Nuda Scriptura and Solo Scriptura

Two Errors of Fundamentalism - Part 1

I spent fifteen years of my life as a fundamentalist Christian, a fundamental, independent Baptist to be precise. My journey out of fundamentalism was messy and awkward to the degree some of my former friends and colleagues believed I had apostatized, left the faith. Some subsequently spread rumors to that end. That, of course, was not the case. But when fundamentalism and Christianity are so closely intertwined (or conflated), it’s understandable for someone to draw such conclusions. Or better said, when one is part of a culture of sincere Christians rooted in the erroneous thinking of fundamentalism, it’s difficult for any of us to see the difference between Christianity and its reductionist doppelgänger.

To be clear, when I speak of fundamentalism, I’m not referring to someone who believes the fundamentals of the faith, or even necessarily the early-20th-century movement that defended core doctrines against theological liberalism. I’m referring to the movement that reduces the vibrant Christian faith to a fearful and rigid adherence to a narrow set of doctrines, rules, and human traditions. Fundamentalism as I’m using the term prioritizes external conformity; it’s legalistic; and it pits “doctrinal purity” over against grace and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit.

Clarence Larkin's Dispensational Truth: Or, God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages

Fundamentalism has many errors, like adding layers of external behavior to safeguard truth and shifting the focus of Christianity from the gospel’s heart-changing power to that of control and fear. But two of its most profound and subtle errors are Nuda Scripture and Solo Scriptura, both of which, ironically, are often confused with Sola Scriptura. These errors are typically couched in mantras like “the Bible is the Word of God,” and “the Bible is the final authority for all matters of faith and life.”

Of course, fundamentalist Christians will never use the expressions Nuda Scripture or Solo Scriptura. Rather, those expressions generally define their actual meaning when they advocate for Sola Scriptura, either in their emphasis on the Bible’s unique authority or the credibility and sufficiency of Scripture.

There are two things I am attempting to accomplish in this and the subsequent post. I don’t intend to exposit the history of the Bible as it has come down to us, but in this first post, I would like to clarify what Sola Scriptura is not; it’s not Nuda Scriptura.

In my next post, I would like to explain why acquiring wisdom for a life well lived requires a genuine understanding of much more than just the Bible—why Solo Scriptura is also error.

Before I go any further, however, let me make clear from the outset that I do believe the Bible is God’s Word and that it is authoritative in all matters of faith and life in the same way Christians have historically believed those statements—just not in the truncated way modern fundamentalists mean it.

---

---

Sola Scriptura, as a general concept, can be traced back to the church fathers who held Scripture to be uniquely authoritative. Yet the first instance of the expression proper is attributed to Martin Luther. In his 1520 work, Assertio omnium articulorum (Assertion of All the Articles), which is a defense against Pope Leo X’s bull Exsurge Domine condemning his teachings, Luther wrote:

Haec enim non sunt vociferationes quaerentium dei veritatem sed suam vanitatem, aut eum afferat autorem, quem constet mmquam errasse, scripturas torsisse, aliis et sibi pugnasse, dubitasse. Nolo omnium doctior iactari, sed solam scripturam regnare, nec eam meo spiritu aut ullorum hominum interpretari, sed per seipsam et suo spiritu intelligi volo.

In this place, “solam scripturam” is the accusative form of “sola scriptura,” and the quote translates to something like:

For these are not the clamors of those seeking the truth of God, but their own vanity, or that he cites an author whom it is clear has always erred, twisted the Scriptures, fought with others and with himself, and doubted. I do not wish to boast myself more learned than all, but let Scripture alone reign, nor interpret it by my spirit or that of any man, but I wish it to be understood by itself and by its own spirit.

---

Those with a better knowledge of Latin, feel free to articulate a more accurate translation for us in the comments.

---

Martin Luther means that “Scripture alone” (Sola Scriptura) is to be understood in contrast to the Roman Catholic view that authority resides both in Scripture and in the Magisterium i.e., the rulings of popes and general councils.¹ This is where many Protestant and evangelical fundamentalists fall into the error of Nuda Scriptura (Naked Scripture).

Those who fall into this error tend to assume some sort of Kantian “universal subjectivity”² in which they imagine Luther means that all of us who can read, can read the Scripture on our own; and if we’re honest, we will come to the same right conclusions about what Scripture means. If such were the case, there would be no disagreement among Protestants about the nature and meaning of the Eucharist.

This wrongheaded and democratic understanding is one of the misfortunate errors of the Reformation and the reason so many denominations exist today. Too many people think their private opinion matters. Nuda Scriptura—the idea that we can completely and thoroughly throw off the living tradition of the Church and interpret the Bible all alone for ourselves—fails to recognize the depth and nuance of cultural context: the subtle, cultural and philological influences operating on both the writers of Scripture and the readers of Scripture during various periods of history.

