Solo Scriptura, Semper Reformanda: The Great Downfall of American Protestantism

Introduction

I have stated the fact that Protestantism, or Reformed Catholicity, is nearly endangered in the world today. It is important to ask ourselves, “How did the rich tradition of the Protestant Reformation nearly die?” In the last article, I pointed to weak, unlearned, stupid men who allowed wolves to desecrate their churches. That is not the entire story, however. Underneath the men who allowed the church to be compromised at every turn were two doctrinal beliefs: Solo Scriptura and Semper Reformanda. Now let me first be clear, Solo Scriptura is not the same as Sola Scriptura. It is the common misinterpretation of one of the pillar doctrines of Protestantism. Solo Scriptura is the belief that there are no interpretive traditions of Scripture and that every person is correct to read the Bible and interpret it how they see fit. Jerome, speaking of Origen on this matter, stated, “Origen thinks the acuteness of his genius is a sacrament of the church.” In other words, many men believe themselves to be so intelligent that their analysis of Scripture supersedes that of every man who came before them. Now combine this interpretive principle with the battle cry of “Semper Reformanda,” and you have the perfect formula for endless schisms.

Solo Scriptura is a False Doctrine

When people use the term “Sola Scriptura,” they are often using it to describe “Solo Scriptura.” Solo Scriptura is the belief that the only source of Christian faith and practice is the Christian’s private pursuit of the Scriptures alone. This is often called “Biblicism,” which results in Christians to believe that consulting history, confessions, creeds, and commentaries is unbiblical. As a result, this practice produces an infinite number of novel interpretations of Scripture. This is one of the primary apologetics used against Protestants by Rome. They say that without the Papal authority, humans will create infinite amounts of interpretations, and therefore the Roman Pontiff and councils are necessary to decide what is true and what is not.

Turretin says on this matter, “The question is not whether the Scriptures are the rule and standard of controversies. This the papists do not object to, at least they appear to be willing to hold it, although what they give with one hand they take away with the other, arguing their obscurity and imperfection. But the question is whether the Scriptures are a total and full rule, not a partial and imperfect rule” (Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. I, p. 154.) This is the common mode of argumentation for the Roman Catholic. They will agree with a point, and then in the nuance of their agreement, disagree with the substance of what is being said while maintaining that the statement itself is true. They agree that Scripture is the rule and standard while also saying that contradictory councils are also true. They agree that there is one mediator in heaven between God and man, Jesus Christ, while also practicing that Mary and saints can intercede on behalf of the believer. The modern man is not discerning enough to handle this kind of double-speak, and is easily seduced by the Roman doctrine.

Yet, the problem is not Rome, it is the Protestants for abandoning the historical traditions of the church and inventing new doctrines without ceasing. In order to discern this kind of occurrence, you must understand how this form of argumentation works. The entire strategy is to use historical terminology to trick people into thinking that they are grounded in truth, while at the same time using that same terminology to mean something entirely different. In many, many cases, the original terminology has been replaced with a new, subverted definition. The prime example of this being the reinterpretation of Sola Scriptura to mean the same as Solo Scriptura. In the first place, the critique by Rome is correct, if our assumption is that by Sola Scriptura we actually mean Solo Scriptura. Yet, Scripture itself condemns this practice of Biblicism, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, KJV). Ironically, those who believe that it is Biblical to hold private interpretations of Scripture due to Sola Scriptura, cannot maintain a doctrine of Sola Scriptura because the Bible teaches against private interpretations. In other words, these Biblicists have used the term Sola Scriptura, while at the same time using a definition that, in its substance, means something else (Solo Scriptura).

What is Sola Scriptura

We have already established that Sola Scriptura does not mean, “Every Christian is to interpret the Bible for himself.” What it does mean, is that the Scriptures are the final rule and authority on all matters of faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Now, the important question to ask is, “How are we to do that?” The Solo Scriptura crowd believes it is their divine right to create a fresh interpretation of every passage of Scripture. The Roman Catholic believes it is the Roman Pontiff’s divine right to do the same. Sola Scriptura teaches that neither of these are true because no one man can be the final authority, because men are fallible. The fact remains that the Scriptures must be interpreted, “To ascertain the true sense of the Scriptures, interpretation is needed” (Turretin, Institutes, Vol. I, p. 153). So the question is not, “Does the Bible give Christians the true faith?” All Christians agree. The question truly is, “How do we know who has the right interpretation?”

