In his recent blog post entitled Commentary not Included, Tom Brown has brought up an essential element in the debate over sola scriptura. He highlights an article in the July 2009 issue of Tabletalk by Dr. Derek Thomas, where Dr. Thomas writes in opposition to solo scriptura. He points out that sola scriptura, as understood by Reformed thinkers, does not rule out the use of commentaries to gain insight on the Word of God. In fact, given the nature of human fallibility, it is almost a rule that one should suspect one who holds no interest in knowing about what has been said about the Scriptures in the past by other minds.

I would like to follow up on Tom’s observations with some more considerations on this issue of what it means to get guidance from another, and what that implies about sola scriptura.

First, there is this comparison of a good Christian today to the Ethiopian eunuch who rightly sought illumination of the Scriptures that had troubled him. In Acts 8, we read of this man puzzling over Isaiah, and in his humility of heart, he replies to the question of whether he understands what he has before him by saying, ”How can I, unless someone guides me?” How different this is from so many Christians today, who advocate the me and Jesus mentality that is perpetuated by a disrespect for continuity and covenant, wittingly or unwittingly. But even granting that we need advice, we need to consider this passage in Acts to ourselves with more scrutiny. It would certainly be easy if we were all Ethiopian eunuchs who came across someone like Deacon Philip, who had been closely associated with the Apostles. But then again, if we are to imagine ourselves in such a position as the Ethiopian, to fully apply this scenario to the 21st century we would need to admit that there are scores of men willing to take us aside and put us under their tutelage. They might not all be named Philip (though doubtless there will be at least 3 with such a name), but they all claim the ability to shed light on the inspired Sacred Scriptures.

I suppose one can be content by saying that the solution to this quandary of whom to follow is obvious, as which teachers are accurate in their expounding of Sacred Scripture can be easily found by being like the proverbial Bereans, who “searched the Scriptures to see whether these things were so”. Of course, our view of the correct answer to this question of who is faithful to the Scriptures will vary greatly based on who seems inspired to us. However, if we have fallen short of perfection in our exegesis or philosophical presuppositions, we might unknowingly call one person a good guide when they were actually speaking to our sinful desires. St. Paul even had words of warning about this issue to Timothy, when he wrote:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3

In advocating commentaries, we all must be cautious and say that some commentaries will be shedding light on the Word of God, whereas others will fulfill Paul’s words that so tragically speak of so many false teachers. Many times commentators are valuable to us in some regards, but not in others. Thus, the Presbyterian reading a Reformed Baptist will be thankful for certain soteriological statements, but when that Reformed Baptist comments on the sacrament of Baptism, the Presbyterian will see a sin of deviating from the Scriptures. But how can we discern who is committing such a sin, and who is sharing the gift of the Holy Spirit, who is promised to guide us into all truth? (John 16:13) If the Anabaptist view of Baptism is true, the one sinning in our example is actually the Presbyterian. And thus the debates rage on, leading to situations where Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists have worked together to create ministries such as “Together for the Gospel,” but in actuality there have been conflicts such as these, where in 2007 Reformed Baptists wanted to refuse full communion to the Presbyterians due to their “invalid” baptisms. This was done, in the midst of a movement called Together for the Gospel. This says nothing of those who have actually held their fellow Protestant (and Catholic) brethren in disdain.

So with such a world of confusion, how can we say that the Holy Spirit is leading His people into all truth?

The answer to this question given by most Reformed writers is to say that the perspicuity of Scripture points to the light, and guides us into all truth, in accord with the witness born by the Holy Spirit. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states: “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” (WCF I.V)

But this notion of the perspicuity of Scripture, even if granted to be true for argument’s sake, says nothing of the perspicuity of my mind as an individual. I may be fully immune from committing formal and informal fallacies, but if history is a good predictor of the past, I will fall short as so many others have. So even if I am holding a completely accurate map of the world which I view to be perspicuous, if I read it wrong, I am going to get lost. The map sent one message to my mind about Greenland being west of Iceland, but my memory of a bad geography lesson might lead me to overlook that message from the map. Or maybe I just really want to go East instead of West, and so I go the wrong way, thinking I am heading towards Greenland. Of course, this sort of confusion is used to explain these circumstances of well meaning Christians disagreeing, but for some reason most people are not willing to consider that they are the ones who have got it wrong.

Fundamentally therefore, this argument that a perspicuous “lamp unto our feet” is our source of clarity boils down to a “bosom burning” experience, where each one is choosing which theologians (or, as is more often the case, which portions of a given theologian’s writings) are demonstrating clarity based on one’s own perspective.

Let’s go back to the original story from the book of Acts. As Tom Brown closed his post, he wrote:

“But the better lesson from Acts 8 is that we need someone to teach us (‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’), and that someone is the likes of Deacon Philip, not a teacher of my own choosing.”

There is a principled distinction between the approach of the Protestant who follows a teacher of their choosing and the adherent of the Apostolic Churches, Catholic and Orthodox. Both are volitional choices, but in one case, the Apostolic believer is adhering to a succession of the Apostles that is not only physically continuous throughout history, but whose precepts have remained unchanged throughout the centuries.

To do otherwise is to be surrounded by a multitude of voices, all claiming truth. If there is no Tradition to identify and cling to, each person may be on the brink of pressing forward with doctrines such as Soli Deo Gloria or the Federal Vision. Each one will say “stop here, go no further” at different points in the progress of learning, and as time passes, we will all be separated further as our theology develops to different extents and down different corners. To say that this is not the case is to deny the reality of the schisms and difference opinions. We were warned to not fall into this trap by St. Paul when he wrote:

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” 1 Corinthians 1:10

The Catholic does not deny the perspicuity of Scripture because he is a spoil sport. Nor does he deny this notion because he does not enjoy reading Scripture. Seeing the reality of our fragmented world and believing that there is a principle of unity that comes through communion with the Apostles and their successors, and encountering the multitudes of ways to interpret Scripture, he chooses the realistic path that calls for something else to be the pillar of truth, and that something is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15).

Oh Holy Spirit, open our eyes to your Body which is undivided even amidst the attempts of humans and fallen angels to rend Her asunder.