Scripture Alone

We can learn from the councils, we can learn from the traditions, but they can't bind the conscience. And nor can they create new doctrine. A peasant Armed with one verse of scripture. has more authority than a pope or a church council. who does not have scripture to back up what they're saying.

In the book of Acts, we're told that the Bereans were more noble than others. Why?

Well, because they examined the scriptures to see if what they were being taught was accurate. Welcome to the Saturday edition of Renewing Your Mind as we continue our study of the five solas of the Reformation. Today, RC Sproll helps us understand where we must turn if we want to know what God has said. And the answer is the same as it was for the Bereans and as it was for Martin Luther in the 16th century. Here's Dr.

Sprohl. We're going to continue our study now on the solas of the Reformation with the sola called Sola. Scriptura. And if you recall, when we started this, we looked at the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and I mentioned then. That church historians often distinguish between the material cause.

of the Reformation and the formal cause of the Reformation. The material cause being that which was front and center. It was the basic stuff or matter about which the dispute was carried on. but underlying that surface issue was another very serious matter which had to do with the question of authority. And so the principle of sola scriptura Became the formal principle of the Reformation, and it means in simple terms that the final authority by which the conscience of the Christian is bound is Scripture and Scripture alone.

Let me just read a statement from the 17th century Protestant confessional, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which reads as follows. 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 in private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest. Can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in.

The Scripture There we find in the Westminster Confession a succinct affirmation of this principle of sola scriptura.

Well, let me just in this session give a brief historical overview of how this doctrine of sola scriptura emerged and developed. In the early days of the Protestant Reformation, it was in 1517 that Luther posted his 95 Theses on the church door at Wittenberg. And we recall that what he was asking for was a technical theological discussion among the faculty members of the school there at Wittenberg regarding issues that arose in conjunction with the sale of indulgences. And unbeknownst to Luther and without his permission, Students translated the theses from Latin into German, took advantage of the recent invention of the printing press, duplicated copies of the theses, and we are told that within two weeks these theses appeared in every village and hamlet in the nation of Germany. And so what Luther never intended, of course, raced now out of control.

Well, as a direct result of the theses, this firestorm Emerged in the 16th century. The principal opponent of Luther at this time was the legate from Rome, Tetzel, who was the one who was in charge of selling these indulgences around the countryside. And he was infuriated by Luther's theses, and he appealed to the bishops in Germany and also to the Pope in Rome to stop Luther's intervention and intrusion into this whole task of raising funds for St. Peter. And so here's where one of these things that nobody intended for it to be a major dispute suddenly.

took off with unbridled fury.

Now, in the 95 Theses, Luther not only raised questions about the sale of indulgences, but he raised questions about the whole theological system that supported the sale of indulgence, not the least of which was a question about. The treasury Which was the fount from which indulgences were drawn. Just yesterday, I received a letter from a Roman Catholic who was irate that I had misrepresented the Roman Catholic Church because he said that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't use indulgences anymore and they no longer hold to this concept of the treasury of merits.

Well, I didn't respond to him yet, but of course. He hasn't been to Rome, and he hasn't been to the Lateran Church, where indulgences are still dispensed for people who make pilgrimage to the Lateran Church and go up the sacred stairs there. I was there two summers ago and watched the pilgrims as they sought to gain their indulgences. And a year or so ago, we had the Year of Jubilee, where all of those pilgrims by the hundreds of thousands came to Rome to receive indulgences from the Pope. And the most recent Catholic Catechism explains anew and continues to affirm the doctrine of the treasury of merit.

So that has not been repudiated by the Roman Catholic Church, contrary to this man's opinion and others. But in any case, to look at the historical issue, Luther raised questions about this treasury of merit and said the real treasure of the church is the gospel of Jesus Christ. and the merits of Christ alone.

Now that aspect of the theses became also controversial. And there was this hue and cry against Luther and calls coming from officials in the church, both in Germany and from Rome, for him to repudiate his views.

Now the only thing that preserved Luther in these early years was his close relationship to Frederick Elector of Saxony. Who was Luther's protector? At first, The disputes were such that Luther was asking, according to canon law, for an opportunity to defend his views, in a theological ecclesiastical disputation. And the church in Rome did not want to give Luther that kind of a hearing. And finally, through much of the machinations of Frederick and others, Luther was able to have.

one of these disputations, not in Rome, But on German soil, At Augsburg. where Luther agreed to visit Augsburg for the hopes of having a disputation against the most learned And Abel Theologian of the whole Roman Catholic Church of the 16th century, whose name was Cardinal Cagetin. And so this meeting took place.

However, when Luther got there, He was absolutely alone. None of his friends were able to be with him at the time. And the scuttlebutt in the air was that he was going to be arrested and taken off and executed, and that he was powerless against the Prince of the Church at this point. And somebody said, What if Frederick doesn't protect you? Where will you go?

