A Crtique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura

[Addai]

(I was going to jump in with this on a current Sola Scriptora thread but I didn’t because I noticed i’ve noticed that if I join a thread that has been going for a number of pages I tend to get ignored, as people are locked into various debates and other conversations…)

Anyway I recommend Catholics that involve themselves with discussing and/ or debating with Protestants read this following linked article. There can be a tendency to oversimplify, to the point of strawmaning Protestant ideas regarding Sola Scriptura. As a former Protestant I believe there are many problems with Sola Scriptura, however I believe it helps to understand the differing points of view within Protestantism on the subject if you want to have credibility and have a real dialogue.

the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

PS - In some ways I believe Solo vs. Sola distinction is an artificial one… Yet it can be useful when relating to attitudes concerning tradition among Protestants.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

(I was going to jump in with this on a current Sola Scriptora thread but I didn’t because I noticed i’ve noticed that if I join a thread that has been going for a number of pages I tend to get ignored, as people are locked into various debates and other conversations…)

Anyway I recommend Catholics that involve themselves with discussing and/ or debating with Protestants read this following linked article. There can be a tendency to oversimplify, to the point of strawmaning Protestant ideas regarding Sola Scriptura. As a former Protestant I believe there are many problems with Sola Scriptura, however I believe it helps to understand the differing points of view within Protestantism on the subject if you want to have credibility and have a real dialogue.

the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

PS - In some ways I believe Solo vs. Sola distinction is an artificial one… Yet it can be useful when relating to attitudes concerning tradition among Protestants.

The problems with the here at CAF arguments against sola scriptura are indeed legion and to some extent are strawmen. Even the article that you cite, which argues that many Protestant groups have misunderstood sola scriptura–and I think that is absolutely the case–still never tries to explain what sola scriptura actually is, unless I just missed it. And so the article itself further contributes to this problem. Here are what I think the major problems are:

1. First off, there is a general tendency at CAF to broad-brush Protestantism, which is a highly, highly, diverse religious phenomenon. Any time you see the statement, “Protestants believe X…” the author is by definition, probably mistaken and spreading false notions. This immediately erodes credibility. There are really very few things that can be said of all Protestants other than the fact that they are not Catholics And some (say, Anglo-Catholics) will debate even that.
2. Usually when Catholic posters here say “Protestants” they actually mean “evangelicals” which is probably the place where one can perhaps begin to generalize. It would be more honest and helpful if people could at least make that distinction.
3. As the article says, more or less, evangelicals have distorted the idea of “sola scriptura” to mean that all doctrine or even to some radical extent, everything worth knowing, is in and comes from the Bible. That much is correct in the article; there have been distortions. So, the distorters of sola scriptura claim the slogan, usually attaching it to Martin Luther help bolster their claim, but claim none of its actual substance. With this distortion, comes a vague rejection of “tradition” although that’s never really defined either. Everyone, even evangelicals, have an interpretive tradition. You can’t function in life without traditions.
4. The next typical move is that Catholic apologists attack what they have (mis)learned about sola scriptura from evangelicals or ex-evangelical converts, who never actually understood it to begin with. This is all radically reduced to Catholic (Bible + Tradition) versus Protestant (Bible only). And so the errors and inaccurate generalizations compound exponentially from this point forward.
5. Sola scriptura, as originally understood, was not a doctrine (a favorite Catholic strawman here at CAF) but in reality a way of judging church practices and human action. The reformers asked themselves: “is this a practice we should continue doing or not?” In answering that question, Scripture is definitely the highest authority, but NOT the only authority.

It’s best to use an illustration. During the Reformation, Anabaptist groups were challenging the practice of infant Baptism. In answering their critique, Luther observed that while there are no explicit instances of infant baptism in the Bible (i.e., Luther AGAINST a Bible-alone approach), that the practice is beneficial for salvation, and that importantly, it is NOT PROHIBITED in the Bible, and that IMPORTANTLY, it is part of the long-standing Tradition of the church. So, it its original context, sola scriptura means that practices and interpretations of the Bible that go against the Bible AND reason, cannot stand (no matter who is advocating them–including the Pope or Councils), but otherwise, church tradition helps inform us. This is really very, very different that the modern “Bible alone” stance generally advocated by evangelicals–which I’m sure has its various nuances as well.

Of course you don’t have to agree with Luther’s approach, and it’s very subjective, imo, but it’s important to understand what you’re challenging and not distort or generalize about what you are challenging.

In summary it would be helpful for all if Catholic apologists could take the time to understand the issue and then if they want to challenge it, by all means. Perhaps getting Catholics to distinguish between “Sola Scriptura” (the classical view of the reformers) and “Bible alone” (the more or less usual view of contemporary evangelicals) would be helpful–but I don’t know what the solution is to this mish-mash.

