Opponents of the Reformation claim that the principle of sola scriptura (the Scriptures alone) leads to anarchy — every man believes what is right in his own eyes and claims that his beliefs and actions are supported by the Bible. In addition, they charge, sola scriptura is an abstract idea that no one ever lives by, for no one ever comes to the Bible without their own prior experiences, ideas, and biases. Scripture is always interpreted in the context of some community and therefore every interpreter is depending on some other source of authority which in the end rules over the Bible. Roman Catholics who make these charges would say that the problem is solved by making church tradition, especially as determined by the papacy, the true determiner of the meaning of Scripture.

In fact, the papacy claims to do two important things: first, it arbitrates between contending interpretations by drawing upon its apparent knowledge of an unwritten tradition; second, it has also determined just what is and what isn't Scripture. This latter claim was especially made in response to the Reformation, when in 1546 the Council of Trent decreed that the Apocrypha actually belong to the Canon of Scripture and therefore determined doctrine. This ruling gave Rome a basis in their "Bible" for teachings such as believers being able to partly merit salvation with God by good works in this life and also undergo punishment and purification after this life in purgatory.

Tradition or Scripture?⤒🔗

The Reformers, of course, emphatically disagreed. "Here I stand!" became their motto. They correctly taught that the Bible formed the church; not the church the Bible.

If tradition must be the arbiter, it is able to nullify the plain meaning of Scripture. Indeed, this has happened repeatedly and still happens in the Roman Catholic Church. In effect, tradition becomes higher than Scripture.

But we know that Scripture itself demands that all tradition bow before the Bible and reform itself according to what is found there. What is tradition? It is something "handed down." When Scripture speaks positively of tradi­tion, it often describes the "tradition" itself in writing or refers to publicly taught practices which had already been written or were about to be written (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). When Scripture speaks negatively of tradition, it is referring to any teaching — written or not — that "nullifies" the Word of God (as Jesus charged the Pharisees in Mark 7:13). This demonstrates that written Scripture has the determining authority. The apostle Paul told us to learn "not to go beyond what is written" (1 Cor 4:6). Further, Luke told us that he wrote his gospel precisely so that the church might know the truth of what they had been taught (Luke 1:3-4). They did not need another source of tradition to discern his meaning. Isaiah said that if the people of the old covenant did not speak "according to the law and the testimony," they had no light, no knowledge (Isa 8:20).

In the new covenant God even promises to write his instruction on our hearts and in our minds — the very instruction that he had already revealed in writing in his law, and not just upon the hearts and minds of a few priests, but upon all his people (Jer 31:33). Thus, just as the old covenant revelation is entirely written, so also the new covenant revelation. Further, God himself promises to seal his truth into our minds and hearts. Therefore, none of the teachings of Scripture depend upon an unstable and ill-defined "tradition" for their truth. God never promised that the true interpretation would be secured in one particular institution such as the papacy. Rather, he warned us about false teachers!

Therefore, tradition is not the determiner or arbiter of the meaning of Scripture; rather, Scripture defines and determines its own meaning, according to its own revealed principles of interpretation. The Holy Spirit seals the Bible's truth upon all believers' hearts as part of his work of making us believe.

The Bible in the Reformation←⤒🔗

Let us consider carefully the centrality of the Bible in the Reformation, particularly in two geographical areas that would later be identified as Reformed (not Lutheran).

First, consider this dialogue from the Disputation at Bern in 1528. The first thesis to be disputed was, "The Holy Christian Church, of which Christ is the sole head, is born of the Word of God, abides in it, and does not listen to the voice of a stranger." To this the Dominican monk who represent­ed the Roman Catholic side argued, "The word sole is not in Scripture. Christ has left a vicar (i.e., a representative head, the pope) here below." Haller, the preacher of Bern, replied, "The vicar that Christ left is the Holy Spirit." Another Ro­man Catholic theologian answered, "See then to what a state things have come these last ten years. This man calls himself a Lutheran, that a Zwinglian; a third, a follower of Karlstad, a fourth, of Oecolampadius, a fifth, an Anabaptist, etc." To this Martin Bucer, the reformer of Strasbourg, replied,

Whoever preaches Jesus as the only Saviour, we recognize as our brother. Neither Luther, nor Zwingli, nor Oecolampadius desire the faithful to bear his name. Besides, you should not boast so much of a mere external unity. When antichrist gained the upper hand throughout the world, in the East by Mohammed, in the West by the Pope, he was able to keep the people in unity of error. God permits divisions, in order that those who belong to him may learn to look not to men, but to the testimony of the Word, and to the assurance of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. Thus then, dearly beloved brethren, to the Scriptures, the Scriptures! 0 Church of Berne, hold fast to the teaching of him who said, "Come unto me," and not, "Come unto my vicar!¹

