Sola Scriptura, and the bible what am i suppose to see it as

what is Sola Scriptura ive been trying to study into it buut i need someone to help me explain what it is and why protestants use is against catholics i mean catholics do what the bible tells them don’t we. also ever since joining rcia how am i suppose to see the bible i mean since sola scriptura is wrong does that mean the bible is just a book or is it still the word of God

Hey Bro. Here’s something that I have on my blog that might help.
Refuting the fundamental modern error of Sola Scriptura.

Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”
- Psalm 119:105

. . . :coffeeread: . . .


Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.


In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it ** not** as human word, "but as what it really is, the Word of God."

[quote]**In the sacred books,
the Father who is in heaven
comes lovingly to meet his children,
and talks with them. **


[INDENT]:bible1: “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b[/INDENT]

[INDENT]:bible1: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8[/INDENT]

[INDENT]:bible1: “So shall **my word **be that goeth forth out of **my **mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which **I **please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto **I **sent it.” Isaiah 55:11[/INDENT]

[INDENT]:bible1: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but **my words **shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35[/INDENT]

[INDENT]:bible1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1[/INDENT]

"And the

was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory;
the glory as it were of the
only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth."
John 1:14

[RIGHT]. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+

Sola scriptura assumes that anyone with a prayerful heart can read the Bible and will come away with the correct meaning. If it is true, then all will agree on every point. If it is false, they will not. There is no final central authority other than the readers’ own interpretations of the meanings of the scriptures quoted. The hundreds of belief sets, all using sola scriptura as an underlying philosophy, eliminate the possibility that it is a reliable way to find the truth.

The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE.

“Sola Scriptura” (SS) is Latin that translates to “Bible alone”. It is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, SS demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture.

and why protestants use is against Catholics

I don’t know that protestants necessarily use SS “against” Catholics but the doctrine does spring forth from a time of corruption in the Church.
Sola Scriptura provides a way to subjugate the authority of the Church to something else.
Protestants fear an authoritative Church in the sense that they fear the control and possible corruption that might invade powerful members of an authoritative Church.

This fear blinds many to the fact that the bible NT, in many places, speaks to the One, Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church.

i mean catholics do what the bible tells them don’t we.

Yes we do, in-so-far as we are required by Holy Mother Church who is herself seen in the Bible though not by the name “Catholic”.

also ever since joining rcia how am i suppose to see the bible i mean since sola scriptura is wrong does that mean the bible is just a book or is it still the word of God

Jesus_123 had given you a good answer from the Catechism.
The Bible along with Sacred Tradition form one full deposit of faith.


The Latin words “Sola Scriptura” mean “Scripture Alone”. It refers to the Protestant belief that the Bible is the only authoritative source of God’s revelation. It denies the authority of Sacred Tradition (other apostolic teachings handed on that are not contained - explicitly - in the writings which the Church included in Scripture).

Sola Scriptura also claims that the Bible is clear and sufficient on its own; that there is no need for any infallible authority to interpret its correct meaning.

Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition - that there were teachings of Jesus and the apostles that were not explicitly recorded in Scripture. (An example would be infant Baptism.) We believe these teachings are also authoritative.

Like Protestants, Catholics believe that the Bible is God’s word. But we believe that sometimes the correct/true meaning is not clear to everyone; the biblical text can be misinterpreted. Therefore we believe that Jesus established a means for ensuring that His Church would interpret His words correctly - that it would profess as Church doctrine only the truth. He did this by giving Peter the keys of the kingdom, with the power to bind and loose. (Mt. 16:18) The other apostles were also given authority, but not the “keys” - they were given to only one. What this means is that the Church Magisterium (bishops, successors of the apostles, are the authoritative interpreters of Scripture - with the Pope having the final and crucial authority. In other words, no new doctrine can be authoritative without the Pope’s final consent - if he refuses his consent, it does not become an infallible Church teaching.

From a Lutheran perspective, sola scriptura is not about personal interpretation. It is about the **Church practice **of using scripture as the final norm for holding doctrine, teachers and teachings accountable. From the Formula of Concord:

  1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

So, when discussing sola scriptura, one needs to be aware that what we often hear today passed off as SS is not necessarily what the reformers were talking about.


