Stephen
Terry, Director
By Scripture Alone: Sola Scriptura
Commentary
for the May 2, 2020 Sabbath School Lesson
"Now,
brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for
your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, 'Do not
go beyond what is written.' Then you will not be puffed up in being a
follower of one of us over against the other." 1 Corinthians 4:6, NIV
The idea of Sola
Scriptura among Protestants is somewhat ironic. The intent of the Latin is
that there shall be no other test of faith beyond what is written in the word
of God, the Bible, as our text from 1 Corinthians seems to say. However, in
practice, Protestants, including Seventh-day Adventists have many documents not
included in scripture that are practical tests of orthodoxy. For instance, we
have the many written works of Ellen White. We have our Statement of
Fundamental Beliefs. And we also have the many denominational publications that
carry the denominational imprimatur
based on vetting by approved editors. For all of our protestation against Catholicism
for its willingness to listen to the witness of patristic literature, we
demonstrate a deep-rooted fear of allowing scripture, by agency of the Holy
Spirit, to be its own interpreter. While the Catholic Church claims authority
through Peter's keys to the kingdom,[i] our grasp upon that key
ring is no less firm than theirs as we seek to assert
a biblical basis for a wide range of extra biblical documentary doctrinal
assertions.
Often those claims of biblical authority are based on
proof texts roughly torn from their context and pressed into service to
establish the controlling authority of the institutional church. This lack of
context can and does create conflicting understandings of the intent of the
Bible. For instance our text from 1 Corinthians seems to indicate that the
written pages of scripture are the only authority to be trusted, but the same
author, Paul, who wrote this epistle to the church in Corinth, wrote something different
in the one to Thessalonica. To the faithful in that city, he wrote, "So
then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed
on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."[ii] According to this, oral
communication of the oracles of God seems to have equal weight with what is
written. We seem to acknowledge that today when we gather weekly to hear the
spoken word from hundreds of thousands of pulpits across the globe. If we did
not believe in the authority of the spoken word, what would be the point? But
we should recognize that granting such authority to the spoken word reveals
that our doctrine is not one of Sola
Scriptura but of Prima Scriptura.
In other words, we do not identify with place the Bible as sole authority
regarding matters of faith, but instead, we place it as first among a
constellation of authorities. Perhaps we wish to proclaim Sola rather than Prima because we wish to strongly identify
with the Lutheran Reformation. Protestantism's desire to trace a continuous
genealogy of faith back through the Reformation to Christ may be playing a part
here, but perhaps we are mimicking the Catholic Church which also attempts to
establish such a linear connection through the Apostle Peter.
For a church that prides itself on its protest against
the abuses of Rome, the recreated image of that nemesis seems to more and more
define who we are. This applies to even the Bible we inaccurately claim as our
sole authority. The sixty-six books accepted as canonical were determined not
by Protestant authority but by Catholic councils that finalized the canon in
the fourth century. Perhaps it was Luther's recognition of the source of the
extant canon that caused him to initially question the inclusion of Revelation,
James, Hebrews, and Jude in his German translation of the Bible. However, try
as he might to revisit the canon, eventually even he capitulated to the canon
we have now. Protestants, until recently, often drew the line at acknowledging
spiritual value in the study of patristic literature. However, in time, due to
their chronological relevance to the study of the early church, the Ante-Nicene
Fathers were studied more and more in an attempt to understand early church
praxis and the progression of their theology. Many have also discovered thereby
the illumination on those early centuries provided by non-canonical sources
that were later determined uninspired but were at times quoted as authoritative
by the early church. "The Shepherd of Hermas,"
often quoted in the second and third centuries may be one of the best known
among several others, and in spite of councils ruling to the contrary, was
still being bound in the Codex
Claromontanus in the sixth century along with other works deemed apocryphal
such as "The Acts of Paul" and "The Epistle of Barnabas." Aside
from being an interesting bit of historical trivia, these documents were
considered relevant by the early church. This begs the question; do such important
documents lose their inspirational validity as a result of the majority vote of
a convened church council? How we answer this opens up all sorts of thorny
theological issues.
