Truth Unites - What Does Sola Scriptura Even Mean?

Episode Date: March 9, 2026

Gavin Ortlund explains that sola Scriptura doesn’t mean Scripture is the only authority in the church, but that it is the supreme and infallible rule by which all other authorities are measured in matters of faith and practice.Truth Unites (https://truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites, Visiting Professor of Historical Theology at Phoenix Seminary, and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.SUPPORT:Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunitesFOLLOW:Website: https://truthunites.org/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/truth.unites/X: https://x.com/gavinortlundFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/

I've often said that Sola Scriptura is at the heart of Protestantism, but sometimes Protestants are charged with having different contradictory definitions of Sola Scriptura. What does this idea even mean? And so I want to address that in this video. I think our historic traditions in their official teachings have agreement on Sola Scriptura. And so in this video, I want to give a few comments targeting the definition of Sola Scriptura that I think basically all confessional Protestants can unite behind. This is on my mind over the last few hours, because Sean Luke was filling me in on some of the way this conversation is playing out. By the way, if you don't know Sean's YouTube channel, Anglican Aesthetics, great YouTube

channel, check it out. I'll link in the description. But he was saying some people want to point to older Protestant formulations that tend to say scripture is the only rule of faith, or soul rule of faith, slight variation in the actual wording. And this causes confusion because today you'll often hear people say scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. this is my own preferred shorthand definition for reasons that will come out in this video

and I'll return and give a longer definition at the end of this video. But you can see how the presence or absence of that adjective infallible can seem like a contradiction. And I haven't really followed this discussion, but briefly, just want to show that these are simply two different ways of saying substantially the same thing, because the word rule entails infallibility. To give a metaphor, if somebody said, Abraham Lincoln wasn't the president, he was the chief executive. You would say, that's the same thing, right? Same here. Rule of faith,

infallible rule of faith, two different ways of articulating the same thing. One of the ways you can see this is if you just read our great Protestant forbearers who will in the very same work not only use both slogans. So on one page, they'll be saying the scripture is the only rule of faith. On the next page, they'll say it's the only infallible rule of faith, which shows that they don't perceive these to be contradictory, but not only that, they will also, on occasion, explicitly define the word rule as meaning an infallible rule, as entailing perfection and infallibility in its very meaning. That's what they meant by rule. They were using the word rule in an epistemological sense as the final authority for Christian knowledge, not in an ecclesial

sense, like saying presbyters ruled the church or something like that. Let me just work through this and document this. For example, the Anglican theologian William Whittaker in his 1588 text, a disputation on Holy Scripture. It's a very early text, 16th century, very key Protestant text concerning the doctrine of Scripture. And throughout this volume, he's calling Scripture both the only rule of faith and the only infallible rule of faith. For example, in expounding the rationale for the scriptures being called canonical in the early church, he describes scripture as a necessary, perfect, and infallible rule of all faith and religion. And then he'll frequently call it also just the rule of faith. So now, so we can ask, you know, is he contradicting himself

when he goes from calling it the rule of faith to the infallible rule of faith, where he means one thing by one definition and another by the other? No, because he just tells us what he means by rule, and it entails infallibility and perfection. So he says, a rule is a perfect and infallible rule. That's what we mean by that word. So, for example, when he's responding to the Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine, he identifies Bellarmine's position that scripture is only a partial rather than a complete rule, as you can see on screen. And in his response, basically what he's saying is there's no such thing as a partial rule. And in the context of this, you can see what he means by this word. Quote, for unless scripture be a whole and perfect rule, it cannot be a rule at all,

because there ought to be the exactest agreement between the rule and the thing to which it is applied. If, therefore, our faith be longer or broader than the scripture, than the scripture is not its rule, because a rule should be adequate to the thing measured by it. A rule is thus defined by Varanus. A rule is an infallible measure admitting no addition or diminution. So, theophilact upon Philippians 3, a rule or standard admits neither addition nor abstraction. That last quote is from an 11th century Byzantine archbishop and biblical commentator. But the first one was, it appears to be from everything I can tell, from a Renaissance humanist scholar who's more contemporary to Whittaker.

