What is the difference between sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura?

Answer

Sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura represent distinct approaches to the authority and interpretation of Scripture. The Latin term sola Scriptura means “by Scripture alone,” while solo Scriptura translates to “Scripture alone.” The difference between them is subtle yet significant.

Sola Scriptura, one of the five solas, stood as a fundamental principle of the Reformation. It proclaims that Scripture alone holds supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice. In contrast, solo Scriptura asserts that Scripture is the sole authority, disregarding historical creeds, confessions, and biblical traditions. In essence, Scripture stands independently to the extent that its authority invalidates all historical creeds and church confessions, rendering them ineffective and non-binding. We maintain that sola Scriptura presents the superior stance.

Supporters of sola Scriptura affirm Scripture as the highest authority while also recognizing the secondary significance of historical creeds, confessions, and biblical traditions. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated a return to Scripture as the primary authority but did not reject biblical traditions. Consequently, they endorsed the use of creeds and confessions, viewing them as aids in comprehending Scripture. This perspective finds support in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states, “The whole counsel of God . . . is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (1.6).

Conversely, proponents of solo Scriptura dismiss historical creeds, confessions, and biblical traditions, fostering an individualistic approach to interpreting Scripture. They contend that the Bible can and should be understood independently of any external authority or influence, including established statements of faith like the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Westminster Catechism.

Sola Scriptura teaches us to accept that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17;ESV). It also recognizes the value of other theological works, as long as they are grounded in Scripture. Paul himself valued apostolic traditions and the communal discernment of the church «But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. », (1 Timothy 3:15).

Ephesians 4:11–16 further illustrates the need for a communal interpretation of Scripture. In this passage, Paul writes that Christ distributed gifts, or offices, to the church, such as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The purpose of these gifts, Paul says, was “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (verse 12, ESV). This suggests that interpretation of Scripture should not be a purely individual task; rather, it should be facilitated by God-appointed leaders within the church. Such a model guards against the individualism of solo Scriptura.

The early church fathers, like Augustine and Athanasius, affirmed the authority of Scripture while also contributing to theological reflections that helped to define orthodoxy. This allowed the church to address heretical doctrines and clarify foundational Christian beliefs. Historical continuity only reinforces the sola Scriptura principle, showing that interpretation of Scripture depends, at least in part, on faithful men and women who have paved the way for us.

Advocates of sola Scriptura are quick to point out that even the best creeds, confessions, and

d Traditions are subservient to the Word of God. Scripture is the sole infallible and inerrant document.