Many Christians state that they believe “the Bible only.”  Instead of depending on human interpretation, traditions, commentaries, or added writings, their focus is on the Bible as their only source of truth from God. We commend them for recognizing human failings and for being on guard against false teaching. However, we believe that many have misunderstood what it means to believe the Bible only.

Historically, Christianity during the pre-Reformation period ascribed as much importance to tradition and scholastic teaching as they did the Bible itself. In many instances, Christians believed and taught things that were actually contrary to the clear teachings of scripture. Later, Reformation leaders promoted the concept of "sola Scriptura"  (Latin for Scripture alone) as the source of truth, instead of relying on  tradition, the Pope, and the Catholic Church for truth. This was also coupled with the idea that the Bible belonged in the hands of the people and that everyone should read and understand it for themselves. At the time, this was a radical idea - that scripture could be read by the average person and understood accurately.

Since then, Fundamentalism has taken sola Scriptura to another level. "We believe the Bible only" has inadvertently  become a rhetorical device for disregarding the counsel of others. We at Ill-Legalism have seen instances where individuals were discouraged from reading commentaries and other Bible helps because we should not lend credence to what man teaches, but only God alone through his word. We believe this is a gross distortion of the original intent of sola Scriptura.

For instance, if a passage of Scripture is interpreted using a “Bible only” approach, where do we find information on language and nuance, or on historical, geographical, political and cultural settings? All of this information is found external to the Bible itself.  A “Bible only” stance becomes a roadblock instead of a highway to understanding. Often we require outside commentary, explanation of language and descriptions of the cultural setting in order to interpret scripture correctly.

Beyond this, those who believe their doctrine is based on the Bible alone deceive themselves. Everyone comes to the Bible with a certain hermeneutic in place. The word “hermeneutic” here means the method we use to read, understand and interpret the Bible. The "Bible only" approach common to fundamentalists is one hermeneutic among many. But is it the right one?

We think it is an impossible one. Let us state that we affirm the historic Reformation position of sola Scriptura which sees only the Bible as divinely inspired and not the traditions of men or the teachings of established religion. However, those who go beyond this to condemn all  external sources of information take an extreme position that is self-defeating and self-contradictory.

The "we believe the Bible only" rhetoric may sound good as a rallying cry, but in practice it never seems to work out. Here's why - before you can say what you believe the Bible says, you have to say something about what you believe the Bible is. Is it the infallible, inspired, divinely authored Word of God? or is it a collection of writings by various human authors that has come to mean a lot to a particular group of folks? Or is it a combination of these positions? The answer to this question cannot be found in the Bible alone. We know of no one who actually attempts to back up their belief in inspiration with "the Bible only" because it becomes self-referential circular reasoning if they do. It is not enough to say “the Bible is divinely inspired because it says it is divinely inspired” followed by “the statement of the Bibles inspiration is divinely inspired because it is in the Bible which is a divinely inspired book.” Both of these statements may be true in themselves, but one cannot use them in this fashion to “prove” divine inspiration using the rules of logic. Supporters of the divine inspiration of scripture resort to support like fulfilled prophecy, accurate history, and accurate statements about the physical world - all of which are outside the Bible - to confirm the veracity of the Bible. So “Bible only” Fundamentalists  must violate their own first principle.

Finally, sola Scriptura is itself a tradition of man that is external to the Bible. Scripture is very clear that it relies on writings and teachings outside of scripture to inform its content. Jesus is most famous for opposing the excesses or oral tradition, yet at the same time he affirmed much of what the Pharisees taught. His caution was not to avoid their traditions, but rather to avoid becoming like them. The Old Testament references the Book of Jasher and the New Testament talks of the Book of Enoch, both of which are external to the Bible. The apostle Paul quotes Athenian philosophers and Cretan poets. How many other references to outside texts are mentioned in the Bible, but we are simply unaware of them, just as in our daily talk we may refer to sayings from Shakespeare without stopping to give him specific credit, because his writings are an integrated part of our culture? Clearly, the Bible authors relied on non-canonical teachings to inform the scriptures. The Bible itself does not promote "Bible only" thinking.

Beyond that, once we think we have "the Bible only" established, we still bring to the Bible our preconceived notions about what words mean. For example, what does “perfect” mean in the verse: Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect? (Matt: 5:48) Does it mean without sin or flaw? Does it mean complete and whole? What about the verse that says Christ became sin for us? Did the Son of God actually become sin or was he the sacrifice for sin? Words that jump culture, era, and language such as those in the biblical records are words that need explanation. Reading the works of Shakespeare with their multiple footnotes explaining the words used by this English writer from the sixteenth century gives us an idea of why “the Bible only” is not enough.

We can applaud attempts to come to the Bible with an open mind and heart ready to receive what it has to say, without dependence on a church or tradition. However, the mix we bring with us is part of our hermeneutic. This does not need to be disheartening. God can handle it. We may have a little interference getting in the way to some degree, but He still speaks, and we can still hear from Him.

Go back to Hermeneutics.