So Whittaker is basically just drawing from their usage of the word rule, because the word rule, like the word canon, is not just used in Christian contexts. It has a technical meaning in other contexts as well. after those two quotes would take her quotes, Basel and John Chrysostom and one other person, I forget, and his conclusion is, thus it is manifest that the scriptures are either a perfect rule or no rule at all. By the way, the word perfect or perfection is often used historically with resonance to what we mean by sufficient or sufficiency. So but from this last quote, let me put it up again and just read it. The scriptures are either a perfect rule or no rule at all. What he's saying is a rule is the same thing.

as a perfect and infallible rule. And you saw the word infallible there as well. That's just what the word rule means. You know, imagine if you're bragging to your neighbor and you say, the beginning of your conversation, my son aced his test. And then at the end of the conversation, you say, my son aced his test with a perfect score. Your neighbor would not then go and report to his wife. Wow, he just contradicted himself. First, he said he aced it. And then he said he aced it with a perfect score because that's just two different ways of saying the same thing. Same with, rule and infallible rule. So now, Whitaker, he's a representative starting point example, but this use of the word rule is standard, and therefore there is no contradiction between

Protestants sometimes saying rule of faith, other times infallible rule of faith. They mean the same thing. And that is why you'll find language about scripture as an infallible rule all throughout historic Protestantism, just like you'll find language about it just being a rule of faith. The Belgian confession will speak of Scripture as this infallible rule. The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 will claim Holy Scripture is the sufficient, certain, and infallible rule. Francis Turriton will call Scripture the first and infallible truth and rule of faith. And he uses these kinds of adjectives, typically first or supreme on the one hand, and infallible, on the other hand, those two together, supreme and infallible, first and infallible,

to distinguish the Protestant position from the Roman Catholic one, as you can see either not just in that passage, but here in this one, I'll give another representative example, where he's framing the difference, Catholic to Protestant, as whether not, whether any judgment belongs to the church and its officers in controversies of faith. Rather, the question concerns only the supreme and infallible judgment by which everything must necessarily stand or fall, whether this belongs to the scriptures themselves as we hold, or to some man or assembly composed of men as the papists maintain. End quote. So Turritin saw scripture as the supreme and autocratic judge and the church as a subordinate and ministerial judge. And this is what is implicit in Protestant argumentation

pretty much everywhere, even if you don't find the explicit adjective infallible. In most cases, infallibility is implicit in the definition of Sola Scriptura because of the logic. So, for example, you'll find a lot of logic like this. I'm just constructing the sentence of my own to summarize way too many things to cite, but I'll give one example. But you see the idea here. Scripture is the rule of faith because church councils can err. Now, if you think about that sentence and the logic there long enough. You're going to understand the reasoning here only works if rule here means a supreme and infallible norm. If it just meant one rule among others, then the fallibility of counsels would be irrelevant. So, for example, in the 39 articles,

Article 21 references the fallibility of general counsels. General counsels may err, and that's the basis then for distinguishing them from Scripture. So even if the infallibility of Scripture isn't stated explicitly, it's clear from the logic because the entire argument turns on this contrast that counsels can err. They can make mistakes. They're not infallible. And therefore, scripture does something that they cannot. And that's extremely common to find that kind of language in historic Protestant articulations.

Here's another kind of logic you'll find. Scripture is the rule of faith, and you must submit to such and such confession of faith. Now, obviously, in that sentence, rule cannot mean authority of any kind because of the simultaneous requirement of submitting to a confession. So it must mean something like a supreme or infallible or chief rule that's sort of implicit in the logic there. I'll just give one example of this. An interesting one right at the beginning of the Lutheran formula of Concord, there's

reference to scripture as the only rule and norm, common Lutheran term. there, but you see that elsewhere as well. And so you ask, okay, well, what do they mean by rule and norm? And you just read a little further and you see, right afterwards, there's reference to the apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and they declare we pledge ourselves to these symbols. So it's very clear that in saying only rule and norm, we're not saying only rule and norm of any kind. There's a distinction being drawn between one kind of supreme rule and norm and other lesser subordinate norms that are normed by the norming norm. Now, what some people want to do is they want to make this distinction not between infallibility and fallibility, but something else, like binding the

