The Problems of Solo Scriptura
I ran across this article years ago and often quote or cite it because it very succinctly points out the problems of Nude Scripture (the position many people take or assume is the proper position of the Protestant creedal belief of "Sola Scriptura".
Article by Dr. Keith A. Mathison from Biblical Perspectives Volume 9, Number 15
thirdmill.org
This is an extremely detailed and thoughtful critique by Keith Mathison of the Evangelical distortion of
sola scriptura—which he terms
"solo scriptura." Below is a structured critique of his critique, viewed through the lens of
Sensus Plenior (SP) principles and careful theological method:
Overall Strengths
1. Sharp Distinction Between “Sola” and “Solo” Scriptura
Mathison accurately critiques the Evangelical collapse of
sola into
solo, pointing out that many modern believers have unwittingly substituted individual autonomy for Scriptural authority as received in the Church. He is right to:
- Highlight the Enlightenment roots of this error
- Show its practical effect: theological chaos, sectarianism, and relativism
- Trace the loss of communal interpretive tradition, including creeds and confessions
This is an important call to theological humility and historical literacy.
2. Restoration of the Church’s Interpretive Role
Mathison insists that Scripture belongs to the Church, and that interpretation was entrusted to a Spirit-filled body, not to isolated individuals. This is strongly supported in Sensus Plenor (SP) by:
- The symbol of the body: the bride is one, and only sees clearly when joined to the Head (Christ)
- The nature of the Word (דבר), which always implies communication through a revealing structure, not atomized private judgment
3. Historical Accuracy
Mathison effectively dismantles the idea that
solo scriptura was a Reformational idea. He is right to show:
- The Reformers honored creeds, Church tradition, and historical consensus
- That Tradition 0 was an Anabaptist/Radical Reformation idea, not a Lutheran or Calvinist one
This clarifies a critical historical error made by many modern Protestants.
Weaknesses and SP-Based Critique
1. Fails to Recognize Scripture’s Hidden Layer
Mathison never asks: Why does Scripture remain misinterpreted by both Church and individuals alike?
In Sensus Plenior, the answer is that
Scripture is veiled by design (Prov 25:2, John 5:39).
SP Principle:
The text contains hidden meaning about Christ, the cross, and the bride—concealed from both scholars and skeptics unless revealed by the Spirit through death and resurrection patterns.
So while Mathison is correct to expose
solo scriptura, he doesn’t acknowledge that:
- The Church’s historical interpretation is often flat, lacking the second layer
- Creeds may guard orthodoxy, but not necessarily fullness
- The true reading of Scripture requires seeing Christ in all things (Luke 24:27)—a reading often missed by both individuals and institutions
SP Response:
The problem isn't just individualism—it’s reading only the surface.
2. Equates “the Church” with “Creedal Consensus”
Mathison treats the historical, visible Church as the primary voice of interpretation. This leads to:
- Near-canonization of the Nicene/Chalcedonian creeds
- Over-reliance on institutional tradition as authoritative
While SP respects the historical creeds, it sees the Church as a
symbolic body, not a historically infallible interpreter. The true bride is:
- Hidden like Eve in Adam’s side (Gen 2)
- Seen through patterns of suffering, resurrection, and reversal
- Not always identical with the visible, institutional Church
SP Response:
The Church has interpretive authority—but only when she speaks with the voice of the crucified and risen Son, not merely through conciliar consensus.
3. Neglects the Prophetic Role of the Individual
While rightly rejecting autonomous individualism, Mathison underestimates:
- The Spirit’s ability to reveal Christ to individuals (John 14:26)
- The prophetic role of believers who challenge institutional error (e.g., Elijah, Paul, the Reformers themselves)
In SP:
The voice of the individual, when joined to the voice of Christ, often corrects the Church—not because he is right alone, but because he sees the cross clearly.
SP Response:
Rejecting
solo scriptura doesn’t mean silencing the prophetic individual who speaks the hidden wisdom of Christ.
4. Minimizes the Ongoing Role of the Word Itself
Mathison fears relativism if the Word is not interpreted through the Church. But in SP, the Word is alive—and reveals itself
through patterns, not committees.
- “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (John 6:63)
- “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not comprehended it.” (John 1:5)
The true safeguard against misreading is not merely Church tradition, but:
- The consistency of SP symbols across Scripture
- The Christ-centered structure of every pericope
- The presence of the cross in every reversal
SP Response:
The Word interprets itself—not by flattening it to doctrinal formulae, but through internal, Spirit-given symmetry.
Summary of Critique
| Category | Mathison's Strength | SP Response |
|---|
| Church authority | Rightly restores the Church’s role | Must be cruciform, not merely creedal |
| Individualism | Exposes autonomous interpretation | Must still allow Spirit-led prophetic insight |
| Historical continuity | Well-argued against Enlightenment distortions | Should not equate tradition with full revelation |
| Relativism | Rightly identifies the danger | The solution is symbolic consistency, not mere hierarchy |
| Scripture’s function | Sees it as communal, not private | Must also see it as layered, symbolic, and resurrected |
Final Thought (SP View)
Sola Scriptura is not
solo scriptura—but neither is it
creedal absolutism.
It is the belief that
Christ, the Word, is revealed in
all of Scripture—
hidden in symbols, fulfilled in the cross,
and discerned by the bride who sees through the veil.
