Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[GDL]

But the fathers came from an entire, well, tradition, of beliefs amd practices-a way doing things-that predated the New Testament writings

Predated the NT Writings? Oral beliefs not in Scripture? In glancing through the links I posted, it seemed like dealing with Scripture was common practice, some even dealing with OC Scripture.

18 million can be quantity vs. quality.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I recently watched a debate on Sola Scriptura, which admittedly wasn't very good. That said, the argument Jimmy Akin gave is succinct and incisive:

P1. Sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must be derivable from Scripture.​

P2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.​

C1. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be derivable from Scripture.​

P3. But Sola Scriptura is not derivable from Scripture.​

C2. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and hence false.​

What do you think?

For those who defend Sola Scriptura, which of the three premises of the argument would you attack and why?

I would really like for this to be a thread about this particular argument, so I will redirect or ignore responses that do not address it. That said, inevitably users will post other arguments for or against Sola Scriptura and derail the thread until the cows come home. Oh well!

P1: agree; P2: agree; C1:agree P3: disagree:
Proverbs says...do not add to His words
I Corinthians says...do not go beyond what is written
II, or maybe it's III, John says...
Anyone who runs ahead and does not stay in the teachings of Jesus does not have God.
P3: no proof offered...only those who aren't too interested in actually reading and learning Scripture might be persuaded with no proof.
C2...again, a nothing response.

 

[fhansen]

Predated the NT Writings? Oral beliefs not in Scripture? In glancing through the links I posted, it seemed like dealing with Scripture was common practice, some even dealing with OC Scripture.

That’s not the point. The church predated new testament writings. There was already a tradition of practices and beliefs in place before the NT writings and the earliest of the fathers were directly exposed to that. And to this day we’re still exposed to it. The ancient historical churches are not first and foremost Scripture-based, but simply revelation-based. The concept of Sola Scriptura was and is nonsense, important as Scripture is.

 

[fhansen]

18 million can be quantity vs. quality.

I didn’t say otherwise; I only said there are a lot of words there to cherry pick from if one seeks to be selective in their ECF research. Having said that, if one would read only a random fraction of those words objectively most would nonetheless end up being enriched overall and impressed in their opinions about the ECFs as well as most likely changed in their understanding of the faith.

 

[GDL]

That’s not the point. The church predated new testament writings. There was already a tradition of practices and beliefs in place before the NT writings and the earliest of the fathers were directly exposed to that. And to this day we’re still exposed to it. The ancient historical churches are not first and foremost Scripture-based, but simply revelation-based. The concept of Sola Scriptura was and is nonsense, important as Scripture is.

We'll have to disagree that Scripture vs. various oral traditions that men may have, make, and favor is not the point. You also did not address whether or not most of the ECF writings I posted were dealing with interpretation of Scripture or even in unanimous agreement. I'll go back and look when I have the desire to.

There was an evolving integration of races in the first century with Gentiles attending synagogues and new local assemblies being established mainly by Jewish Apostles and those trained by them. Then the destruction of the Temple in AD70. As I said, there were also departures from The Faith of Christ and false doctrines & gospels being dealt with per the NC Writings. Personally, I have difficulty seeing synagogue turning into the Catholic Mass and the traditions go from the Jewish Paul who charged Christians to imitate him and avoid traditions of men to the Roman version of The Faith, and from a Torah loving people to an anti-Jewish religious hierarchy that kept writings to itself and demanded people convert to it claiming that it was the only way to Christ - the only Church. Even now you are calling it the Church. So, does that mean all other denominations are not the Church and we must all submit to Rome? All other traditions are not the Tradition? The Body of Christ - the Household of God - the Ekklesia of God - Christ's Ekklesia is Rome? Surely fhansen, you haven't gone there, have you?

You're more versed in the ECF than I and I've enjoyed much of what you have to say in some of the theological discussions. I've no doubt there are some good things to be derived from their 18 million words. On the other hand, there are way too many that long for the true Apostolic Ekklesia - the foundation of Christ and the Apostles & Prophets. I currently agree that Rome is not it and that succession is unfounded and that some of Rome's other traditions are just not worth the time to even think about.

Honestly, I have no desire for any of the traditions but those I can glean from the Text and the continual work to help interpret the Text. Even though I don't live by the terminology of various traditions, including Reformation terminology, I'm comfortable just remaining with the Bible and facing judgment with verses like John12:48. I have zero leading from the Text or the Spirit to join Rome. If I don't see it in the Word or get a sense of leading and guidance in Spirit, then IMO I'm not required to join any denominational tradition and am free to work to understand OC & NC writers as it seems the NC writers were doing to a large degree with the Hebrew Scriptures even post ascension.

