Responding to Catholic objections to Sola Scriptura

[Covenanter John]

Hi everybody. I'm a Reformed Christian, but was recently troubled with doubts about my belief in Sola Scriptura. I have now overcome those doubts, thanks to bringing my understanding of Sola Scriptura in line with that of the reformers.

For a while, I was troubled by articles like this at Catholics Answers: Scripture and Tradition [had to remove link due to low post count]. Now I am reassured in my beliefs, I am preparing a response to that article in defense of Sola Scriptura. However, before I post it at the Catholic Answers forums, I would like to check what I am saying with some fellow Protestants. If it is OK, I will post this on the Presbyterian, Lutheran and Anglican sub-forums to get a broad Protestant overview. Below is what I plan to write:

Hi,

I recently came across your article on Scripture and Tradition, and I feel that it makes a number of misrepresentations about what exact the idea of Sola Scriptura entails. My chief objections related to the following statement:

"Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology... anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong"

Sola Scriptura does not claim the Bible to be the only source of doctrinal authority. What is claimed is that the Bible is the only infallible source of doctrinal authority. While both Protestants and Catholics will agree that scripture is an infallible source of doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16-17), the Protestant position is that no other infallible source of doctrine is anywhere established. Whereas Catholics claim that their apostolic traditions are equal in authority to the scriptures, Protestants would maintain that such claims are positively disproved by their contradictions with scriptural teaching.

However, Protestants do believe that other sources of authority exist outwith scripture, which have the authority to introduce practices to Christian life and worship which are not contained within the scripture. This is made evident by the fact that subordinate confessions and statements of faith have been embraced almost universally across Protestantism. Some of these we will share with Catholics, while other will be unique to Protestantism. For example, the Church of Scotland regards both the Nicene Creed and the Westminster Confession of Faith as authoritative. Protestants believe that the Church has the authority to enforce these confessions as requirements for membership. The important aspect which distingueshes us from Catholics in this regard is that we do not believe the interpretations of scripture which are embodied in the confessions by the church as being infallible. There are simply no grounds to believe that they are so, whereas the many historic corruptions and un-scriptural traditions which developed within the historic church offer plenty of evidence to the contrary. For this reason, the visible church, and all other sources of authority are regarded as subordinate to scripture. Indeed, the Thessalonians were commended for searching out the scriptures to prove the teachings of Paul himself (Acts 17:11) - if the words of the original apostles were subordinate to scripture, how can the 'apostles' of this day and age claim to speak with greater authority?

This issue aside, one important point to note is that while Protestants do not believe the Bible to be the sole source of all doctrine and discipline, we do believe it to contain all that is necessary for salvation, and that its teachings in this particular matter are sufficiently clear that they are of themselves sufficient to preach salvation. Accordingly, 2 Timothy 3:15 states:

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Protestants believe that the scriptures are indeed sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, independent of any supposed apostolic traditions, or the interpretations of church leaders.

So to sum up, Protestants do not in fact believe that the scripture is the sole source of doctrine for Christian faith and practice, but rather, we believe it to be the only infallible source on these matters. We believe there are a number of subordinate authorities which may speak on such issues, including the church. However while the scripture is not the sole source for all doctrine and practice, it is entirely sufficient to make us wise unto salvation.

With the above in mind, I would appreciate it if you amended your article on 'Scripture and Tradition' so that it no longer misrepresents Protestant beliefs.

Would the Protestants of this board be happy with my statements here?

 

[Targaryen]

Considering that Anglicans generally do not view themselves as either Catholic or Protestant but both, I don't feel your post adequately describes Anglicanism or even our views. Scripture,Tradition and Reason is the Anglican tripod for a good reason, neither of the 3 overrule each other but work in concert with each other. Your post neither sums up the Anglican position nor is representative of it.

 

[Albion]

Would the Protestants of this board be happy with my statements here?

I would.

Almost all Catholic objections to Sola Scriptura rely upon tricks with words that misrepresent what Sola Scriptura is. You addressed all of that without any shrillness IMO.

 

[Sean611]

Anglicans, like they are on a great number of subjects, have diverse opinions on Sola Scriptura. That being said, I think that most would agree that the bible is the primary authority or, in the very least, a primary authority. I also think that most Anglicans would agree that the bible contains all things necessary for salvation.

