synthesis of Scripture. D. A. Carson in Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Edited by Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier. Downers Grove: IVP, 2004) properly critiques this.

II. Sola Scriptura does not mean that we may safely ignore the witness of the Christian tradition in the way we interpret Scripture.

Christ has been giving the gift of pastor-teachers to the church for 2000 years. It is a proud man who thinks he may safely ignore those teaching gifts in his own approach to the interpretation of Scripture. Such a man is practicing solo scriptura not sola scriptura.

Nevertheless, two things must be remembered and not concealed.

• The value of this tradition is only to help us understand Scripture itself. It has no authority in and of itself. It is only helpful as it assists us to see the meaning of Scripture.
• The emphasizing of this tradition must never assume that this teaching tradition is monolithic and unvarying. It is not. It is Roman Catholicism which speaks of what has believed by all everywhere. St. Vincent of Lerins epitomized this when he wrote in his Commonitory (ca. 434) his famous maxim: “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”

III. Sola Scriptura does not mean that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture.

As we have seen, paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Confession are very clear in limiting the sufficiency of Scripture to saving truth. We must distinguish between such truth and other truth not sufficiently contained in Scripture. The Bible is not a textbook on auto mechanics or biology. It is not sufficient for such studies.

IV. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the light of nature fails to proclaim truth to men for which they are held accountable and may be condemned.

Paragraph 1 makes clear that the light of nature reveals the existence and character of God and that by this truth men are justly condemned for what they know.

V. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the divine revelation found in Scripture does not assume the light of nature and reason in men.

Paragraph 6 makes clear that the light of nature is necessary to apply properly the principles of the Word of God to the circumstances of corporate worship and the government of the church. This in turn implies that the light of nature or natural reason is assumed in the interpretation of Scripture.

VI. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the work of the Spirit in understanding Scripture is unnecessary.

The Spirit’s work is necessary because the natural reason just mentioned is fallen and inevitably twists the light of nature and scriptural teaching. Thus, the testimony of the Spirit is necessary to untwist the fallen reason and make the truth known to men. Cf. Matthew 16:17.

Cf. 1:5: our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

Cf. 1:6b: Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.

VII. Sola Scriptura does not mean that a “simple” grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture is sufficient.

I was taught in my Bible college that the right method of interpreting Scripture could be summarized as grammatical-historical interpretation. This was wrong.

The Reformed tradition (Cf. Louis Berkhof’s Principles of Biblical Interpretation and many other treatises.) is committed to the need to supplement such grammatical-historical interpretation with a theological interpretation of Scripture which remembers that the Scripture has a divine author as well as human authors. Thus, the canonical trajectory of Scripture, its divine authorial intention, its unfolding interpretation of its earliest parts, its typological character, and its messianic metanarrative must be considered in its interpretation. (Remember according to 1689:1:9 that Scripture is self-interpreting.) Thus, we may attribute meaning to Scripture which goes beyond what the human author might have comprehended. “Us” in the creation narratives (Cf. Genesis 1:26) may refer to the Trinity even if Moses would not have comprehended this meaning. The meaning of the divine author may go beyond the understanding of the human author of Scripture. Thus also, the meaning of Genesis 2:3 is illumined and confirmed by the canonical trajectory of Scripture. Cf. the comments of Yahweh in Exodus 20:8-11 and Jesus in Mark 2:27 on Genesis 2:1-3.

Conclusion:

The 1689 Baptist Confession gives us an extensive doctrine of sola scriptura. This is a glorious inheritance from our Baptist forefathers. We must not truncate its meaning or significance.

Nevertheless, there is abroad an exaggeration of sola scriptura in the ways I have attempted to explain in the second half of this short paper. We need to be wary always of our fallen, human tendency to swing from one extreme to another which is equally in error.

Article: “What Does Scriptural Sufficiency Mean?” by Jordan L. Steffaniak – original source – https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-does-scriptural-sufficiency-mean/

Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience according to the Reformed confessions.

Such an understanding of Scripture has been confessed by Protestant Christians since the Reformation. However, our understanding of sufficiency has corroded over the years. There has been a slippage between how the Reformers thought about sufficiency and how many modern Christians do.