So, I don't view SS as "nonsense" nor do I live by the various definitions of it, nor even by the terminology SS, nor by what SF seems to have been turned into by some, nor by the ECF. Rather than sorting through the 18 million words of the ECF, I still chose to sort through the 300k+ words of the NC Writings and the OC Scripture. As to the question of this OP, I'm not sure I care. Scripture is not self-refuting. The Spirit does not refute Scripture. Talk to any man long enough and he will self-contradict and self-refute and inevitably misinterpret Scripture. The Scripture and the Spirit are the epitome of what we've got of Truth. I see no reason to think otherwise at this point.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Let’s see if the Word “church” has been added here and God’s Church are those who follow His Word.

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. If Jesus wanted to say “the Church” here instead of “you” He would have said so.

The word “you” is not the definition of church. It is a person.

It appears that the 'you' of these chapters is the Twelve and not just anybody. Do you believe that the 'you' there specifically includes you? It may not. Just sayin'. The context matters.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

It appears that the 'you' of these chapters is the Twelve and not just anybody. Do you believe that the 'you' there specifically includes you? It may not. Just sayin'. The context matters.

Jesus also said If you love Me, keep My commandments John 14:15 in this same passage, which doesn't mean only the 12 apostles are to keep and the rest of us can profane. Everything in scripture is for our teaching, training, instruction and correction 2 Timothy 3:16. I am sorry you do not think the Holy Spirit speaks to individuals, but that has not been my personal experience or millions of others. I think one way we receive more of the Holy Spirit is through our obedience to Him John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So, I don't view SS as "nonsense" nor do I live by the various definitions of it, nor even by the terminology SS, nor by what SF seems to have been turned into by some, nor by the ECF. Rather than sorting through the 18 million words of the ECF, I still chose to sort through the 300k+ words of the NC Writings and the OC Scripture. As to the question of this OP, I'm not sure I care. Scripture is not self-refuting. The Spirit does not refute Scripture. Talk to any man long enough and he will self-contradict and self-refute and inevitably misinterpret Scripture. The Scripture and the Spirit are the epitome of what we've got of Truth. I see no reason to think otherwise at this point.

I think all of us in this discussion, at least so far, hold a high view of Scripture. That Scripture is not self-refuting, that the Spirit does not refute Scripture. Some of us believe that the 'Sola' part of 'Sola Scriptura' is a misrepresentation of Scripture, a theological novum, and in fact a departure from Scripture and not found in Scripture or Tradition or the Magisterium of the Church. That it sprung from the mind of Martin Luther alone.

I think in the minds of many who might disagree with that thought the 'Sola' has so merged with the 'Scriptura' that you think denying the 'Sola' is denying the 'Scriptura'. Not the case at all. In fact, some of us, following Catholic teaching about Scripture as found in Dei Verbum (Dei Verbum -The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of Vatican II) from Vatican II. Here is but a snippet from that text:

"Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: “For the word of God is living and active” (Heb. 4:12) and “it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13)."

 

[chevyontheriver]

Jesus also said If you love Me, keep My commandments John 14:15 in this same passage, which doesn't mean only the 12 apostles are to keep and the rest of us can profane.

Of course not. Those are for all of us. And not just found here. But Jesus needed to bring home to the Twelve that they had better practice what they preach.

Everything in scripture is for our teaching, training, instruction and correction 2 Timothy 3:16.

Not everything is for everybody in the same way. We are not all apostles, not all prophets, not all teachers.

I am sorry you do not think the Holy Spirit speaks to individuals,

Have you somehow read my mind? I think not.

But that has not been my personal experience or millions of others.

And my experience. But I have not been told some things appropriate for others. And I do not pretend I am an apostle or a prophet or a teacher. They have different callings and different gifts even though they have the same Lord.

I think one way we receive more of the Holy Spirit is through our obedience to Him John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32.

We don't hear much when disobeying.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Of course not. Those are for all of us. And not just found here. But Jesus needed to bring home to the Twelve that they had better practice what they preach.

Not everything is for everybody in the same way. We are not all apostles, not all prophets, not all teachers.

Have you somehow read my mind? I think not.

And my experience. But I have not been told some things appropriate for others. And I do not pretend I am an apostle or a prophet or a teacher. They have different callings and different gifts even though they have the same Lord.

We don't hear much when disobeying.