That being the case, I think that when many people think of Sola Scriptura today, they tend to associate it with the view of Solo Scriptura. Many protestants these days (certainly not all), who call themselves "bible-believing" Christians tend to use the Sola Scriptura name and apply the doctrine of Solo Scriptura to that name. Solo Scriptura essentially means that it is the bible alone and that is it. Tradition is of man-made origin and Christians have no use for these man-made traditions. Of course, the ultimate irony of many of these "bible-believing" Christians is that they do have their own traditions, but they generally never use Solo Scriptura as a measure on themselves, but only when discussing the traditions of other faith groups.

Therefore, I am generally cautious about the term Sola Scriptura because it may mean something entirely different to many, if not most Christians these days (at least in America).

 

[Hawkiz]

Hi everybody. I'm a Reformed Christian, but was recently troubled with doubts about my belief in Sola Scriptura. I have now overcome those doubts, thanks to bringing my understanding of Sola Scriptura in line with that of the reformers.

For a while, I was troubled by articles like this at Catholics Answers: Scripture and Tradition [had to remove link due to low post count]. Now I am reassured in my beliefs, I am preparing a response to that article in defense of Sola Scriptura. However, before I post it at the Catholic Answers forums, I would like to check what I am saying with some fellow Protestants. If it is OK, I will post this on the Presbyterian, Lutheran and Anglican sub-forums to get a broad Protestant overview. Below is what I plan to write:

Would the Protestants of this board be happy with my statements here?

As a Catholic, I will refrain from responding here, and will wait to see this on Catholic Answers, but I will commend you for posting a 'non-attacking' response that seeks dialogue rather than condemnation. Thank you for that!

Peace in Christ

 

[CanadianAnglican]

I would strongly suggest noting that you are speaking of Roman Catholics when you reference 'Catholics' in your document. Eastern and Ortiental Orthodox, some Anglicans and some Scandinavian Lutherans are also Catholic, just not Roman Catholic.

Beyond that, the official position of the Anglican Communion is that of prima scriptura, not sola scriptura. Article VI of the Articles of Religion provides for the primacy of Scripture and its sufficiency for salvation, but Article XX on the authority of the Church provides that the Church does have authority to declare doctrines which must be consistent with Scripture (they cannot oppose Scripture) but do not need to be derived from it.

As has been noted by other posters, the Church does not claim that this authority is infallible, and it is subservient to Scripture. It would be wrong to attribute to Anglicanism the doctrine of sola Scriptura, and even more clearly what Sean termed solo Scriptura.

 

[MKJ]

Anglicans, like they are on a great number of subjects, have diverse opinions on Sola Scriptura. That being said, I think that most would agree that the bible is the primary authority or, in the very least, a primary authority. I also think that most Anglicans would agree that the bible contains all things necessary for salvation.

That being the case, I think that when many people think of Sola Scriptura today, they tend to associate it with the view of Solo Scriptura. Many protestants these days (certainly not all), who call themselves "bible-believing" Christians tend to use the Sola Scriptura name and apply the doctrine of Solo Scriptura to that name. Solo Scriptura essentially means that it is the bible alone and that is it. Tradition is of man-made origin and Christians have no use for these man-made traditions. Of course, the ultimate irony of many of these "bible-believing" Christians is that they do have their own traditions, but they generally never use Solo Scriptura as a measure on themselves, but only when discussing the traditions of other faith groups.

Therefore, I am generally cautious about the term Sola Scriptura because it may mean something entirely different to many, if not most Christians these days (at least in America).

I would agree with this. I think, CJ, that what you've written is reasonable in so far as it is meant to represent fairly traditional protestant groups in a general way.

But what it doesn't really represent is the view of many of the more evangelical, modern, and non-denominational protestants.

While those groups tend to be small outside of the US - though they are growing - they represent the majority in some parts of that country, and of course they tend to see their own view as the correct one.

So I think anyone at CA might quite reasonably point out that what you have described does not at all reflect the views of a significant section of protestantism, and that in fact those people believe the very things that you say aren't part of sola scriptura.