In the first place, the Reformed believed a doctrine of self-authenticating and self-authoritative Scriptures (αυτοπιστος). If the Scriptures are inspired and preserved by God for men, then they must be true, harmonious, without error (inerrant), and cannot fail (infallible) in their purpose. Which is to say, that the Scriptures do have a definitive interpretation and meaning. Even if men misinterpret the Scriptures, this does not stain the true nature of the Scriptures. Turretin once again says, “The ignorance and blindness of man are not to be compounded with the obscurity of the Scriptures” (Ibid. 145.) Therefore, the idea that every man can come away from the Scriptures with his own meaning is incompatible with the doctrine that the Scriptures are without error. The Bible has a definitive message (Nehemiah 8:8). Just because many people believe different things about Scripture, does not logically mean the Bible then has many different meanings. It simply means that some people are wrong, and some people are right.

The Reformed believed in a threefold interpretive method. First, analysis of the grammar, rhetoric, and logic to interpret the meaning of the words in context. Second, comparison of passages to each other. Third, they had a doctrine called the analogy of faith, which they ascertained from Romans 12:6. Turretin says, “The analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6) signifies not only the measure of faith granted to each believer, but also the constant harmony and agreement of all heads of faith exhibited in the clearer expressions of Scripture (to which all expositions ought to be conformed) that nothing may be determined at variance with the articles of faith or the precepts of the Decalogue…For as the Spirit is always undoubtedly self-consistent, we cannot consider that to be his sense which is opposed to other truths delivered by Him” (Ibid. 153). Simply put, Scripture should be interpreted by other Scripture, seeking harmony, because God cannot disagree with Himself. Turretin concludes, “As a prince must interpret his own law, so also God must be the interpreter of his own Scriptures – the law of faith and practice” (ibid. 157).

Sola Scriptura does not mean that men will always interpret the Scriptures correctly, and in fact, the doctrine highlights that men are often in error (which was the complaint against Rome). The Reformed said that all of the Fathers, the councils, and the creeds must be in harmony with the Scriptures in order to be valid. The Sola Scriptura doctrine of the Protestants simply exalts the Scriptures as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It does not write off the importance of historical councils, creeds, or the Fathers. It simply recognizes that men can err, and God cannot. This belief of authority recognizes that in some sense, man will never be 100% correct on interpreting every word of Scripture, which takes a certain amount of humility to acknowledge. Despite this truth, it also recognizes that there are necessary truths which are plain to all and cannot be obscured. These are the pillars of the Christian religion, which are often framed as “open and closed hand issues.” In other words, dividing lines which make one Christian or non-Christian.

The Modern Doctrine of Scripture

The modern view of Scripture has decimated ordinary faith and practice in the West. If you survey the average church’s website, none of them include any method by which their church interprets Scripture. They will tell you (vaguely) what Scripture is, but they will not explain in any depth what guard rails they have applied to keep their church in line with what has always been considered Christianity. This is why more traditional churches are gaining traction the US. Traditional churches not only have a standard, organized form of worship, but they also are exceedingly clear on how they will be interpreting Scripture. Rome and the East have their formulation for interpretation, and modern Protestants, with the exception of somewhere around 1% of the churches, do not. The Bible can always be read afresh, with new meaning, and new interpretations. Combine this with the progressive notion of Semper Reformanda (always reforming), and you have a recipe for infinite schisms. As a result, there is no uniformity and no stability in modern Protestant churches.

What the modern Protestant church should desire is not something new, contrary to popular belief. Protestantism was not always a progressive religion or one that conformed itself to every whim of culture or political happening. The 20th century was devastating to Western Christianity. It hollowed out every doctrine, every sacred practice, every sense of distinction, and the result is evident to see today. The abandonment of Sola Scriptura and the incessant need to always reform was a recipe for disaster, because instead of reforming herself to Scripture, the church conformed to the world.