Where in the scripture does it say you have to be a teacher, prophet or apostle to receive the Holy Spirit? I am glad you agree that the commandments are for all of us, and Jesus said those who keep His commandments receive the Spirit of Truth. John 14:15-18 so I trust the promises of Jesus.

 

[GDL]

I think all of us in this discussion, at least so far, hold a high view of Scripture. That Scripture is not self-refuting, that the Spirit does not refute Scripture. Some of us believe that the 'Sola' part of 'Sola Scriptura' is a misrepresentation of Scripture, a theological novum, and in fact a departure from Scripture and not found in Scripture or Tradition or the Magisterium of the Church. That it sprung from the mind of Martin Luther alone.

I think in the minds of many who might disagree with that thought the 'Sola' has so merged with the 'Scriptura' that you think denying the 'Sola' is denying the 'Scriptura'. Not the case at all. In fact, some of us, following Catholic teaching about Scripture as found in Dei Verbum (Dei Verbum -The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of Vatican II) from Vatican II. Here is but a snippet from that text:

"Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: “For the word of God is living and active” (Heb. 4:12) and “it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13)."

Thank you for your input. I know from other discussions with @fhansen that he too has a high regard for Scripture. Your input on the "Sola" matter is helpful. In reading some definitions of SS, it's clear that its adherents have a high regard for the work of the Spirit. I've also seen that over time some of the original meanings of some things from Luther took on some modifications. This is one of the reasons I normally just disregard the use of such terminology and don't function by such things. I think we begin opening up the arguments when we start talking about traditions and authorities.

Thanks again.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Where in the scripture does it say you have to be a teacher, prophet or apostle to receive the Holy Spirit?

It does not. Where would you get the idea that I thought THAT? The Holy Spirit ministers to us individually as well as corporately. And we all have our callings within the Body of Christ. That does not mean we are all called to be the same, nor that we receive the same gifts.

I am glad you agree that the commandments are for all of us, and Jesus said those who keep His commandments receive the Spirit of Truth. John 14:15-18 so I trust the promises of Jesus.

Yes. That does not translate into every promise of Jesus for all of us equally. Or that any one of us has enough of anything from the Holy Spirit to go it alone.

 

[fhansen]

We'll have to disagree that Scripture vs. various oral traditions that men may have, make, and favor is not the point.

And yet people come up with all kinds of varying traditions based on personal interpretation of Scripture, resulting in varying personal beliefs and denominations. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura has caused much more variation and confusion in Christain belifs than any other source. So, which is it? Is baptism regenerative- or not? Again, whichever side you come down on will be more or less guess-work, unless, as with some of the Protestant denominations, you acknowledge at least some valuable role for the past to play in certain instances.

There was an evolving integration of races in the first century with Gentiles attending synagogues and new local assemblies being established mainly by Jewish Apostles and those trained by them. Then the destruction of the Temple in AD70. As I said, there were also departures from The Faith of Christ and false doctrines & gospels being dealt with per the NC Writings. Personally, I have difficulty seeing synagogue turning into the Catholic Mass and the traditions go from the Jewish Paul who charged Christians to imitate him and avoid traditions of men to the Roman version of The Faith, and from a Torah loving people to an anti-Jewish religious hierarchy that kept writings to itself and demanded people convert to it claiming that it was the only way to Christ - the only Church.

First of all you're not arguing aganst Rome only, but against all the various eastern churches as well that just "happen" to have similar liturgies, consecration prayers over the Eucharist, unwavering reverence for the Eucharist, belief in the Real presence, agreement on virtually all sacraments, among many other striking similarities including their views on justification. I guess everyone just went wrong right off the bat. You're arguing against history, echoed by the ECFs who are at least capable of giving us some real, personal insight into what the early church was like, while we may presume to just "know" what it was like based on some quite sketchy details given by Sripture which don't necessarily contradict any ancient or current practices we know of to begin with.

Even now you are calling it the Church. So, does that mean all other denominations are not the Church and we must all submit to Rome? All other traditions are not the Tradition? The Body of Christ - the Household of God - the Ekklesia of God - Christ's Ekklesia is Rome? Surely fhansen, you haven't gone there, have you?

As far as "the Church" goes, any Christian should at least acknolwedge that there can only be one Church-one that God established -
and it certainly wouldn't be marked by a wide disunity of beliefs. The RCC recognizes that the church subsists in the RCC as well as in most ancient Eastern Churches as they trace their lineage directly to the beginning and haven't wavered in basic teachings on the faith. Every Christain is a member of that church, know it or not, like it or not, even if imperfectly united with it and lacking the "fullness of truth" as it's been put. The RCC, for its part anyway, considers most Christians, possessing adequate confessions, etc, to be part of that church.