 

[Exodus20]

To : Covenanter Jim; I think the article / Post which you have put up here on the Thread is probably more for the folks who read "Table Talk" magazine or something like that. The English Reformers who stood tall against Rome & Popery did it because they believed the Holy Bible is above the Popes/Councils/traditions/ceremonies. Those men women & kids - ( 288 at least ) were exterminated because they held to what the Bible says --- instead of what Rome & tradition teaches.

Suggest anyone on this Thread read: "Five English Reformers" by. Bishop J.C. Ryle.

There are some of us who are at heart level "Episcopalian / Anglican" and wish / hope there was a more solid stance for the 66 Books of The Bible in The Anglican Communion. The best place to find out what an Anglican / Episcopalian is SUPPOSED to believe in from the 39 Articles of Religion.

Here is a link to those Articles ( which are also found in the back of "The Book of Common Prayer" ) .

The Reformed Episcopal Church

Look at Article VI & VII also XIX & XX

This link is to the "35 Articles of Religion of the Reformed Episcopal Church". They were founded in 1873 by men who were noticing bad tendencies of liberalism in the American Episcopal Church ( back in the 1800's ). I think their Articles are better than the 39 for a couple of reasons. Point , click , and read.

Thirty-five Aticles of Religion (35art.html)

Look at Articles V & VI & XXII & XXIII

 

[mark46]

Sola scriptura is the teaching of the Church since the beginning, and certainly that of the Early Church.

However, I would point out that today there is no uniform understanding of what the teaching entails.

As Sean stated most mean "solos scripture" when they criticize (or even support) sola scriptura. In that sense, it would be strange indeed for an STR Church to teach that understanding as doctrine.

From what I have seen, most Anglicans believe that the living core of our faith is revealed in Scripture, illumined by the Church and made alive by our Reason and Experience (as a good Anglican priest once taught us).

In any case, IMHO, sola scripture means more than the primacy of Scripture. And while every teaching needed for salvation is indeed contained in Scripture, I find that little reason to accept the view that THEREFORE we should accept individual's interpretations of that Scripture.

In other words, I agree that there were no new revelations since Scripture was written, but many new understandings.

Hi everybody. I'm a Reformed Christian, but was recently troubled with doubts about my belief in Sola Scriptura. I have now overcome those doubts, thanks to bringing my understanding of Sola Scriptura in line with that of the reformers.

For a while, I was troubled by articles like this at Catholics Answers: Scripture and Tradition [had to remove link due to low post count]. Now I am reassured in my beliefs, I am preparing a response to that article in defense of Sola Scriptura. However, before I post it at the Catholic Answers forums, I would like to check what I am saying with some fellow Protestants. If it is OK, I will post this on the Presbyterian, Lutheran and Anglican sub-forums to get a broad Protestant overview. Below is what I plan to write:

Would the Protestants of this board be happy with my statements here?

 

[luckyfredsdad]

First of all Anglicans believe in Scriptural Authority. They also believe that anything taught by the Apostolic College or the Earliest fathers and practised continually by the Catholic Church since then, i.e. The Sign of the Cross in Baptism and so on are acceptable as it were.
But this is qualified by the fact that Anglicans believe that authority after scriptural statements have to be qualified by the Holy fathers of the Seven Councils of the first eight hundred years!

 

[JustAnglican]

The Anglican Church has a very looooooooong history, and we tend to select the parts that fit our own views. Diversity of views on sola scriptura and other topics is a reflection of this.

I personally cannot base my beliefs solely on a book without factoring in the community that gave existence to the book. That community to me is the undivided Church that existed before all the schisms. I don't call this anything...it just is.

 

[Albion]

The Anglican Church has a very looooooooong history, and we tend to select the parts that fit our own views. Diversity of views on sola scriptura and other topics is a reflection of this.

I personally cannot base my beliefs solely on a book without factoring in the community that gave existence to the book. That community to me is the undivided Church that existed before all the schisms. I don't call this anything...it just is.

Understood...but it certainly cannot correctly be called "Tradition." Yet, as we've seen, there is a compulsion on the part of those who do accept "Holy Tradition" as their methodology to insist that we who do not accept it...actually do without knowing it. Weird.