When the doctrine of sufficiency is being wielded as a weapon against areas as widely divergent as Critical Race Theory to Classical Theism you know you’ve found an issue in need of clarification.

So, what does it mean to say Scripture is sufficient?

Let’s Start with Some Questions

Let’s start with a few questions to orient ourselves.

Is Scripture sufficient for changing the oil on my pickup truck? I think most would say no. Maybe there are general principles to work hard and not lose my temper when I cut my hand but there isn’t an instruction list for how to properly do this.

So, let’s try another one. Is Scripture sufficient for determining the validity of the law of non-contradiction? I think most would say sort of. But this is more difficult than the first.

Now, a more difficult question. Is Scripture sufficient for determining our thoughts on ethical topics like transhumanism? I think most would say yes and no. While the Bible may not address the modern technological challenges we face, there are general Christian principles that guide us as we navigate these challenges.

Finally, let’s take one that is right at the center of our faith as Christians. Is Scripture sufficient for the metaphysics of the incarnation? Yes, but we have to admit no verse in the Bible directly says that there are two natures that are inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably united. The Bible does not use the terminology of two natures that are inseparable.

Does this mean it isn’t “in” the Bible? Does this mean Scripture is insufficient?

These examples illustrate two related but crucial questions regarding what sufficiency is supposed to mean:

1. What does it mean for something to be “in” Scripture?
2. Does the sufficiency of Scripture require all things exhaustively to be in Scripture?

While most would agree that the Bible doesn’t contain an instruction manual for oil changes, many find it difficult to understand scriptural sufficiency when it comes to topics like logic, transhumanism, and incarnation.

So, what are we to make of these questions?

Turning to the Wisdom of Earlier Christians

I think it’s helpful to begin by remembering how the Reformed confessions understand the nature of sufficiency. Take the very beginning of the Second London Confession of Faith 1.1:

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation.

There are several aspects to unpack here. Instead of beginning by explaining what they do mean I am going to start by explaining what they don’t mean. Sometimes one of the best ways to understand something is to understand what it’s not. So, notice what the confession does not say:

• “Because Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, therefore there are no insufficient, uncertain, and fallible subordinate rules.”
• “Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience whatsoever.”
• “The light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do not manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God.”

Each of these misinterpretations is quite common.

So common, in fact, that two of the greatest Protestant theologians in Francis Turretin (1623-1687) and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) address them as well.

They too found ample misunderstandings of the sufficiency of Scripture. They provide laundry lists of what sufficiency doesn’t mean. Three of them relate directly to the most common misunderstandings today. They argue that:

1. Sufficiency doesn’t mean that Scripture contains everything done or said by Christ. John 20:30 says as much.
2. Sufficiency doesn’t mean that everything is taught word for word in Scripture. Many things are to be deduced by inference.
3. Sufficiency doesn’t mean that it contains everything exhaustively related to the Christian faith—only that it contains matters necessary to salvation (e.g. the articles of faith).[1]

So, sufficiency doesn’t mean that Scripture contains all possible knowledge—either word for word or implicitly. It certainly doesn’t contain knowledge about how molecular biology works or the compression ratio of premium and regular unleaded fuel.

The Reformed tradition provides conceptual clarity here.

Part of the reason they were able to properly locate the doctrine of sufficiency is because they sought to distinguish between various epistemological principles.

First, the Spirit himself works as the ontological principle of knowledge. He is the ultimate bedrock.

Second, Scripture is the infallible external cognitive principle of knowledge.

But there remains a third principle of knowledge: the internal cognitive principle where the Spirit causes knowledge to be received, contemplated, and confessed via various sources.[2] The sufficiency of Scripture does not invalidate this third principle.

Rational contemplation in faith is a necessary means for knowledge. But this does not mean it is either the first principle from which doctrines of faith are tested and proved or the foundation from which they are built.[3]

It is the Spirit himself as ontological principle and Scripture as infallible external cognitive principle that fulfill these roles.

