Reconsidering Sola Scriptura in Light of Church History
I used to believe that all anyone needed for salvation was the Bible—just the Bible, and nothing else. If something wasn’t explicitly mentioned in Scripture, I thought it had to be wrong. Sure, before the Bible was compiled into a canon, people relied on the teachings of the apostles. But once the Bible was complete, I figured that everything we needed to know had to be contained within its pages. There had to be a clear cutoff where nothing more could be added.
But as I started digging into church history, I discovered something that challenged that belief.
The Canon of Scripture Wasn’t Finalized at Nicaea
One of the first surprises came when I learned about the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. For years, I assumed that was when the biblical canon was finalized. But that’s not true. The Council of Nicaea didn’t decide on the contents of the Bible—it focused on key theological questions, like the nature of Christ’s divinity.
The canon of Scripture, as it turns out, wasn’t formally established until later—at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD and the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. And even then, the process wasn’t as cut-and-dried as I’d imagined.
This realization raised an unsettling question for me: If Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice, how do we reconcile the fact that the Bible itself wasn’t fully canonized until decades, even centuries, after Christ’s resurrection?
The Missing Books
As I dug deeper, I uncovered something even more shocking. The canon established by the early Church councils is different from what’s in many modern Bibles today. Several books—like the deuterocanonical books found in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles—were part of the original canon but are absent in many Protestant versions.
This led me to a stark realization: If someone decided to remove books from the canon centuries after it was established, can we still claim that the Bible, as we have it now, is the ultimate and complete authority? And even more troubling—where did they get the authority to change the canon in the first place? If the early Church, under the guidance of councils and tradition, determined the canon of Scripture, how could later generations presume to alter what was already established as authoritative?
This question shook me. It forced me to confront the uncomfortable truth that the Bible I had been reading might not be the full version of Scripture that early Christians knew and affirmed.
The Role of Tradition
This discovery challenged my understanding of Sola Scriptura. I had always thought that Scripture alone was sufficient. But if the Bible wasn’t even fully compiled for centuries, how did the early Church navigate matters of faith?
The answer is tradition. The early Christians relied on the teachings of the apostles, the oral tradition handed down through the Church, and the decisions of councils to guide their faith. Scripture was a part of this, but it wasn’t the sole source of authority in those formative years.
Even today, our interpretation of Scripture is influenced by traditions—whether we acknowledge them or not. From the creeds we recite to the way we organize our worship services, much of what we practice isn’t explicitly laid out in Scripture but is rooted in centuries of tradition.
Reconciling the Gaps
At first, I tried to dismiss these inconsistencies. I told myself, “Maybe these changes happened because the Church grew and had to adapt.” But deep down, I realized this wasn’t enough. If we believe the Bible is the ultimate authority, we have to grapple with the fact that its canon was shaped by Church councils—and that those councils were guided by tradition as much as by Scripture.
A New Perspective
This journey has profoundly reshaped my faith. It’s made me realize that Sola Scriptura isn’t as straightforward as I once thought. The Bible is a cornerstone of Christian faith, but it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Its compilation, interpretation, and application have always been deeply intertwined with tradition.
Rather than seeing this as a challenge to my faith, I now view it as an invitation to dig deeper—to not only read Scripture but also to understand the history and traditions that have shaped it. After all, faith isn’t just about knowing the right answers. It’s about seeking truth, even when it leads to uncomfortable questions.
Conclusion
If you’ve ever wrestled with questions about the foundation of your faith, know that you’re not alone. These challenges aren’t roadblocks; they’re opportunities to grow closer to God by seeking a fuller understanding of His Word and His Church. Perhaps it’s time we take a closer look at the traditions and teachings we’ve inherited. Are we truly following the faith as it was intended, or is there more to the story than we’ve realized?
And speaking of the story—if Scripture is truly all we need, have you ever wondered about the version of Scripture Jesus Himself read and affirmed as true? What can we learn from the texts He knew and trusted? Let’s dive into that in the next post.
#SolaScriptura, #ChurchHistory #CouncilOfNicaea #BiblicalCanon #EarlyChurch #ChristianTradition #ApostolicTeaching #BibleStudy #FaithChallenge #ScriptureAndTradition