Perhaps the most fundamental issue that arises is how to
determine whether a church council has the authority to decide such matters.
The Council of Nicaea, in the early 4th century, was convened at the
orders of Emperor Constantine who sought to unify the Christian faith across
the empire. As the Church of Rome gained power, eventually councils could be
convened by the church on its own initiative with the implicit backing of the
state. But questions concerning the authority of these councils remained
challenging, resulting in the Catholic Church having three competing popes reigning
at the same time in the early 15th century. Things returned to normal with the
authority of King Sigismund, King of Rome at the time, who requested a council
be convened and opened the proceedings in Constance. The powerful implication
of all of this is that the councils have historically derived their ultimate authority
from the state and not directly from the church. But if that is the case, what
happens when a country like the United States decrees that the state cannot involve
itself in the establishment of religious dogma? History has shown that absent
the power of the state, the church tends toward schism. That is what we have
seen in the United States with its plethora of denominations with churches
ranging from those operated by a handful of individuals to the huge
megachurches raised up by charismatic personalities. In effect, though not run
by popes, every denomination has a central authority, whether local or distant,
decreeing that every other denomination is wrong and therefore their
denomination is necessary to set everything right. Without overriding control,
which the state has provided in the past, the church appears unable to achieve willing
consensus or unity. Perhaps this is why Evangelical Christianity in America is
heavily invested in Dominionism. It may be an attempt to achieve that unity
through the historical appeal to the state to delegate power to the church, allowing
persecution to achieve sought for unity. Some, not realizing the source of such
an intervention, would like to see the Seventh-day Adventist Church take a
stronger approach to the enforcement of dogma as well. In this, they surely
create an image to a beast long thought dead in the United States.
However, if we turn from church councils deciding
matters of faith and salvation to individuals seeking a personal, direct relationship
with God, which is what the Reformation was purportedly about, removing the
priestly intermediary who stood between the individual and Christ, central control
of the denominations will necessarily be compromised. For Adventists that means
some may see through official quotes citing Ellen White about the General
Conference of the church being God's voice and instead point to other places in
her writings where she excoriates the General Conference for acting contrary to
God's will. It also means some may question dogma even on biblical grounds. In countries
where church and state are linked, this could result in punishment by the civil
authorities, but in the United States, that authority has been thus far limited
only to the church's ability to defrock ministers, expel members, and fire
employees. The exercise of that limited authority was displayed at an inquisition
at Glacier View Ranch under the administration of Neal Wilson, the father of
the current General Conference President. Desmond Ford, an ordained minister
and scholastic, was defrocked and dismissed from church employment for
questioning the church about its understanding of the events of 1844, a seminal
moment for the Adventist Church. However, because the issue of membership
cannot be decided at the General Conference level, but at the level of the
local church, they could not expel him from membership. In a very similar way,
the local church has the ability to stand in independent defiance of the
General Conference over matters of faith, even as Luther stood in independent
defiance of the papacy. But the General Conference is struggling mightily to
nail down an enforceable statement of belief and develop a mechanism for
enforcement than can function even down to the local churches from the General
Conference level. Should they succeed, when they look in the mirror, they may
see Rome staring approvingly back.
Presently, we can read the writings of Ellen White for
ourselves and apply or disregard them according to personal conviction and our
own study of the Bible. We are free to read non-Adventist authors and in many
congregations, discuss their works without fear of repercussions beyond
possible differences of opinion with other members. This is similar to the
early church which preserved contemporary documents seem to indicate was a much
more eclectic experience than many experience today. Some may feel that moving
toward a more uniform faith is necessary, but that uniformity is what gave us
Rome, the historical nemesis of Seventh-day Adventist evangelists. Can we
legitimately go there without abandoning our claimed link to the Reformation? Sola Scriptura may take us there, while Prima Scriptura may break the chains
that bind Christianity to a history of persecution and state religion.
