7

While the concept may have existed far prior, a recent discussion has left me wondering - What is the earliest documented usage of the term "Sola Scriptura" in Christian writings. I am not interested in articulation of the concept, but instead of the first documented usage of this specific and actual phrase in reference to the doctrine (not just coincidental usage) - so please be sure to include a quote in your answer.

curiousdannii
  • 20,140
  • 14
  • 58
  • 126
James Shewey
  • 2,636
  • 1
  • 21
  • 35

2 Answers2

5

In 1520 Luther wrote the following in his defense against the bull of Pope Leo X:

Nolo omnium doctior iactari, sed solam scripturam regnare, nec eam meo spiritu aut ullorum hominum interpretari, sed per seipsam et suo spiritu intelligi volo. (WA 7:98.40–99.2)

Mark D. Thompson gives this translation:

I do not want to throw out all those more learned [than I], but Scripture alone to reign, and not to interpret it by my own spirit or the spirit of any man, but I want to understand it by itself and its spirit.

I've also found this section in Luther's introduction to his Defense and Explanation of All the Articles (1521) (From Luther's Works, vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, pp. 11, 12.) (OCRed text, some typos fixed)

This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the holy teachers of the church. I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred. This St. Paul bids me to do in 1 Thess. 5:21, where he says, "Test everything; hold fast what is good." St. Augustine writes to St. Jerome to the same effect, "I have learned to do only those books that are called the holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has ever erred. All others I so read as not to hold what they say to be the truth unless they prove it to me by holy Scripture or clear reason."

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men's books and human teachers.

Luther here discusses several related doctrines, which today we might discuss more distinctly: the clarity of scripture, the principle of scripture interpreting scripture, and the inerrancy of scripture. But I've highlighted in bold what I think expresses the modern Protestant understanding of sola scriptura: the supreme spiritual authority of scripture, the only judge of all doctrines and writings of men.

The translation here says "scripture alone", but I have not yet confirmed whether the Latin would be basically the same as sola scriptura or whether it's something else.

curiousdannii
  • 20,140
  • 14
  • 58
  • 126
1

The first documented usage of the specific and actual phrase ''Sola Scriptura'' in reference to the doctrine was as late as the 20th century.

The solas were not systematically articulated together until the 20th century. But sola gratia and sola fide were used in conjunction by the Reformers themselves. For example, in 1554 Melanchthon wrote, "sola gratia justificamus et sola fide justificamur" ("only by grace do you justify and only by faith are we justified"). All of the solas show up in various writings by the Protestant Reformers, but they are not catalogued together by any.

In 1916, Lutheran scholar Theodore Engelder published an article titled "The Three Principles of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fides", ("only scripture, only grace, only faith"). In 1934, theologian Emil Brunner substituted Soli Deo gloriam for Sola Scriptura.In 1958, historian Geoffrey Elton, summarizing the work of John Calvin, wrote that Calvin had "joined together" the "great watchwords." Elton listed sola fide with sola gratia as one term, followed by sola scriptura and soli Deo gloria. (source).

According to Protestants,

These “five solas” were developed in response to specific perversions of the truth that were taught by the corrupt Roman Catholic Church. (source).

