Sola Scriptura

Historians of the Protestant Reformation have long pointed out that the idea of sola scriptura, promoted so passionately by the Reformers, didn’t mean solo scriptura or nuda scriptura. This means that even as the Reformers made the Bible their final authority when it came to theological matters, they didn’t take the naked Bible and ignore all other sources of theological reflection. Thus, Luther and Calvin had a high regard for many of the early church thinkers—such as Augustine—and brought their interpretations of Scripture into conversation with them.

There is, of course, a debate to be had about whether the Reformers’ approach was adequate and whether they allowed tradition to hold too much sway in their developing theological convictions. But the point is, the Reformers seemingly never intended for readers of Scripture to totally discount other sources of theological and religious reflection.

Extreme Interpretation

It was in nineteenth-century America when Protestants began to take the idea of sola scriptura to its most extreme expression. Most new Protestant movements in America—armed with a democratic, anti-creedal, anti-education, and frontier spirit—were so disdainful of the religious establishment and theological tradition that they pushed an approach to religion and the Bible that essentially ignored all other sources of theological interpretation. The attitude, implicitly embraced by many, was that “me, God, and the Bible” was all that was needed—with Alexander Campbell, perhaps the most well-known nineteenth-century anti-creedalist, famously boasting in 1826 that he had “endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me.”[1]

There is an interpretation of Adventist history that has assumed that Adventism was and is of this vein—that, like all other Bible-centered Protestant movements, we ignore anything that’s not explicitly stated in Scripture (there’s also an assumption among some Adventists, which I implicitly believed for a long time, that we were the only Christians who took the Bible seriously—which simply isn’t true). Such a posture looks suspiciously at modern science and ignores the testimony of alternative sources of information, with some even questioning the ongoing manifestation of spiritual gifts.

But I’m not so sure that this was ever the case with Adventism. Adventists do not subscribe to this sort of “naive biblicism,” which proposes that the Bible is exhaustive enough to explicitly address all matters of life. Indeed, Ellen White, whom we herald as a trusted source of theological contemplation—while still making her subservient to the Bible—introduced a framework for religious reflection that pointed away from this sort of naive and extreme biblicism.

Notice, for example, her opening line in the chapter “The Privilege of Prayer” in Steps to Christ: “Through nature and revelation, through His providence, and by the influence of His Spirit, God speaks to us.”[2] She includes Scripture (“revelation”) in this list, of course, but doesn’t limit it to the Bible. God also speaks to us, she proposes, through nature, His providence, and the influence of His Spirit. Elsewhere, in Christ’s Object Lessons, she similarly explains, “The great storehouse of truth is the Word of God—the written Word, the book of nature, and the book of experience in God’s dealing with human life. Here are the treasures from which Christ’s workers are to draw.”[3]

It was in nineteenth-century America when Protestants began to take the idea of sola scriptura to its most extreme expression.

Quadrilateral or Solo?

In setting out these other sources of religious knowledge, she seems to be digging into her Methodist heritage, playing off John Wesley’s approach to theology, in what some have labeled the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral.” According to this understanding, Wesley employed four sources of theological reflection—Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience—to arrive at his theological conclusions. Ellen White’s “Quadrilateral” can, to some degree, be mapped onto Wesley’s—with Scripture having an obvious correlate in Wesley, and nature equating to reason, the Spirit equating to experience, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, providence equating to tradition (that is, acknowledging the ways in which God has historically led His people—and taking seriously the theological convictions they came to).

Thus, in many ways, we have a “Whitean Quadrilateral.” For Ellen White, and Adventists who’ve followed in her footsteps, the Bible has never been completely solo when it comes to the way we make sense of the world, the way we make sense of God and His creation, the way we make sense of life and religion.

To be clear, we still maintain, without equivocation, that the Bible serves as the primary and final source of authority when it comes to matters of theological and religious conviction. And where opinions that are supposedly based on nature, providence, or the Spirit come into direct conflict with that which Scripture seems to explicitly reveal, we choose Scripture.

But the point in all this is that Adventism has never gone the way of many conservative and fundamentalist-type Protestant denominations, subscribing to a blind and naive biblicism that totally ignores or shuns the discoveries and perspectives of sources outside the Bible. We have always respected and given consideration to other sources of truth—such as science, nature, and experience—believing that all truth ultimately comes from God.

It’s why we educate physicians at Loma Linda University in the light of modern science, instead of using the Bible as our medical textbook. It’s why we encourage pastors to consult with biblical commentaries when they prepare sermons, and why we solicit the perspective of our sisters and brothers in Christ when trying to discern God’s will. It’s also why we read Ellen White.

Again, lest I’m misunderstood, we always give Scripture priority—even, or perhaps especially, when reading Ellen White. But we refuse to ignore the opinions and conclusions of experts in their various fields and have enough humility to realize that someone else reading the Bible—even 500 or 800 years ago—may have discovered something in its pages that we may have missed.

The implications of this are legion, and I could cite many examples. But I’m just glad, for one, that when I had surgery on my knee, the doctor used the best science available to him, vetted through the peer-review process. And I’m also glad that when I’ve wrestled with difficult life decisions, I haven’t been limited to consulting only with various Bible verses, but could also discern God’s will through prayer, wise counsel, and a sense of providential timing.

This is what it means to truly be about sola scriptura, recognizing that God reveals Himself primarily and ultimately through the Bible—but also through other channels of communication.

[1] Alexander Campbell, “Reply,” Christian Baptist 3, no. 9 (April 1826): 204.

[2] Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1956), p. 93.

[3] Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1900, 1941), p. 125.