Senses of Sufficiency

But what does sufficiency mean? It means that we have a single final authoritative rule for all matters of saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. Unlike Roman Catholicism, we do not have an incomplete revelation that needs alternative means to supplement its lack.[4] It means that Scripture is the norming norm for all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. It is the final arbiter of truth for all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. It is the final rule for all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

As a sufficient rule, it means that nothing can supersede Scripture. If something disagrees with Scripture, it is wrong. As to sufficiency in content, it means that Scripture is the sufficient rule in a limited scope. It relates to all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. It does not speak to all areas. There is non-saving knowledge that can be found outside of Scripture.

Consider the Second London Confession of Faith 1.6 where it offers further clarity:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

The confession provides answers to both the nature of sufficiency and the content of sufficiency. Let’s take them in turn.

The Nature of Sufficiency

The first question to be considered is “what do we mean by something being “in” the Bible?”—this relates to the nature of sufficiency.

As with most theology, the answer is not simplistic. Theology requires us to distinguish between various senses of sufficiency. Francis Turretin is a good guide at this juncture. He distinguishes between the form or substance of Scripture and the specific literal words of Scripture.

Only the actual words are absolutely contained in Scripture. But while many things are not recorded literally in the words of the Bible, they are contained in its form or substance. Within the substance of Scripture, things are contained “in them really” or they are “not doctrines necessary to salvation” or “false and counterfeit” doctrines.[5]

It is the terminology of substance and form wherein the Reformed confessional “good and necessary consequence” methodology fits (e.g., “expressly set down or necessarily contained”).

These consequences from Scripture, though they are not absolutely “in” Scripture, are either innate (virtually contained) or implied and carried into it. Some consequences are proximate, necessary, and plain but others are remote, probable, and obscure.[6] But the Reformed tradition has understood these to be “in” Scripture—even if they require external philosophical contemplation.

It is the wooden sense of “in” the Bible (absolute/word-for-word only) that heretics have often used to twist the substantial meaning of Scripture while claiming to be following what the Bible teaches.

You see this with the Eunomians in the early church and the Socinians in the Reformation. For example, Francis Turretin argues at length against the Socinians:

Our controversy here is with the Socinians who deny the existence of any such natural theology or knowledge of God and hold that what may appear to be such has flowed partly from tradition handed down from Adam, and partly from revelations made at different times. The orthodox, on the contrary, uniformly teach that there is a natural theology, partly innate (derived from the book of conscience by means of common notions) and partly acquired (drawn from the book of creatures discursively).[7]

His problem with the Socinians is restricting the knowledge of God. And it seems this problem isn’t new.

Basil (329–379) and Gregory of Nazianzus (329–390) faced a similar challenge. Basil confesses his frustration with those critiquing Pro-Nicene theology:

Since whatever the theologians seem to have recorded about the substance of God has been expressed in figurative language or even in allegories, the words transport us to other notions. Hence if someone should contentiously stand by the mere letter, taking it in its obvious interpretation without duly examining it, he has strayed into the myths of the Jews [Ti 1.14] and silly old wives’ tales [1 Tm 4.7], and he will grow old in abject poverty, devoid of worthy concepts about God.[8]

Gregory similarly calls these thinkers “textual vandals” that use their simplistic notions to “rob the written word” of its sense.[9] He argues in a similar fashion:

Time and time again someone repeats the argument about not being in the Bible. Yet we are dealing here not with a smuggled-in alien, but with something disclosed to the consciousness of men past and present. The fact stands already proved by a host of people who have discussed the subject, all men who read the Holy Scriptures not in a frivolous, cursory way, but with penetration so that they saw inside the written text to its inner meaning.[10]

The constant refrain among the false teachers is to “show us the express words or we cross them out as unscriptural.”[11] But Gregory argues that you cannot be “dreadfully servile to the letter.”[12] There must be a place for biblical teaching that is implicitly, though not explicitly, located in the Bible.

The Scope of Sufficiency

Now, what about whether the sufficiency of Scripture requires all things exhaustively to be in Scripture? There are really two questions embedded within this one.

