I met with a minister recently who espouses the
idea of Sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is the belief that scripture alone is
the supreme authority for Christian faith and practice. If as Christians we
mean that authority shouldn’t drift into human invention that undermines
scripture, that no leader, tradition, or institution should override scripture,
and that scripture is therefore the final court of appeal on matters of faith,
then there is a sense in which Sola scriptura is onto something.
But Sola scriptura cannot be literally absolute, because scripture is not self-interpreting, and Christians rely on extra‑biblical resources to get a handle on scriptural authority. Consequently, scripture is the highest authority, but it cannot be the only authority, otherwise we have a self-refencing problem. So, sola scriptura works only within a theological framework that assumes interpretive components, because nothing contains meaning except by extrinsic relationship to the texts. We need logic, philosophy, and critical thinking to interpret scripture responsibly, to evaluate interpretations, avoid contradictions, apply scripture to socio-cultural situations, and engage with politics, science, ethics, and culture. Therefore, Sola scriptura is relatively true, not absolutely true.
I think most balanced Christians would go along with that. Fundamentalists often resist this idea, because they often weaponise scripture to construct a hermetically sealed, self‑contained in-group of willing adherents (often cults), denying even that meaning depends partly on the reader’s context, to keep the mindset within the circle solely conforming to their aims. That’s why they often warn against “worldly” knowledge like science, philosophy, or human reasoning - treating it as being opposed to scripture in cases when it clearly isn’t. Obviously, there is a lot of “worldly” stuff that is opposed to scripture, but that’s where our old friend critical interpretation and discernment is needed to determine which is which.
The upshot is, being interpretive agents replete with a multitude of extra-biblical resources, and mental and emotional artillery, we clearly read the Bible through our own lens, so we can’t justifiably claim that the Bible is the lens through which we see the world. Instead, it’s more nuanced - scripture is the supreme authority in a relative sense, rather like a compass bearing: it gives the direction we should follow, but we still need maps, terrain knowledge, and judgement to complete the journey. The bearing guides us, but it doesn’t replace the tools.
An even better way to frame this is to say that scripture is a fixed authority, but it is not a fixed direction - because truthful direction emerges only when a reader interprets it correctly, and each individual interpretation comes alive in accordance with their own person journey of circumstances, background, talents and application. So, it’s perhaps more like a fleet of ships, all trying to travel north (closer to God), but each on their own distinct, unique adventure as they travel. Think of scripture, then, like the ship’s anchor, holding the vessel in the right waters, keeping it from drifting into danger, and providing stability - but with sailors who still need a rudder, charts, experience, and discernment to navigate.
