MisUnderstanding: Sola Scriptura

In 2025, I assisted my local 14U football team by coaching the defensive line and becoming the defensive coordinator. One of the first things I tried teaching was a twist. A young, aspiring lineman who was new to football kept hearing me say “twist,” and he believed it meant a spin move (which is a valid pass-rush move). Instead, a twist is a stunt movement by two or more defensive linemen in which two players attack gaps by switching gap assignments after the ball is snapped.

Just as this lineman missed the intended meaning due to unclear communication and prior assumptions, some Advent Christians hear “Sola Scriptura” and assume it means “no creed but the Bible,” when the Reformers meant something more nuanced. Recent comments on the Advent Christian Voices blog have made clear that many misunderstand the meaning of Sola Scriptura and find this doctrine to be at odds with any and all attempts at confessional and creedal statements, including the Declaration of Principles and the Declaration of Principles 2026 proposed by the Executive Council and written by Tom Loghry. Let’s take a look at the meaning of Sola Scriptura, its importance as a foundational Reformation doctrine, its implications, and whether it is at odds with confessional belief.

What is Sola Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura is “a Latin phrase meaning 'Scripture alone.’ The phrase reflects a key principle of the Reformation, the idea that Scripture alone is authoritative for Christian doctrine, not Scripture plus church tradition.” (Mangum 2014)

Keith Mathison points out an important reality for us: “most Protestants have adopted a subjective and individualistic version of sola scriptura that bears little resemblance to the doctrine of the Reformers.” (Mathison 2001, 14) Sola Scriptura isn’t the rejection of creeds and confessions as summaries of faith from Scripture. Instead, Scripture alone is the authority over our doctrine. Our doctrine–Confessions and Creeds–is normed by Scripture.

This doctrine is meant as a theological retrieval by the Reformers of the early church’s belief that God’s Word directs their belief. Likewise, the early church developed creeds as summaries of essential biblical teachings meant to guide the church as they grow towards maturity. Throughout his work, Creeds of Christendom, Philip Schaff points out that the Apostle’s Creed includes nearly every line of previous creeds, dating as early as 140AD (The Old Roman Creed).

Where are the origins of Sola Scriptura?

During the Reformation, a spiritual battle raged over the authority of Scripture. As many reformers and pre-reformers endured persecution in their attempts to translate the Bible into the language of their congregations and shed the anchor of extrabiblical traditions such as penance and indulgences, the firm belief in Ad Fontes, or “to the sources,” began to take hold. While they firmly rejected traditions that contradicted or added to Scripture as binding, the Reformers retained and valued those faithful to Scripture, such as the early ecumenical creeds.

As Johann Tetzel shouted, “When a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs,” Luther and others began to reject Rome’s extrabiblical authority that abused the people. These heroes of the faith worked to translate the Scriptures and teach directly from God’s Word.

How important is Sola Scriptura?

One might read into the Reformation’s cry of Sola Scriptura as an effort to reject all of church tradition. You’d be mistaken. As Matthison points out, “Their desire was not to reject the Church or the apostolic faith; their desire was to remove the obvious accretions and abuses that had come to cripple the Church and obscure that faith. The Reformers were convinced that the Church must be reformed, not by being created from scratch, but by returning to her ancient beliefs and practices—including her ancient belief about the place of Scripture.” (Mathison 2001, 85)

In other words, Sola Scriptura is a call to theological retrieval, not rejection. Theology is naturally progressive in that we lean on the works of our forbears to continue the tradition of growing in our knowledge of God and his creation. Therefore, if we find errors, according to Scripture, in our forbearers' work, we are free to disagree on biblical grounds.

Can one be confessional and hold to Sola Scriptura?

Yes. The ecumenical creeds are authoritative because they derive their authority from Scripture. Similarly, the DOP26 is authoritative insofar as it is faithful to Scripture. If the Triennial Delegate Body adopts the DOP26, it does so in acknowledgment that they believe it is faithful to God’s Word and should be an authority on what we believe the Bible teaches.

One Last Thing

Good-faith communication requires that we attempt to understand an interlocutor in a way they can affirm before we present an argument against their position. Recent attempts to mischaracterize those with whom we disagree and to ignore their good-faith answers don’t advance the conversation on the DOP26 or any other matter pertinent to Christ’s Church.

Let’s come together to see the Gospel go out to the nations and work in good faith. We are not enemies. We are brothers and sisters in Christ who are known by our love for one another. Love doesn’t mean we disagree, but it does mean we do so with grace. Even if we disagree on the specifics of DOP26, let’s prioritize evaluating its biblical fidelity together.

Author’s Note

Some friends and colleagues have asked whether I’ve helped develop Loghry’s proposed Declaration of Principles 2026 (DOP26). I want to be clear, at no point have I provided Tom with any assistance. At times, probably to his dismay, I’ve offered caution and cynicism over whether it could pass or if this should be a primary concern right now, as we are falling off the cliff of our leadership crisis. Tom has proven me wrong at every turn. His work on the DOP26 far exceeds the accuracy and fidelity of our Advent Christian forbears in this area. I admire his efforts and skill. Tom represents Advent Christians with charity, winsomeness, and fervency that match the example of the early Adventists. 

Second, I have voted to endorse the original version of the DOP26 as the Eastern Regional Association Vice President and a member of the Heritage Advent Christian Conference Ministerial Committee. Although I disagree with the DOP26 Task Force’s decision to eliminate clauses meant to adopt the ecumenical creeds, I will vote in favor of the DOP26 at the 2026 Triennial because I believe it is faithful to the Scriptures and a much-improved DOP than what we currently have. 

Lastly, I encourage you to engage with Tom. Ask good questions in good faith. Seek to understand why Tom and others believe this is important. Evaluate the DOP26’s faithfulness to Scripture. Consider the hopeful future for our denomination that Tom and others envision, despite the negativity they’ve endured from people like you and me.