And Luther's response was sub coeli. Under the sky. Under heaven. I'll become a wilderness wanderer. and seek to be faithful to God.

Well, as it turned out, he was given a safe conduct by the Cardinal, but he was not allowed to enter into a defense of his positions. The Cardinal said, You are here. to answer my questions. And I will not be satisfied until you say Revoco. I Recant.

And Luther was upset by that because he wanted to be able to debate the thing. And so the issue initially Focus on this point. Because Cagetin quoted from a 14th-century papal encyclical in which he said that the church. Had declared that there was such a thing as a treasury of merit. that Christ gives a treasury of merit.

But what was significant about this was that Cajeton maneuvered Luther to such a point as to demonstrate that Luther had questions about the final authority. of Papal Encyclicals. He was challenging the supreme authority of the world. of the Pope.

Now remember that papal infallibility was not defined by Rome until the 19th century, until as late as 1870, at Vatican Council I under Pius IX. But Even though the church defined papal infallibility in the 19th century, the doctrine reaches way back in church history where it was believed and taught and assumed by faithful Roman Catholics. And so as early as the 16th century, for a priest or a monk to deny the infallibility of the Pope was serious, serious business. But in denying papal infallibility with respect to the treasury, Luther is here caught up in a big dispute about authority. Because Cagetin was citing a papal encyclical.

to correct Luther's view of the treasury of merits. And in the final analysis, Luther had to admit that It didn't matter to him what the papal encyclical had said. The treasury of merit concept is still, in his judgment, unbiblical and not a part of the Christian faith.

Well, that issue then spilled over into a debate that came th this debate, by the way, with Cajun took place in 1518. And then in 1519, there was a second dispute which took place at Leipzig in Germany. And this time Luther was debating with John Eck. who was the leading theologian of Germany. And in the discussion, here.

Eck maneuvers Luther, where Luther is forced to admit that he questioned not only papal encyclicals. but also decisions of church councils. Which in one sense was even higher in the people's minds than a a statement initially by the Roman Catholic Church Pope. And of course Luther said, let me talk German, because they were talking in Latin. He said, because I'm being misunderstood by the people.

I assert that a counsel has sometimes erred, and may sometimes err. nor has the council authority to establish new articles of faith. A council cannot make divine right Out of that which by nature is not divine right. Councils have contradicted each other. for the recent Lateran Council reversed the claims of the Councils of Constance and Basil, and that a consul is above a pope.

A simple layman armed with Scripture listen to what he says simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council, Without it. As for the Pope's decretal on indulgences, I say that neither the Church nor the Pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture, We should reject. Pope and Councils.

Here you have the seminal Assumptions of the principle of sola scriptura. Luther said, We can learn from the councils, we can learn from the tradition, we can learn from the pope's encyclicals, but they can't bind the conscience. And nor can they create new doctrine. that's not found in sacred scripture.

So that a peasant Armed with one verse of scripture. has more authority than a pope or a church council. who does not have scripture to back up what they're saying. Now this of course reached its climax. In 1521 at the Supreme died of warmth.

that was called by Charles V, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and Charles presided over this diet that was held in the city of Worms. Or worms, W-O-R-M-S. Where Luther was summoned again with a safe conduct, to the Diet, where he was standing before the Emperor and the legates from Rome, all the princes of the Church. His books were placed on a table, and he was called upon once more to say, Revoco, I recant. And Luther When he was called upon to recant, he gave his famous response there.

Unless I am convinced by sacred scripture. or by evident reason, I cannot recant. Because my conscience Is held captive? By the word of God, and to act against conscience is neither right. Nor safe.

Here I stand. God help me. I can do no. Other. Luther was saying here, which became the principle of sola scripturum.

Only God. Can bind the conscience absolutely. Doesn't mean that churches don't have synods and councils and make decisions, or in my own church, we have a confession of faith that we are called to subscribe. But those are only binding upon us insofar. As they accurately represent the truth of Scripture.

They are seen as summaries of what the Bible says. And so our creeds are not what binds our consciences. Rather, it is the Word of God and the Word of God alone. And so the dispute between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was not about the authority of Scripture or about the inspiration of Scripture, but it was about, in the first instance, whether that authority was through Scripture alone. And then that spilled over into the question of how the Scripture is to be interpreted.

And so we'll take a few minutes to look at these things. Let me begin by looking briefly at the opening statements of The fourth session. of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, which was an ecumenical council called in the middle of the sixteenth century, designed specifically to respond to the so called errors of the Protestant movement. And the fourth session. took place in fifteen forty-six.

And it opened in April of 1546, and here's what it says. Concerning the canonical scriptures. The holy ecumenical and General Consul of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost. the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed. This gospel of old promised through the prophets in the Holy Scripture, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

promulgated first with his own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by his apostles to every creature, as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions. Which received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating. have come down to us. transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Now, This portion of the fourth session is open to some significant scrutiny. and has been the subject of great debate. Because the question is this. Does the Council of Trent Teach. that there are two sources.