First, does Scripture contain absolutely everything about the world? Most are comfortable answering this as no. Scripture doesn’t contain how molecular biology works or the compression ratio of premium unleaded fuel. It doesn’t teach me how to change the oil on my truck. Fine and good.

But what about whether or not everything helpful for Christians to know is contained in Scripture? It might seem anti-Protestant to suggest there are useful truths in nature that are not found either explicitly (e.g., absolutely and word-for-word) or implicitly (e.g., by good and necessary consequence) in Scripture.

But here again, Reformational Protestants may surprise us. As the Second London Confession explicitly claims, there are some things that are ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence.

The sufficiency of Scripture is about matters of saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. That modifier is critical. It could have excluded it and universalized the claim. But it didn’t.

And this is good since God is infinite. If everything about him could be contained in a book he would no longer be infinite. As Gregory of Nazianzus reminds us, “No one yet has discovered or ever shall discover what God is in his nature and essence.”[13]

Summing Up

The sufficiency of Scripture is a beautiful doctrine. It comforts us because we needn’t worry that we will fail to have all knowledge necessary to know God and obey him. It encourages us because we can grow in our faith without needing a multi-million-dollar library.

But it is liable to be abused like any other doctrine. And it’s liable to be misunderstood in both liberal and conservative directions. We can end up rejecting it or we can end up expanding it beyond its proper scope.

The truth of sufficiency is that the Bible is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule. But there remain other insufficient, uncertain, fallible subordinate rules.

---

[1] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994), 1:135; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:488.

[2] Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 31–32.

[3] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:24.

[4] Bavinck, RD, 1:481.

[5] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 140.

[6] Turretin, 1:38.

[7] Turretin, 1:6.

[8] Basil, Against Eunomius, trans. Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 1.14.

[9] Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, trans. Frederick Williams and Lionel R. Wickham (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), Oration 31, 1.

[10] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 31, 21.

[11] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 31, 23.

[12] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 31, 24.

[13] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 28, 17.

This is a 55 minute audio teaching I recorded today, seeking to give an overview of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), providing what I hope are helpful and clarifying definitions as well as highlighting common misunderstandings:

Justin Taylor: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/one-rule-to-rule-them-all-the-real-meaning-of-sola-scriptura/

Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 234:

[There is a] false notion, held widely, that the slogan sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the only source for theology. . . .

The slogan itself, still less the reality to which it pointed, never meant that the Bible was the only source for theology. The dangers of such a position are most clearly seen in the Socinians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in the early Plymouth Brethren, who, in their first decade, recapitulated many of the heresies of the early church.

When the slogan [sola Scriptura, Scripture alone] was devised, it was never intended to exclude the tradition of the church.

---

Oliver Crisp, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 17, discusses the various levels of sources and authority in Christian theology:

[First-Order Authority: Scripture: The Rule that Rules]

1. Scripture is

• the norma normans [the norm of norms, the rule that rules—a norming, adjusting, or measuring standard by which other measuring tools are to be measured],
• the principium theologiae [fundamental principle/foundation of theology].

It is the final arbiter in matters theological. . . . the first-order authority in all matters of Christian doctrine.

---

[Second-Order Authority: Ecumenical Creeds: Rules that Are Ruled]

2. Catholic creeds, as defined by an ecumenical council of the Church, constitute a first tier of norma normata [a norm that is normed, a rule that is ruled, a standard or measure that is itself subject to, and defined by, a greater standard] which have second-order authority. . . .

Such norms derive their authority from Scripture to which they bear witness.

[Third-Order Authority: Confessional Statements: Rules that Are Ruled]

3. Confessional and conciliar statements of particular ecclesiastical bodies are a second tier of norma normata, which have third-order in matters touching Christian doctrine.

They also derive their authority from Scripture to the extent that they faithfully reflect the teaching of Scripture.

---

[Doctrines from Theologians: Legitimate Theological Opinions]

4. The particular doctrines espoused by theologians including those individuals accorded the title Doctor of the Church which are not reiterations of matters that are de fide, or entailed by something de fide, constitute theologoumena, or theological opinions, which are not binding upon the Church, but which may be offered up for legitimate discussion within the Church.