Scripture Alone?

When you drive in snow or other slippery conditions, it’s all too easy to overcorrect. If you steer too hard in one direction to avoid a ditch, you might easily end up in the ditch on the other side. With ditches on both sides of the road, one must be careful to avoid overcorrecting.

There are also ditches on both sides of the road, as it were, when it comes to the often-misunderstood principle of sola scriptura, the principle that Scripture is the uniquely normative rule of faith and practice.[1] On one hand, some view the sola scriptura principle as license for radical individualism, assuming a “me and my Bible alone” approach to faith and practice. On the other hand, many conclude that to avoid interpretive chaos, the interpretation of Scripture must be governed by some extrabiblical norm such as tradition or community consensus.

Much confusion continues because many focus on only these two options. Either Scripture is left to private interpretation, or it must be controlled by some extrabiblical authority. But neither of these are in accord with the sola scriptura principle, which (properly understood) charts a path that avoids both of these ditches.

The Error of Isolationism

The first ditch may be labeled isolationism, which attempts to interpret Scripture in a purely private fashion, cut off from the influence of any other factors. Many arrive at this view because they assume that genuine faithfulness to Scripture requires reading the Bible in isolation from any other factors or influences, unaffected by anyone or anything outside the biblical text.

One might understand the appeal of this posture, at least initially. If we are committed to Scripture as the uniquely normative rule of faith and practice (as I am), we do indeed want Scripture to speak for itself and on its own terms, without such other factors as tradition drowning out or distorting the meaning of the Bible.

Isolationism breeds precisely the kind of overconfidence in one’s individual reading of the text that lends itself to confusing one’s private interpretations with the meaning of Scripture itself.

The problem, though, is that no one actually reads and interprets Scripture in a vacuum. Each of us brings to the text a web of presuppositions about truth, language, life, God, and much more—whether we realize it or not. We are all affected by traditions, experiences, and many unrecognized assumptions, biases, and blind spots. Failing to recognize that such factors affect our understanding makes us more susceptible to unwittingly reading them into the text and mistakenly baptizing our presuppositions as “biblical,” rather than consciously examining them and intentionally allowing Scripture to reform and renew our understandings.

Peter warned that “some things” in Scripture are “hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). Isolationism breeds precisely the kind of overconfidence in one’s individual reading of the text that lends itself to confusing one’s private interpretations with the meaning of Scripture itself. Such a posture often shifts authority from the Bible to oneself, even when one sincerely intends otherwise.

Attempting to read Scripture in isolation also cuts one off from learning from others, past and present. Many errors could be avoided simply by considering what thoughtful predecessors (individually and collectively) discovered, including where some of them went wrong. By this I do not mean that we should treat any such uninspired and fallible individuals or communities as normative; I simply mean to recognize that we can and should learn from others, though both their interpretations and ours should be continually subjected to and tested by the uniquely normative rule of Scripture.[2]

Many critics of sola scriptura claim that the principle itself entails subjectivism and isolationism, but this is a misunderstanding of the principle. As I explained further in a previous article, the sola scriptura principle (properly understood) claims simply that Scripture alone is the uniquely authoritative and final norm of faith and practice.[3] This does not mean that we should neglect all other ingredients and factors, pretending we are unaffected by our experiences and traditions, but that all such ingredients and factors of which we are aware (and can become aware) should always be intentionally subjected to the ruling authority of Scripture and, where necessary, reformed.

The Error of Communitarianism

If one overcorrects to guard against isolationism, however, one might very well end up in the ditch on the other side of the road—the ditch of communitarianism, which makes the community (past or present), or some community-determined standard, the normative rule for interpreting Scripture.

Communitarianism is a family of approaches that elevates the community or some extrabiblical tradition selected by the community.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with community; the Bible itself instructs us not to neglect fellowshipping with one another (e.g., Heb. 10:25), and we should read and study Scripture together within and across communities.

What I mean by communitarianism is a family of approaches that elevates the community (whether past or present), or some extrabiblical tradition selected by the community, to be the normative rule by which Scripture is interpreted. This effectively makes that community or community-decided standard the arbiter that decides what Scripture means.

Hearing this, one might think of the position of Roman Catholicism, which reserves authentic interpretive authority for the magisterium (the pope in communion with the other bishops). This is a very prominent form of communitarianism. Eastern Orthodox approaches represent another prominent form. Yet communitarianism also takes many Protestant forms (a trend that is increasing rapidly).[4] Some advocate that Christians should retrieve the classical Christian tradition as the binding rule of faith. Alongside this, many elevate the ecumenical creeds as the hermeneutical framework through which Scripture must be interpreted. Still others appeal to the collective guidance of the Holy Spirit in the contemporary community of believers, claiming the developing consensus of the community becomes the norm or standard through which Scripture itself must be interpreted.[5] These and other approaches vary in details, but they share a common commitment to some communitarian norm outside Scripture that is set forth as the controlling standard for interpreting Scripture.

Again, it is a good thing to recognize the value of community and of learning with and alongside others (past and present). Serious problems arise, however, when any norms outside Scripture become the standard lenses through which Scripture is read and interpreted.

If you insist that everything must be viewed through rose-colored glasses, those lenses will make everything appear to be rose-colored. At that point, however unintentionally, functional authority shifts to that extrabiblical norm so that Scripture itself no longer rules, but the external standard rules over what Scripture means.