Either way, Sola Scriptura is not the answer, providing no sure means of sufficiently determining truths of the Christian faith, of God's will for man, IOW. I think there should at least be a glimmer of acknolwedgement for the need of the gift or charism of inffalibilty. We can have two people, one interpreting Scripture one way while the other another way, both steadfastly denying any gift of infalliblity while both behaving, for all practical puposes, as if they have it, as if their particular position is absolutely correct, IOW. The church, for its part, simply, honestly, recognizes the need for such a gift and maintains that God has granted it, from the beginning, in a visible, locatable church-so we can know. Either way, I'd look for that church. Look to the east if you will, but look for that church in order to have the fullest, truest understanding of our faith.

 

[fhansen]

I have zero leading from the Text or the Spirit to join Rome.

For my part I simply began agreeing with Rome, first of all, and most importantly IMO on the doctrine of justification.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

It does not. Where would you get the idea that I thought THAT?

Since you seemed to object to the word "you" that was used in John 14:26 to mean individuals Sola Scriptura Self-refuting? when Jesus promised the Spirit of Truth to those who obey. His commandments John 14:15-18 and the Spirit will teach us all things, which is a promise of Jesus for those who are seeking Truth and to those who obey Acts 5:32, The Spirit will also convict one of their sins which will hopefully lead one to repentance and a changed heart. This is why it’s so important to have an open heart and allow the Spirit to guide and the Spirit will never guide you away from God's Word. God’s Word is Truth. Psalms 119:160

The Holy Spirit ministers to us individually as well as corporately.

So not sure why the objection to the scripture I posted or the word "you" to mean individuals. Of course the Holy Spirit guides individuals and His church. We probably have a different definition of His church though.

And we all have our callings within the Body of Christ. That does not mean we are all called to be the same, nor that we receive the same gifts.

You are not making an argument I am making here.

Or that any one of us has enough of anything from the Holy Spirit to go it alone.

Where is that in scripture? My pastor was an atheist living in a cave that someone left the Holy Bible. Reading the Bible alone led Him to Christ and a complete lifestyle change and he now has a very fruitful ministry that has reached people across the world, so I think the Holy Spirit can reach anyone, regardless where they are as long as they have an open heart to hearing God’s Truth.

 

[fhansen]

(staff edit)

My point was that the early churches were/are not like the many more recent versions which base their beliefs and pratices solely on a Book which they picked up centuries after the fact with no reference to or dependence upon the past. At the beginnings of our faith the beliefs and practices were already known and in place before the New Testament was written.

 

[GDL]

And yet people come up with all kinds of varying traditions based on personal interpretation of Scripture, resulting in varying personal beliefs and denominations.

Yes, they do. Do you agree with everything Rome says? I'm no prophet but I don't see Rome being the end of denominations.

First of all you're not arguing aganst Rome only,

Correct.

As far as "the Church" goes, any Christian should at least acknolwedge that there can only be one Church-one that God established

I did acknowledge this. It's called the Body of Christ of which every true Christian is a member. At this time IMO Christians are interspersed throughout many, many denominations. From what I recall, you agree with this, or at least did.

Either way, Sola Scriptura is not the answer, providing no sure means of sufficiently determining truths of the Christian faith, of God's will for man, IOW. I think there should at least be a glimmer of acknolwedgement for the need of the gift or charism of inffalibilty

I think we know there is a foundational belief we all must share and there are a lot of traditions that have little true bearing. Once again, I simply do not think that the Jewish Paul was instructing to stick with his traditions, and they look like Rome. As you know, only Rome believes in the charism of Rome. I doubt the bulk of the 1+billion know or care what that means, and I've little doubt there is much darnel in all denominations. I sure hope I'm misreading you and you're not suggesting the infallibility of Rome.

 

[Freth]

There have already been a number of examples, but let's take it a step further. What did Jesus say concerning scripture?