Without proper hermeneutical context, it’s very easy for a modern American, for example, to read Scripture eisegetically; that is, it’s easy to impose meaning onto the Scriptures that just isn’t there. The dispensational “end times/rapture” narrative propagated by the follower of John Darby, the temperance ideology propagated by the abolitionists, and the slavery-affirming narrative propagated by the Southern Scotch/Irish Calvinists of the 19^th Century are all cases in point.

In his entry for “Sola Scriptura” in A Concise Dictionary of Bible Origins and Interpretation, Alec Gilmore dispels the modern fundamentalist error of Nuda Scriptura when clarifies that we should not reject the living tradition of the Church entirely. That is, no one person has the corner market on the Bible’s meaning and the Bible is not open to individual or private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). Gilmore writes,

Sola Scriptura is a Protestant Reformation doctrine which says not that all truth is to be found in the Bible nor that the Bible is the only form in which the truth of God has come to us but that all things necessary for salvation are taught in the Bible sufficiently clearly for believers to find it and understand it and that the church (not an individual or even a particular group of individuals) is its interpreter.³

His position aligns precisely with that of St. Vincent of Lérin’s, the fifth-century church father, who, in contrast to the many heretics that had arisen since the Apostles, advocated for the Church’s essential role in affirming the proper interpretation of Scripture. In his Commonitory, published in 434 AD (long before most of the innovations contrived by the medieval Roman Church were in play), Vincent writes,

What need is there, seeing that the Canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and in itself suffices to the full, and more, for all demands that the authority of the Ecclesiastical interpretation should be joined to it? Because the holy Scripture, for its very depth, is not taken of all in one and the same sense; but its expressions are interpreted diversely, by one man in one way, by another in another, so that it seems as if almost as many opinions may be gathered out of them, as there are men. Novatian expounds Scripture after his fashion, Photinus after another, Sabellius, after another; Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius after another, Apollinaris, Priscillian after another, Jovinian, Pelagius, Cœlestius, after another, Nestorius, lastly, after another. It is, therefore, very necessary, on account of such windings of so various error, that the line of interpretation of the Prophetical and Apostolical writings be drawn by the rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense.⁴

While Vincent’s position might prima facie seem to collide with that of Luther’s or Gilmore’s, it’s important to understand that each of these statements are confronting heresies existing on opposite sides of the same coin. And their meaning needs to be understood in light of their proper contexts. Those who may take up Vincent’s words to corroborate the Roman position affirming Magisterium innovations equal to or even above Scripture need to first consider what constitutes the “Catholic sense” for Vincent. In the very next paragraph, he clarifies:

In the Catholic Church itself, also, great care is to be taken that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all: for that is truly and properly Catholic, as the very meaning and derivation of the word show, which embraces all as nearly as may be universally. This we shall only then do, when we follow Universality, Antiquity, Consent. Universality we follow, by confessing that to be the one true faith, which the whole Church throughout the world professes. Antiquity, by in no wise receding from those senses which it is manifest that our holy elders and fathers generally held.m Consent, in like manner, by adopting, in antiquity itself, such definitions and opinions as have been held by all, or at any rate, almost all, the priests and doctors together.⁵

In sum, Sola Scriptura often means something different to modern Protestant and evangelicals, especially fundamentalists, than it did to the early Reformers and Church fathers. They meant Scripture is our ultimate authority over and against private interpretations or human innovations (i.e., Magesterium). They did not mean the living tradition of the Church (i.e., the remembering communion of saints) had nothing to say about how to interpret or understand the sense of the Scriptures as the Apostles meant their words to be understood. Rather, while the Scriptures may be self-authenticating, their meaning and interpretation must be understood as held in common by the remembering community of the saints in toto.

It is noteworthy in this writer’s opinion that the first four ecumenical councils still hold authority for the majority of Christian traditions—Orthodox, Roman, and Protestant traditions. It’s even arguable that the first seven are largely authoritative within those same traditions.

And alongside the error of Nuda Scriptura stands the error of Solo Scriptura. I’ll address it in the next post in this series.

1. Nathan P. Feldmeth, Pocket Dictionary of Church History: Over 300 Terms Clearly and Concisely Defined, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 127.

2. Universal subjectivity is a philosophy espoused by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787). His understanding of universal subjectivity is rooted in transcendental idealism and asserts that one’s judgment is subjective in origin but universally communicable and valid for all rational beings because it stems from shared cognitive faculties common to all humans.

3. Alec Gilmore, “Sola Scriptura,” A Concise Dictionary of Bible Origins and Interpretation (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 184.

4. Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins (Baltimore: Joseph Robinson, 1847), 4–5.

5. Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins (Baltimore: Joseph Robinson, 1847), 5–6.