Sola Scriptura is Essential to Complementarians, Part 1

Molly Aley is a homeschooling mother of five, undergraduate psychology student, lover of God, Alaska resident and self-described "99% egalitarian" blogger. I'm grateful for the common grace of the Internet that allows people around the globe to carry on a Christian dialogue about significant issues. In a recent post entitled My Disassembling Protestantism: Sola Scriptura, Molly shared her understanding of Scripture:

And so here's where I get thrown out of the camp and dragged to the stake, but it seems silly not to be honest only for the sake of group think. Fact is, I'm fed up with Sola Scriptura.

I found her entire post provided several clarifying insights that distinguish my understanding of the complementarian position from her egalitarian position. My goal for the next two days is not to pillory Molly, but to highlight these distinctions so that my presuppositions may be clearly known and to clarify for mutual readers one reason why we might not see eye-to-eye on gender issues.

Specifically, I believe that Sola Scriptura is essential to the complementarian position. We would not ever understand the equal value and the complementary roles of men and women apart from revelation in the Bible.

Fans of Martin Luther will remember that Sola Scriptura is a Latin phrase meaning "Scripture alone" and was a fundamental tenet of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. It asserts that the Bible alone (not the Bible along with church tradition) is both clear and sufficient to guide individual believers in all matters of living out the Christian life.

In her blog, Molly asks the following two questions:

First Question: Does the Bible say that it is the final authority of Christian doctrine?

Second Question: Is the Bible clear to the rational reader?

She argues that if the Bible were both clear to rational readers and the final authority of Christian doctrine, then we would no longer have deep and lasting disagreements in the body of Christ. Therefore, the existence of such divisions in the church raise questions about the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture. She says:

Complimentarians and Egalitarians both find their position from Scripture. The Arminian and Calvinist positions both claim they are found in the clear teaching of the Bible. Charismatic and non-Charismatic both base their stance on the Scriptures. The Church of Christ claims it best reflects God's desire for the way "church" ought to be, but then again, so does the Baptist and the Pentecostal, and all three of them point to the Bible for "proof" that they are right.

And finally, she asks:

Was the Bible ever supposed to be clear? That's what I'm wondering.

I would humbly, yet boldly assert that the Bible is clear and sufficient. It is God's proclamation of the good news of salvation made available through the death of Jesus Christ and serves as a guide for Christian life and conduct.  The Bible alone is the ultimate authority over the believer's conscience.

Is the Bible clear? It certainly claims to be. By God's grace, it is the Word of God that helps simple people like me become wise: "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple (italics mine, Psalm 19:7). The Bible must be understandable because it imparts understanding to simple people (Psalm 119:30). Further, God's words are assumed to be accessible in Deuteronomy 6:6-7 where all parents are commanded to teach them to children and discuss them throughout the daily activities of life. Therefore, seminary can be helpful, but is not required to understand the Bible.

Does the Bible claim to be the final authority on Christian doctrine? Well, the Bible claims to be the very words of God, and God does not lie (Deuteronomy 18:18-22, Titus 1:2). To disobey the words of the Bible is equal to disobeying God himself. A claim to authority from within Scripture itself is not a never-ending circular argument, but an appeal to the highest attestation because there is no greater authority than God. Jesus and the other New Testament authors recognize the Old Testament as true and binding (John 5:45-47, Hebrews 1:1-2, and many others). Peter and Paul also recognize New Testament writings as the authoritative Word of God ( II Peter 3:15-16, I Timothy 5:18).

In this light, what does the divide between egalitarians and complementarians, Arminians and Calvinists, and many others tell us about the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture? In Bible Doctrine, Wayne Grudem concludes:

But in no case are we free to say that the teaching of the Bible on any subject is confusing or incapable of being understood correctly. In no case should we think that persistent disagreements on some subject in the history of the Church mean that we will be unable to come to a correct conclusion on that subject ourselves. Rather, if a genuine concern about some such subject arises in our lives we should sincerely ask God's help and then go to Scripture, searching it with all our ability, believing that God will enable us to understand rightly. (p. 53)

Sola Scriptura is essential to the complementarian position, and the long-standing existence of the gender debate does not cast any doubt on the clarity or sufficiency of the Scriptures. Tomorrow we will explore the implications of this key difference in presuppositions.