1. While being tempted by Satan to make bread from rocks, He rebuked Satan with scripture and emphasized every word of it in the same sentence:

Matthew 4:3-4 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”​

Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3: "So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord."​

• Live by every word, not just some words

2. Jesus relayed a parable concerning wisdom and foolishness, which is directly tied to scripture (wisdom; His sayings, His teaching). Jesus Himself is the rock:

Matthew 7:24-28 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.​

• Hear His sayings and teaching
• Obey

3. Jesus, to the chief priests and elders in the temple:

Matthew 21:23-24 Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?” But Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?”​

​

Matthew 21:42-43 Jesus said to them, ”Have you never read in the Scriptures: [Psalms 118:22-23] ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord’s doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.”​

• Read scripture
• Bear fruit

Conclusion

This is the same message we find in Revelation.

Revelation 14:12 "Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."​

​

The saints of the end time, by keeping the faith of Jesus (His teachings, scripture) and keeping the commandments of God (again, scripture) will persevere through trial and tribulation (patience). They will have built their house upon the rock, and will surely be bearing the fruit Jesus spoke of.

 

[zippy2006]

• Live by every word, not just some words

That's not Sola Scriptura. Christians who deny Sola Scriptura don't need to throw words out of the Bible.

​

• Hear His sayings and teaching
• Obey

This is not Sola Scriptura either. Christians who reject Sola Scriptura do not ignore or disobey Christ's teachings.

• Read scripture
• Bear fruit

...And of course this also has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Christians have been reading Scripture and bearing fruit for thousands of years while rejecting the novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

It seems like a lot of people don't quite know what Sola Scriptura means. Even Jordan Cooper seems a bit confused about what Sola Scriptura means. It means that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. That's what this thread is about, not whether we should throw words out of the Bible, or disobey Christ, or neglect to read Scripture, etc.

 

[The Liturgist]

We'll have to disagree that Scripture vs. various oral traditions that men may have, make, and favor is not the point. You also did not address whether or not most of the ECF writings I posted were dealing with interpretation of Scripture or even in unanimous agreement. I'll go back and look when I have the desire to.

There was an evolving integration of races in the first century with Gentiles attending synagogues and new local assemblies being established mainly by Jewish Apostles and those trained by them. Then the destruction of the Temple in AD70. As I said, there were also departures from The Faith of Christ and false doctrines & gospels being dealt with per the NC Writings. Personally, I have difficulty seeing synagogue turning into the Catholic Mass and the traditions go from the Jewish Paul who charged Christians to imitate him and avoid traditions of men to the Roman version of The Faith, and from a Torah loving people to an anti-Jewish religious hierarchy that kept writings to itself and demanded people convert to it claiming that it was the only way to Christ - the only Church. Even now you are calling it the Church. So, does that mean all other denominations are not the Church and we must all submit to Rome? All other traditions are not the Tradition? The Body of Christ - the Household of God - the Ekklesia of God - Christ's Ekklesia is Rome? Surely fhansen, you haven't gone there, have you?

You're more versed in the ECF than I and I've enjoyed much of what you have to say in some of the theological discussions. I've no doubt there are some good things to be derived from their 18 million words. On the other hand, there are way too many that long for the true Apostolic Ekklesia - the foundation of Christ and the Apostles & Prophets. I currently agree that Rome is not it and that succession is unfounded and that some of Rome's other traditions are just not worth the time to even think about.

Honestly, I have no desire for any of the traditions but those I can glean from the Text and the continual work to help interpret the Text. Even though I don't live by the terminology of various traditions, including Reformation terminology, I'm comfortable just remaining with the Bible and facing judgment with verses like John12:48. I have zero leading from the Text or the Spirit to join Rome. If I don't see it in the Word or get a sense of leading and guidance in Spirit, then IMO I'm not required to join any denominational tradition and am free to work to understand OC & NC writers as it seems the NC writers were doing to a large degree with the Hebrew Scriptures even post ascension.

So, I don't view SS as "nonsense" nor do I live by the various definitions of it, nor even by the terminology SS, nor by what SF seems to have been turned into by some, nor by the ECF. Rather than sorting through the 18 million words of the ECF, I still chose to sort through the 300k+ words of the NC Writings and the OC Scripture. As to the question of this OP, I'm not sure I care. Scripture is not self-refuting. The Spirit does not refute Scripture. Talk to any man long enough and he will self-contradict and self-refute and inevitably misinterpret Scripture. The Scripture and the Spirit are the epitome of what we've got of Truth. I see no reason to think otherwise at this point.

Respectfully, if you look at the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East, the development of church tradition makes much more sense, and can be understood holistically. Catholicism vs. Protestantism is a false dichotomy, and also Sola Scriptura as proposed by Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer is a different doctrine than the Nuda Scriptura doctrine people tend to confuse it with, for Luther and Cranmer and even Calvin did not altogether reject tradition.