The Highest Authority for Christian Truth?

Sola Scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that makes one’s own interpretation of Scripture the highest authority for Christian faith and life, and by which interpretation, one is competent to reprove and correct the teaching of the early Church. It is the doctrine by which Protestants allow themselves the right of private interpretation by which they may judge anything and everything in the Church. They may not mean the doctrine to do that; it is certainly not defined that way, but that is how it turns out — the logic of it leads inexorably to that conclusion. 

Now, it is often held in some forms of Sola Scriptura that that there are other forms of authority in the Church, but that they all must be subject to the Scriptures — and indeed they do! But in Sola Scriptura, what this actually ends up meaning, sooner or later, that all other such forms of authority must be subject to one’s private interpretation of the Scriptures. So the interpreter becomes his own highest authority on what must be the faith and life of the Church.

Some have recognized the problem and titled it Solo Scriptura as a safeguard against Sola Scriptura. It is the recognition that, yes, there are other legitimate authorities in the Church that must be considered. But that does not solve the problem because it does not recognize that the nature of Scripture is such that it must be interpreted if it is to have any meaning or have authority. But if Scripture must be interpreted in order to have authority, and there is no authoritative interpretation of Scripture, then it is incoherent to speak of Scripture as being authoritative.

On the other hand, if there are other legitimate Church authorities, as many/most proponents of Sola Scriptura affirm, but they are authoritative only insofar as they agree with Scripture — as I have heard may proponents say — then how does one determine which of those authorities truly agree with Scripture except by comparing it against one’s own interpretation. We may say we are testing it against Scripture, but what does that really mean except that we are testing it against our interpretation of Scripture.

There are yet others who, seeing the problem of Solo Scriptura, but finding Sola Scriptura for whatever reason inadequate, have proposed Prima Scriptura. Whether that is a sufficient view depends on how it is defined:

• It affirms Scripture as primary, but how does it relate to the authority of Church and Tradition (what has been handed down from the beginning)?
• Is Scripture seen as separate from the Church, or as within the Church, arising through and from the Church?
• Is it seen as separate from the Tradition (what has been handed down from the beginning), or as within Tradition, handed down with all the apostles handed down once for all to the saints?
• Is it to be interpreted apart from the Church, or interpreted by the Church, by the "rule of faith," what was handed down (traditioned) from the apostles?

Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky, in Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, put forth a view that might be an ecclesial Prima Scriptura: Scripture is primary; tradition witnesses to it; the Church interprets; private judgment contrary to the Church is rejected. Not Scripture alone apart from the Church, but Scripture first and always — in the Church and by the Spirit.

It should be worth nothing that the early Church Fathers never had a doctrine of Sola Scriptura or anything like it. They clearly affirmed the sufficiency of Scripture — but only as interpreted by the Church, the “rule of faith,” and what was handed down from the beginning.