 

[elvisman]

The problems with the here at CAF arguments against sola scriptura are indeed legion and to some extent are strawmen. Even the article that you cite, which argues that many Protestant groups have misunderstood sola scriptura–and I think that is absolutely the case–still never tries to explain what sola scriptura actually is, unless I just missed it. And so the article itself further contributes to this problem. Here are what I think the major problems are:

1. First off, there is a general tendency at CAF to broad-brush Protestantism, which is a highly, highly, diverse religious phenomenon. Any time you see the statement, “Protestants believe X…” the author is by definition, probably mistaken and spreading false notions. This immediately erodes credibility. There are really very few things that can be said of all Protestants other than the fact that they are not Catholics And some (say, Anglo-Catholics) will debate even that.
2. Usually when Catholic posters here say “Protestants” they actually mean “evangelicals” which is probably the place where one can perhaps begin to generalize. It would be more honest and helpful if people could at least make that distinction.
3. As the article says, more or less, evangelicals have distorted the idea of “sola scriptura” to mean that all doctrine or even to some radical extent, everything worth knowing, is in and comes from the Bible. That much is correct in the article; there have been distortions. So, the distorters of sola scriptura claim the slogan, usually attaching it to Martin Luther help bolster their claim, but claim none of its actual substance. With this distortion, comes a vague rejection of “tradition” although that’s never really defined either. Everyone, even evangelicals, have an interpretive tradition. You can’t function in life without traditions.
4. The next typical move is that Catholic apologists attack what they have (mis)learned about sola scriptura from evangelicals or ex-evangelical converts, who never actually understood it to begin with. This is all radically reduced to Catholic (Bible + Tradition) versus Protestant (Bible only). And so the errors and inaccurate generalizations compound exponentially from this point forward.
5. Sola scriptura, as originally understood, was not a doctrine (a favorite Catholic strawman here at CAF) but in reality a way of judging church practices and human action. The reformers asked themselves: “is this a practice we should continue doing or not?” In answering that question, Scripture is definitely the highest authority, but NOT the only authority.

It’s best to use an illustration. During the Reformation, Anabaptist groups were challenging the practice of infant Baptism. In answering their critique, Luther observed that while there are no explicit instances of infant baptism in the Bible (i.e., Luther AGAINST a Bible-alone approach), that the practice is beneficial for salvation, and that importantly, it is NOT PROHIBITED in the Bible, and that IMPORTANTLY, it is part of the long-standing Tradition of the church. So, it its original context, sola scriptura means that practices and interpretations of the Bible that go against the Bible AND reason, cannot stand (no matter who is advocating them–including the Pope or Councils), but otherwise, church tradition helps inform us. This is really very, very different that the modern “Bible alone” stance generally advocated by evangelicals–which I’m sure has its various nuances as well.

Of course you don’t have to agree with Luther’s approach, and it’s very subjective, imo, but it’s important to understand what you’re challenging and not distort or generalize about what you are challenging.

In summary it would be helpful for all if Catholic apologists could take the time to understand the issue and then if they want to challenge it, by all means. Perhaps getting Catholics to distinguish between “Sola Scriptura” (the classical view of the reformers) and “Bible alone” (the more or less usual view of contemporary evangelicals) would be helpful–but I don’t know what the solution is to this mish-mash.

**First of all, your illustration (on many threads) about the “general” attitude from Catholics here at CAF is in itself a sweeping generalization. Many of your posts begin with this arrogant tone yet neither I nor any other Catholics on forums have accused ALL protestants of being as smug. There are many different people here with many different opinions.

The one thing that I’ve seen here in my 7 years on this forum is that you cannot broadbrush ALL Protestant groups, nor can you generalize the statements made by some Catholics as being the “general” sentiment of Catholics at CAF. There are thousands of us here.

As for Sola Scriptura and it’s misunderstanding by Catholics is that there are a variety of flavors that get espoused around here. It is difficult to have a conversation with a Sola Scripturist on this forum because of all of the differing varieties.

 

[JonNC]

As for Sola Scriptura and it’s misunderstanding by Catholics is that there are a variety of flavors that get espoused around here. It is difficult to have a conversation with a Sola Scripturist on this forum because of all of the differing varieties.

This is a good point, and the reason why I would encourage all non-catholic posters to identify themselves in their profile more explicitly than “Christian” or “Protestant”. You, elvisman, I’m sure will agree that when I identify myself as Lutheran, you have a better idea of what I believe on a wide variety of beliefs, from the practice of sola scriptura to the doctrine of the real presence.

Jon

 

[JohnnyReb]

This is a good point, and the reason why I would encourage all non-catholic posters to identify themselves in their profile more explicitly than “Christian” or “Protestant”. You, elvisman, I’m sure will agree that when I identify myself as Lutheran, you have a better idea of what I believe on a wide variety of beliefs, from the practice of sola scriptura to the doctrine of the real presence.

