Answer
Sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura are distinct approaches to the authority and interpretation of Scripture. The Latin phrase sola Scriptura means “by Scripture alone.” Solo Scriptura means “Scripture alone.” There is a subtle but important difference.
Sola Scriptura, as one of the five solas, was a key principle of the Reformation. It asserts that Scripture alone is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice. Solo Scriptura, on the other hand, posits that Scripture is the only authority, dismissing historical creeds, confessions, and biblical traditions. That is, Scripture stands alone to the extent that its authority nullifies all historic creeds and confessions of the church, making them useless and nonbinding. We believe that sola Scriptura is the better position.
Advocates of sola Scriptura believe that Scripture is the highest authority, but they also believe in the subordinate importance of historical creeds, confessions, and biblical traditions. The Reformers, especially Martin Luther and John Calvin, argued for a return to Scripture as the primary authority. However, Luther and Calvin did not reject biblical traditions. For this reason, they supported the use of creeds and confessions, believing they helped us to understand Scripture. This position is advanced by the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says, “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).
On the contrary, advocates of solo Scriptura disregard historical creeds, confessions, and biblical traditions, resulting in an individualistic approach to understanding Scripture. Advocates of solo Scriptura therefore believe that the Bible can and should be interpreted apart from any external authority or influence, including the Apostles’ Creed, for example, or 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, insofar as they are grounded in Scripture. Paul himself valued apostolic traditions and the communal discernment of the church (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, such as Augustine and Athanasius, affirmed the authority of Scripture while also contributing to theological reflections that helped to define orthodoxy. This permitted the church to address heretical doctrines and clarify foundational Christian beliefs. Historical continuity only reinforces the sola Scriptura principle, demonstrating that interpretation of Scripture depends, at least in part, on faithful men and women who have blazed the trail for us.
Advocates of sola Scriptura are quick to note that even the best creeds, confessions, and traditions are subordinate to the Word of God. Scripture is the only infallible and inerrant document.