R. Brown
  • 6,441
  • 4
  • 32
  • 62
  • 1
    The sufficiency of scripture is very much a distinct doctrine from sola scriptura. But I think your Gregory of Nyssa quote is talking about sola scriptura proper. – curiousdannii May 16 '20 at 14:49
  • what do you mean by sola scriptura exactly? can ypu give me a source/reference? I had read that sola scriptura is about the sufficiency of Scripture in Christian doctrines/teachings and ethics/morals. – R. Brown May 16 '20 at 14:52
  • Doesn't the question ask for sola scriptura as used by Protestants/ sola scriptura proper, and not as Aquinas/Catholics use and understand the term ('coincidental usage')? – Sola Gratia May 16 '20 at 14:52
  • 1
    The Westminster Confession 1.10 is a good concise definition (for how I've always heard it defined, there may be people who define it differently): "The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." – curiousdannii May 16 '20 at 14:56
  • Sola Gratia, we Protestants accept traditions from other Christians (early church fathers etc.) as long as it does not contradict our belief in Sola Scriptura. We Protestants define Sola Scriptura (obviously not the Catholics). The coincidental usage in my answer is consistent with Protestant usage. Aquinas also believed in the Trinity just as we Protestants do. The Bible, the early church fathers and Aquinas have sola scriptura concept that is consistent with Protestant concept of sola scriptura and therefore, my answer is accurate, responds faithfully to question of James Shewey. – R. Brown May 16 '20 at 14:58
  • 1
    Frankly, I am uninterested in Protestantism vs. Catholicism. The quote needn't be from a protestant source. That being said, the most common origin of this are the five solas of the reformation. These are attributed to Martin Luther. While I have no doubt these ideas were ones that he championed, I do not believe he used that terminology. Nor do I think the person who first articulated the five solas was the coiner of sola scriptura - I'm guessing these were culled together from multiple sources. – James Shewey May 16 '20 at 15:04
  • @Curiousdanni, thank you for the reference. why do you think sola scriptura does not include sufficiency of Scripture in teaching all doctrines and morals? – R. Brown May 16 '20 at 15:05
  • 1
    @RadzMatthewC.Brown It's more that it stands beside sola scriptura. It's very possible to say that the Bible contains all the knowledge we need for salvation while also believing that tradition, reason, or experience have equal authority or even higher authority than the scriptures. I think most Catholics would probably affirm that the Bible contains all the knowledge required to come to faith in God, but of course they deny sola scriptura. Both are important doctrines, but they're distinct ones. – curiousdannii May 16 '20 at 15:08
  • @James, I will edit my answer to add that info. Yes. Luther did not coin the exact phrase "sola scriptura" but he did teach it. No one needs an exact phrase to teach a biblical truth. The apostles who wrote the New Testament never used the exact same word "Trinity". The word "trinity" came only in the 2nd century yet it was taught by the apostles. – R. Brown May 16 '20 at 15:09
  • 1
    @RadzMatthewC.Brown Sola is Latin for alone (the sole source) as in no other form of tradition can be an infallible source of Christian doctrine, whereas sufficiency can mean either materially sufficient (Scripture is clear enough in what it says to convey or imply strongly enough what unwritten/lived tradition says for sure) or formal sufficiency (the Protestant doctrine that all Christian doctrine is formally given in Scripture and nothing else is strictly binding). Sola Scriptura doesn't mean 'prima Scripture' (Scripture comes first) as Protestants suggest. At least in practice. – Sola Gratia May 16 '20 at 15:12
  • @curiousdannii, i agree. Scripture itself says that the church is the pillar and ground of truth. But the church father Irenaeus says that Scripture is the pillar and ground of truth too. Here we see that church and Scripture are equal. The Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura does not deny that other texts contain truth (e.g. Nicene Creed) and the church has the truth (the church itself chose which texts are to be accepted as truth (e.g. the New Testament). – R. Brown May 16 '20 at 15:14
  • I agree. No one needs an exact phrase to teach a biblical truth, however my question was really designed to answer when/how this phrase became popular, who coined the term, and why. – James Shewey May 16 '20 at 15:17
  • @Solagratia, exactly. Sola Scriptura is accepting only the inspired/canonical Scripture as the only rule of faith without denying other truths found in other texts (non-inspired). Even Aquinas has a unique version of Sola Scriptura (only the canonical scripture). Nothing is wrong with Sola Scriptura as it is consistent even with the Sola Scripture version of the New Testament itself (2 Tim 3:16-17). The very important thing is not the phrase sola scripture but its concept which is present not only in Protestants but also in other traditions. – R. Brown May 16 '20 at 15:19
  • Sola Scriptura as a doctrine of the formal sufficiency of Scripture was not believed until the Reformation, which is why the Reformation happened. You wouldn't need a reformation if Sola Scriptura was ever Christian doctrine, because there would be no deviance from it; any deviance would be clear apostasy, and yet the apostasy historically is the things rejected novelly by the Reformers, not the things held perennially. Proof that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is not teaching formal sufficiency of Scripture (Protestant Sola Scriptura) is that half of the Bible hadn't been written yet). – Sola Gratia May 16 '20 at 15:22
  • Also, to put it simply, if you think Thomas Aquinas believed in Sola Scriptura, quite plainly you've never read any of his works. – Sola Gratia May 16 '20 at 15:22
  • @solagratia, you misunderstood my comment. I did not say that Aquinas was teaching Protestant sola scriptura. You simply read that into my words. You misinterpreted my words. Please read my words in context. Aquinas himself explicitly talked about *"sola canonica scriptura"* and i respected his own definition of it. What I am only saying is that the concept parallels with that of the Protestants in some elements. – R. Brown May 16 '20 at 15:49
  • It doesn't in the main element, which is my point, namely, the rejection of Apostolic Tradition as a source of divine revelation to be adhered to on par with Scripture, as Catholics before and after him always held. – Sola Gratia May 16 '20 at 15:50
  • @James Shewey, thank you for clarifying. I edited my answer, responding exactly to what your question is. – R. Brown May 16 '20 at 15:51
  • @Solagratia, that is why i said some elements. i did not say the main element. You misunderstood my comment again. Everyone here can read and verify what i wrote. – R. Brown May 16 '20 at 15:52