Sola scriptura is not the answer to the question “How many sources should one use in doing theology?” If theology is faith seeking understanding, one also needs faith, not to mention the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Sola scriptura no more rules out the role of faith or the Holy Spirit than sola fide rules out sola gratia, or that solus Christus rules out God the Father and God the Spirit. To suggest that sola always means “(absolutely) alone” is to fail to attend to how the Reformers actually used the term.
Sola scriptura describes a pattern of authority that obtains between Scripture, tradition, and the life of the church. Better: sola scriptura describes the practice of biblical authority in the church. Sola scriptura is the answer to the question ”Where can we find the supreme norm by which to measure Christian deeds and Christian doctrine?” Construed positively, sola scripture indicates how the church is to practice divine authority. Stated negatively, “sola Scriptura is the statement that the church can err.”
Sola scriptura does not mean nulla traditio (“no tradition”), nor does it entail ignoring the Rule of Faith: “It is clear that the sola scriptura did not mean scripture without tradition, but scripture as prior norm, potentially set in judgment over the tradition.” Sola scriptura was not a protest against tradition as such but against the presumption of coincidence between church teaching and tradition. One might even say that sola scriptura was a protest on behalf of the genuine apostolic tradition, whose normative specification is found in the canonical Scriptures. Tradition nevertheless can and must play a crucial role, even in a canonically oriented theology that affirms sola scriptura.
- Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press), 232-33.
Tags: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Reformation, Sola Scriptura, Tradition