Practiced consistently, such a communitarian approach would rule out the Protestant Reformation entirely. Likewise, the Adventist movement could not have arisen. The Reformation itself was grounded in the goal of allowing Scripture to stand in judgment even over churches and their traditions.

Here many critics of sola scriptura claim that the Reformation itself was a mistake and that the sola scriptura principle itself is to blame for what they see as the fracturing of Christianity. But the claim that the sola scriptura principle is responsible for fragmenting Christianity does not hold up under scrutiny. Fragmentation within Christianity did not begin with the Protestant Reformation. About 500 years before Martin Luther posted the 95 theses, the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy finally split in 1054 (after centuries of degrees of separation), and there were many other disagreements, fractures, and various Christian communities long before that (e.g., Coptic Christianity). The sola scriptura principle did not fracture a previously unified Christendom, and blaming sola scriptura for pluralism ignores the fractures already present long before—as well as many other historical factors.

Scripture Over Tradition

Yet some claim further that Scripture itself is obviously not sufficient for Christian faith because it has been interpreted in so many different ways.

To blame Scripture for the way it has been (mis)interpreted is a bit like blaming God for the way people have broken His commandments.

This is a faulty argument. To blame Scripture for the way it has been (mis)interpreted is a bit like blaming God (and particularly His commandments) for the way people have broken His commandments. It simply does not follow.

Suppose God gives a commandment to honor one’s father and mother, and some have a tradition that they use to nullify the intent of this commandment. Would that be the fault of God’s commandments or of those interpreting and implementing it? Obviously, the latter.

Of course, this actually occurred, and in response to it, Jesus offered a stark warning against elevating community tradition over the Word of God—against “[breaking] the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, NASB).

Jesus explained: “God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or mother.’ And by this you have invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (verses 4-6, NASB).

This warning against setting aside the Word of God for the sake of tradition also applies today to all forms of communitarianism that elevate an external standard to rule over what Scripture means.

The Path Between the Ditches

Isolationism shifts authority to the individual. Communitarianism shifts authority to a particular community or community-decided norm. Both, in different ways, displace Scripture from its role as the uniquely normative rule of faith and practice. And it is all too easy to drift into one of these ditches or the other. But Jesus Himself calls us to believe and live according to Scripture as the unique rule of faith and practice.

One striking example of this is found in the stirring story of Jesus meeting two of His then heartbroken followers on the way to Emmaus.

They were despondent because Jesus had died on the cross, and they were trying to make sense of what had happened. They did not know Jesus had risen, and when Jesus joined them on the way, they did not recognize Him, for “their eyes were restrained” (Luke 24:16).

Amazingly, before revealing to them who He was and that He had risen from the dead, Jesus first taught them from Scripture. Specifically, “beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (verse 27). Their hearts burned within them while He opened the Scriptures to them, but only later were their eyes opened to the fact that the one who spoke with them was the risen Christ Himself (see Luke 24:31, 32)!

Jesus could have simply convinced them immediately by showing them He had risen from the dead, but He first directed them to Scripture. In doing so, Jesus appealed to Scripture as uniquely authoritative. He exposited the teachings of the entirety of Old Testament Scripture about Himself and called them to “believe in all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25; compare Matt. 5:17, 18; Luke 16:31; John 10:35). Likewise, Paul later testified that he believed “all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets” (Acts 24:14; compare 17:11)—that is, everything in accordance with Old Testament Scripture.

Jesus could have simply convinced them immediately by showing them He had risen from the dead, but He first directed them to Scripture.

Indeed, Christ Himself both confirmed the Old Testament (e.g., Luke 24:44, 48) and effectively commissioned the New Testament. With respect to the latter, Christ commissioned His apostles to bear witness of Him to the entire world and make disciples of all nations (e.g., Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8), thus effectively commissioning the New Testament as the written witness of the apostles that followed the pattern of the Old Testament witness leading up to Christ.[6]

For us today, then, following the approach Christ taught His followers on the way to Emmaus entails that we believe all that the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures teach and thus believe and live by “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). That is, following Christ’s approach entails that we treat Scripture—as a whole—as the uniquely normative rule of faith and practice, confirmed and commissioned by Christ Himself.

Rightly understood, sola scriptura does not amount to Scripture isolated from the community or to Scripture ruled by the community.[7] Instead, individually and collectively, we are called to continually and humbly seek what God has revealed and inspired, and to subject our own understandings to Scripture, ultimately “casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

[1] For more on what sola scriptura means and does not mean, see my previous article: “Is Sola Scriptura Self-Defeating?” Adventist Review, July 2026. For an academic treatment, see John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016), chap. 6.

[2] One might wonder how this can be done. For a brief introduction to this way of interpreting Scripture, see the excursus titled “The Emmaus Approach: How to Understand Scripture and Do Theology” in John C. Peckham, God With Us: An Introduction to Adventist Theology (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2023), pp. 331-343. For a technical, academic treatment of the hermeneutical spiral and canonical theological method, see Peckham, Canonical Theology, chaps. 8-10.

[3] See Peckham, “Is Sola Scriptura Self-Defeating?”

[4] On these various movements and their increasing popularity, particularly since the call to ressourcement advanced by Vatican II, see Peckham, Canonical Theology, chapters 4-5.

[5] Of course, these approaches raise many other difficult questions in practice, including: Which community? Whose interpretation?

[6] For more on this, see Peckham, God With Us, pp. 318, 319, cf. pp. 87, 88; Peckham, Canonical Theology, chaps. 1-3.

[7] See Peckham, “Is Sola Scriptura Self-Defeating?”