conscience. But I think infallibility is the way to make the distinction here. And there are two problems with reducing rule of faith to just that which binds the conscience, which is another way you'll see the distinction drawn here. First, that is not, that binding the conscience is only one part of what the phrase rule of faith historically meant. And second, and this is the key point, that actually obscures the issue of what kind of binding the conscience are we talking about. That's where Protestants and Catholics and Protestants and others will differ. So to take those two points in turn, historically, the language of rule and norm is first about measurement. It's a standard, by which something is tested and calibrated and judged and so forth. It's about determining whether

a doctrine aligns with the apostolic faith. In that sense, the concept is epistemic before it is coercive. It concerns the standard by which truth is known and disputes are resolved, not only the authority by which commands are enforced. So that's important to get the full context of what historically we've meant with a phrase like rule or rule of faith. It's not just what it binds the conscience. But secondly, and more importantly, insofar as a rule of faith does bind the conscience, there are different kinds of binding. So where we differ, Protestant to the non-Protestant traditions in general, is not whether church functions can bind the conscience, but with what kind of binding. There's a difference between divine and infallible binding versus a ministerial derivative binding,

which is real but fallible and courageable. Sometimes comments on my videos give the impression that people have more of a one-register view of authority, such that if something binds the conscience in any sense, then it must be a part of the rule of faith. But Protestants have historically distinguished between authority that binds because it is itself the Word of God, has its own inherent authority,

and authority that binds because it is a lawful, ecclesial application of God's work. So, for example, a church elder can bind the conscience when applying scripture, but that binding will be derivative and fallible. It does not create any new doctrine and its authority is derived from what God has already revealed. So the Protestant claim is not only scripture binds, but the claim is rather only scripture binds infallibly and as the supreme rule with respect to the church. So that's the distinction, and that's why we feel the adjective infallible is so critical to demarcate our beliefs from their major alternatives. Now, none of this entails that there are zero infallible entities in the universe other than the

Bible. Okay, remember the phrase rule of faith is a technical term. So even when we speak of the rule of faith, we're not claiming scripture is the only infallible entity that can ever exist. That's why we include the phrase rule of the church, only infallible rule of the church. So the upshot of all this is this is a good definition. Only infallible rule of the church. That's what, if you got lost there, this is the cash value here. You want to define solo scriptura. This is true to the major Protestant and traditions. This is a collapsing down conceptually into a clear but faithful articulation of this, that scripture is the only infallible rule of the church. And each word there carries a lot of meaning and its technicality to it. If you want to, because

the adjective infallible is so critical because it reminds us that historic Protestants have distinguished between the rule that norms all other authorities and authorities, which are real, but they are normed by that rule. So we have to be able to make that distinction. Infallible is the best adjective, I think we have to do that in a shorthand definition. Now, if someone watching this is saying, well, that's too fine-grained a distinction, you have all these different registers of authority. I mean, I think I just need to say all of our traditions do that. Roman Catholics, for example, also distinguish between dogmatic definitions versus authoritative but reformable teachings. So there's no way around a little bit of nuance here

with this word authority in different registers of authority. But in a pinch, it's faith. and it's true to say, only infallible rule of the church is the definition of Solis Sculptura. Now, you could expand that. You could say only infallible rule for the church's faith and practice, for example. That would be giving a little more flesh and texture to it. If you wanted a fuller definition, maybe we go with something like this. Scripture alone is the divinely inspired and therefore infallible rule that normatively governs the church's faith and practice. If you really want to then make it crystal clear, you say all other authorities are real and binding, but subordinate and courageable.

Now, if you want to do a little deeper dive into this, this question is tricky, the precise definition of the term Soliscriptura. The best thing I found on this is from this older book, 1994 Erdman's book, a collection of essays. Every now and again, you find something tucked away somewhere that's just really helpful. and I think Tony Lane's article, Sola Scriptura, making sense of a post-Reformation slogan in this book is really helpful. He's very clear to distinguish material sufficiency from Sola Scriptura, distinct ideas, but he's also, and he tends to use the language of final authority, rather than infallible authority. But that's the difference of emphasis. He does a great job just kind of rooting this in historic Protestant confessions and theologians and so forth.

And he kind of works through this at greater length than I have done. this would be a great next stop if you want to explore this topic more briefly. So I hope this video is kind of helpful in these broader discussions, conceptually clarifying on the definition of Sola Scriptura. Thanks for watching, everybody.