Hey Jon - Thanks for chiming in…Let me ask a question…Hopefully it won’t derail the thread…
I have heard variations of a supposed statement by ML relating to SS and the many “interpretations” flying about at the time. The statement went something like - every (something) and milkmaid thinks they can interpret…

I’m sure I butchered this, but could you clarify this a bit for me…I think it is one of those “quotes” that is often tossed back and forth and speaks to just how SS might have been “meant” vs how it has evolved.



Sola Scriptura is not simply to grab a text of the bible and give with it justify whatever your doctrine will be like (as many churches do, indeed true). The principle of Sola Scriptura as discussed by the reformers is to do a diligent work of exegesis, on which you will be able to let the text speak by itself. The Bible should be interpreted by it’s literary context and historical meanings (that may require people to consult the original languages) to faithfully expound what the bible says.

Some protestants do not care at all about these points and simply take whatever it suits them to be “divine interpretation” and they come up with things such as universalism, oneness, monophysitism, etc. However, it is wrongly said of the reformers that they started their theology completely from scratch (most of them did not). For instance, John Calvin had high regard for many early church councils. He had them in high regard, however, not in the same level as Catholics do (attributing equal weight between Scripture and Tradition). The reformers (in their majority) argued that church councils (or simply, tradition) can and has err. Some church councils in early church history had affirmed things (heresies) as Arianism, Monophysitism (east churches), Pelagianism, etc. And even though they were corrected by the church, the reformers were convinced that errors can happen again and that is why they didn’t give tradition the same regard as they did scripture.

The Bible contains the direct message from God. And because of that it is the sole, inerrant fountain of truth. Some the things that came after (like the writings of the early church) could considered very pious because they were given by pious believers who were taught by the apostles, but that does not guarantee that what they taught was infallible either. People in the early church also made mistakes in their interpretations. When you put all their testimonies and writings together, you may be able to ‘filter’ what is bad or not… but that should be done by how faithful their opinions were based on the Scripture, not on another part of the same tradition. The apostles were given direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit and that is why their writings were considered Scripture and therefore are authoritative.

Hi James,
Hope you are well.
One of the things regarding SS, ISTM, is in regards to what is considered articles of faith, and what is not. Luther, and others, were known, for instance, for their strong marian devotion. And while there is debate as to how his views of the Blessed Virgin evolved over time, the point is that for Lutherans, we have the freedom to decide individually about things like the Assumption, the IC, etc. In areas we consider adiaphora, personal interpretation is accepted. For example, I generally accept the western view of the Assumption, while some Lutherans do not. I believe in sempre virgo, some do not (though I see the Formula of Concord’s statement on it as strong evidence that Lutherans should).

On areas we consider doctrine, there is no personal interpretation. The Church, as an example, states as doctrine the Holy Theotokos.

Hope that answers your question.


Thanks Jon -

Actually though I was asking more specifically about the quote I referenced, if it is an accurate quote and when and how he came to make it.

Sorry that I was not clear.


Ah! Ok, James.

The quote something along the lines of: "It now seems that every milkmaid hears the Holy Spirit whispering in her ear!” And, AFAIK, it was in regards those who were rejecting the real presence, about which he responds:

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”


So SS is the belief that we only need the bible and that we will automatically be able to understand it if were Christians now if i am right then why do some protestants try to use SS against Catholics I mean everything Catholics teach is in the bible or does SS go to Papal Infallibility

Thanks Jon.

Think that this one of the things that really speaks to the difficulty of Sola Scriptura - not as it was necessarily intended by the original reformers - but certainly to how it has evolved.


along with my last post also i think my brain farted so is SS used to try and go against Sacred Tradition

So SS is the belief that we only need the bible and that we will automatically be able to understand it if were Christians now if i am right then why do some protestants try to use SS against Catholics I mean everything Catholics teach is in the bible or does SS go to Papal Infallibility

If you read my post from the Formula of Concord, the answer is no. However, it does place scripture as the only norm that norms. Tradition is, therefore, second to scripture, and accountable to it. That’s the Lutheran view, at least.


That would be solo scriptura.


but i do not know what Lutherans believe compared to what Catholics do