Written or special Revelation. one being the Bible, And the other source being the tradition.

Now if you read What I just read. In the Latin. You would see that the text of Trent Says that the truths of the gospel are contained in sacred scripture. Yeah. The traditions, written and unwritten.

What does the word at mean here in English? It's translated into English by the word and.

Now, let me back up for a second. Suppose if somebody came to me and said, where could I find the truth? of Christian theology. I'd say, well, in the first instance, you would go to the sacred scriptures. But if you want a shorthand introduction to the truth, let me suggest that you read the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Or look at the Apostles' Creed. Or look at some other creedal statement of church history that also contains. The truth? Of the Christian faith.

Now, if I said that, I would not thereby be indicating. That these confessions or creeds are at the same level of authority. As the primary source, which is the Bible. I'm just simply saying what's found in the Bible can also be found in some of these creeds. That doesn't make the creeds.

adding anything to Sacred Scripture. And so the question is: what was in view here in the Council of Trent? Was Trent trying to say there are two distinct sources? Of divine truth? Scripture and tradition.

or only one source that is then repeated in the tradition. That's all the difference in the world.

So again, The church misses the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura when it talks about The right to distort. Nobody has the right to distort it. But it goes further than that. It's not simply condemning private interpretation with respect to distortion. But it also says that the proper interpretation of Scripture Is by Holy Mother Church, no one may presume to interpret the scriptures contrary.

To the sense in which the Holy Mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held or holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the fathers. even if these interpretations have not been published. You see, Rome now says. None of you have two sources, tradition and scripture. But Scripture is to be interpreted By the tradition.

So that the tradition is not judged by the scripture. Which is what Luther wanted. And what Protestantism generally wanted. But Scripture is to be judged and interpreted. By the church.

So, when it comes down to it in the final analysis, the ultimate authority resides in the church. And in today's debates with contemporary Roman Catholics, Even in this country, which tends to be more progressive than in the Latin wing of the Roman Catholic Church. There are those who continuously point out that the scripture is subordinate to the church because it's only through the authority of the church that the scripture was ever formulated in the first place. It was through church councils in the first three centuries that the church decided which books. would belong into the canon of Scripture.

And so people argue from that historic Process, the doctrine that the scriptures are therefore subordinate to the church. and owe their authority to the primary authority of the church itself. That despite the fact of history, That when the Church went through the process of establishing formally the limits of the canon, They use the word recipemus, which means We receive these books. To be. Sacred scripture.

In other words, the church was not creating a canon, but simply recognizing. the apostolic authority as they saw it. and they were submitting themselves To the authority of sacred scripture. And today that's been reversed, where people think that, in fact, the church at that point in history. Created the Bible and has the superior authority over the Bible.

But there certainly is no dispute that the Rome here states that the church, it belongs to the church to interpret the Bible, and anybody that interprets the Bible contrary to how the church interprets it. or how tradition interprets it. is under the judgment of the church here today.

Now, in opposed to the churches being the supreme interpreter of the scripture, the Reformation view. Was the view called the analogia fide or the analogy? which teaches That sacred scripture is its own. Interpreter. That you interpret the Scripture by the Scripture.

If something is obscure in one place in Scripture, You understand it in light of other portions of Scripture where the same question is unambiguous. And so you go to the author of Scripture, the Holy Ghost, to the Scripture Himself, not through mystical apprehensions, you don't get the right interpretation that way, but you get it by searching the Scriptures and interpreting the Scripture by. And that principle assumes The unity And the coherency of Sacred Scripture. that if it is the Word of God, What it teaches in one place will not contradict what it teaches in another place. And if you interpret, A passage in Scripture in such a way that brings it in contradiction to another passage in Scripture.

That would indicate That you've misunderstood at least one of those two scriptures because the scripture cannot be broken, and you interpret the scripture by the scripture. And the church is supposed to do that. as well. as the individual.

Well, may Martin Luther be an example to us all. That was R. C. Sproll on Renewing Your Mind, bringing church history alive, helping us to see how important it is for Christians today to stand upon the Word of God and not compromise. This is such an important doctrine to understand, and he goes into even greater detail in the full series, God Alone.

We'll send you that series on DVD along with granting you lifetime digital access to the messages and the study guide. when you make a donation today to help fuel the global reach of this program. Give your gift at renewingyourmind.org before midnight tonight and we will send you the DVD along with a Renewing Your Mind notebook for all of your notes. This offer ends tonight, so visit renewingyourmind.org or use the link in the podcast show notes. Thank you.

Well, who should get the credit for the salvation of the redeemed?

Next Saturday, we'll conclude our study of the five solas as R. C. Sproh boldly proclaims that all glory must go to God alone.

So be sure to join us here on Renewing Your Mind.