Hi! I am a non-denom Christian and saw this article Wikipedia ----
Criticism of Protestantism - Wikipedia
I found it troubling to say the least....How do we reply to these things??
How can you reply?
Sola scriptura (choose your own definition of several) is easily provable false. Logically, biblically and historically it is provable as false. it simply does not stack up.
Logically: if you hold as a prime truth "all necessary truth for salvation is in the bible" Then that statement itself must be in the bible else the statement is self refuting. And it is nowhere in the bible. So Simple logic shows it false.
Biblically: the bible itself says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" so contradicting it being scripture alone.
Historically: the faith was passed on by paradosis, handing down, not scritpure, which is why Paul said "hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter" - not least because the canon did not exist for another couple of centuries!
So sola scriptura is a denial of how the early church passed on the faith.
The reality is few could read, and even if they could it was only after the printing press and even last centuries that average joe could afford a bible. So "bible christianity" did not exist as we know it pre reformation.
And sola scriptura or variaints also presumes that the meaing of scripture is unambiguous. If that were true how is it that on every doctrine protestants disagree with multiple mutually exclusive versions of baptism, eucharist...the list is endless.
Reality is tradition and authority to "Bind and loose" by the church are needed to interpret scripture. Lose that and you get the endless schisms of protestants.
Accept it and you are led back to what the early fathers said scripture meant - those who were actually taught by the apostles! In the case of eucharist it is real presence, as Justin Martyr said "is the flesh of Jesus", as ignatius said - valid only if performed by a bishop or his appointee.
You cannot invent your own eucharist, based on your own interpretation of words, and that is the problem protestantism has. If the holy spirit guides that meaning when asked...how is it he guides protestants in at least 5 opposite directions?
I speak as ex evangelical and mainstream protestant who studied the early church and which led inexorably back to rome.
Protestants have a problem. Deny the authority of the church to act infallibly in council and you no longer have a new testament. Accept that authority and you can no longer be protestant, because you accept the authority that interprets scripture.
Horns of an impossible dilemma. The dilemma that led me back to Rome.
And all other problems start there.
Sola scriptura is provably false.