Roman Catholics and Anabaptists similar?←⤒🔗

Second, let us examine John Calvin's reply to the Ro­man Catholic Cardinal Sadoleto a decade later, in 1539. The year prior, the Genevan city council had banished three of their pastors, including Guillaume Farel and John Calvin. Sadoleto, who was otherwise unknown to the Genevans, thought this boded well for the Roman Catholic Church, and so tried to woo the city of Geneva back. In his friendly letter he asserted that anyone who followed the Catholic church would be safe because the church does not, indeed cannot, err. He added that even if she did err, no one who followed her in this error would ever be condemned, so long as he followed the erring church with a sincere mind. I hope you will notice that this assumes that the common believers do not need to know the truth of Scripture; they can simply rely on the clergy to know it for them. This denies the promise of the new covenant that we reviewed above. How did Calvin respond?

Not only did Calvin use the Scriptures and the Church Fathers rightly against Sadoleto, he also made this very incisive observation:

Well, then, does Chrysostom admonish us to reject all who under the pretense of the Spirit, lead us away from the simple doctrine of the gospel - the Spirit having been promised not to reveal a new doctrine, but to impress the truth of the gospel on our minds. And we, in fact, experience in the present day how necessary the admonition was. We are assailed by two sects, which seem to differ most widely from each other. For what similitude is there in appearance between the Pope and the Anabaptists?

Is there a similarity between Roman Catholics and Anabap­tists? Who could be farther apart? Traditionalists and Anti-traditionalists are opposites, aren't they? Not necessarily. Listen to Calvin once more:

The principal weapon with which they both assail us is the same. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods. And you, Sadoleto, by stumbling on the very threshold, have paid the penalty of that affront which you offered to the Holy Spirit, when you separated him from the Word.

Note well that Calvin sees a similar problem at two opposite sides: the Roman Catholics and the Anabaptists (today many Pentecostals are in line with the old Anabaptists). Both of them rely on something outside of the Word of God and claim that one thing to be the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Roman Catholics say it is the church; the Pentecostals say it is their own experience. In either case, they make claims about what the Holy Spirit is doing without tying those claims to the very things that the Holy Spirit has said in Scripture.

Word and Spirit joined←⤒🔗

Calvin further admonishes Sadoleto for separating the Word of God from him who gave it — the Holy Spirit:

Had you known ... that the Spirit goes before the Church, to enlighten her in understanding the Word, while the Word itself is like the Lydian Stone, by which she tests all doctrines, would you have (separated the Spirit from the Word, as if the Church is an authority equal to the Word)? Learn, then, by your own experience, that it is no less unreasonable to boast of the Spirit without the Word, than it would be absurd to bring forward the Word itself without the Spirit.

Finally, Calvin correctly asserts that the true catholicity of the church stems from holding to the one teaching of Holy Scripture which the Holy Spirit — by the use of these very Scriptures that he so carefully inspired — seals on our hearts. The foundation of catholicity is unity in the scriptural truths.

O my brothers and sisters, my friends, behold the wonderful grace of God, as he sovereignly used the renewed study of his Word to renew his Church and free it from the false teachings of both Roman Catholics and Anabaptists!

Innovations today?←⤒🔗

In our day many seemingly innovative teachers argue that the message of the Bible was tied up in an old patri­archal culture that no longer speaks to the present day. Further, they argue, there are trends in Scripture towards total equality and egalitarianism that would lead today to women holding church offices and churches accepting "faithful" homosexual lifestyle choices. And, of course, there are scientific "facts" that correct our supposed misreading of Scripture.

Is this true? As in the past, we need to be so very careful to let Scripture interpret Scripture, to find the rules of interpretation in Scripture itself, and to humble ourselves before the written word. Any new human words that go beyond the clear meaning of what has already been revealed must be rejected. We stand upon the Word of God, and its message is clear and authoritative. Moreover, God has given his Holy Spirit and guided his church to stand upon this truth. As part of the very act of making us believe, the Holy Spirit has convicted our hearts that the words he took such care to bring us in Scripture are true. Let us maintain the words of Martin Luther, spoken in 1521 before Emperor Charles V,

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me. Amen.²