Jon

True, but then Anglicans have to go further than that and identify what type of Anglican they are! There seems to be no distictions or unity in our tradition about anything.

 

[Sherry_G]

Thank you , Elvisman! Good points. I would like to add that all are welcome to SHARE ideas and exchange information. The problems begin only when a person assumes an air of arrogance and claims superior intelligence. I like the idea that it would be helpful to identify ourselves more completely in our beliefs as it would help to keep us all on firmer ground in our discourses. I love Cathoic Answers and have learned a great deal from participating but mostly just from reading. I am overwhelmed by the number of seekers who show up from all walks of life and a myriad of faith backgrounds. Most are truly seeking more understanding. But a few are clearly here to cause a stir and gain personal attention.

 

[JonNC]

True, but then Anglicans have to go further than that and identify what type of Anglican they are! There seems to be no distictions or unity in our tradition about anything.

No better here, Johnny. Guess I should revise my profile as LCMS.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

1. First off, there is a general tendency at CAF to broad-brush Protestantism, which is a highly, highly, diverse religious phenomenon. Any time you see the statement, “Protestants believe X…” the author is by definition, probably mistaken and spreading false notions. This immediately erodes credibility.

Dave Noonan,

I would caution you in speaking about “general tendencies at CAF” and Catholics painting Protestantism with a “broad brush.” “General tendencies” and “broad brush” are basically the same thing.

There are many Catholics here who understand the differences within Protestantism.

. . . In summary it would be helpful for all if Catholic apologists could take the time to understand the issue and then if they want to challenge it, by all means. Perhaps getting Catholics to distinguish between “Sola Scriptura” (the classical view of the reformers) and “Bible alone” (the more or less usual view of contemporary evangelicals) would be helpful–but I don’t know what the solution is to this mish-mash.

Dave Noonan,

I think you are setting up a rather unrealistic expectation of our Catholic brethren. I’ve met quite a few Protestants who cannot distinguish between “Sola Scriptura,” the classical view of the reformers (as you put it) and Sola Scriptura as “Bible alone.”

In fact, a new word/doctrine has emerged within Protestantism: Solo Scriptura.

See link: modernreformation.org/default.php?page=terms&var1=ViewTOU from modernreformation.org.

There are really very few things that can be said of all Protestants other than the fact that they are not Catholics And some (say, Anglo-Catholics) will debate even that.

True, but then Anglicans have to go further than that and identify what type of Anglican they are! There seems to be no distictions or unity in our tradition about anything.

JohnnyReb & Dave Noonan,

I agree. I am a “High Church” Anglo Catholic/Anglican Catholic within the Anglican Communion. As such, my beliefs lean heavily towards Catholicism and even towards some elements of Orthodoxy.

There are Anglicans who call themselves Protestants and hold beliefs and a type of worship (low Church) that hardly resembles Catholicism.

No better here, Johnny. Guess I should revise my profile as LCMS.

JonNC,

I’ve changed mine a number of times. I’m hoping the current one is clearer than the last few I tried.

Peace to all,
Anna

 

[elvisman]

This is a good point, and the reason why I would encourage all non-catholic posters to identify themselves in their profile more explicitly than “Christian” or “Protestant”. You, elvisman, I’m sure will agree that when I identify myself as Lutheran, you have a better idea of what I believe on a wide variety of beliefs, from the practice of sola scriptura to the doctrine of the real presence.

Jon

Yes, I certainly do.

 

[Addai]

quote
*Dave Noonan,

I think you are setting up a rather unrealistic expectation of our Catholic brethren. I’ve met quite a few Protestants who cannot distinguish between “Sola Scriptura,” the classical view of the reformers (as you put it) and Sola Scriptura as “Bible alone.”

In fact, a new word/doctrine has emerged within Protestantism: Solo Scriptura.*
quote

I very much agree with that and have said the same thing to Protestants in recent times. The distinction between the Scripturas is important, but in recent times it’s kind of is a too easy “get out of jail free card” cop out. People who use it and cry strawman when debating often make it sound like the distinction between Solo vs. Sola is obvious and has existed from the very beginning of Protestantism etc. Which really is not true if you examine the history of Protestantism and it advocacy of Sola Scriptora. The term itself is a “fuzzy concept” that has changed with the times and the people advocating it.

Not to mention there is a matter of “internal consistency” as far as belief is applied. Luther. Luther and Lutheranism would normally be considered in the Sola camp, however Luther at Trent chief argument at Trent that he will only be convinced of the error of his ways by “Reason and the Bible” very much is a Solo Scriptora way of doing things.

 

[JonNC]

quote
*Dave Noonan,

I think you are setting up a rather unrealistic expectation of our Catholic brethren. I’ve met quite a few Protestants who cannot distinguish between “Sola Scriptura,” the classical view of the reformers (as you put it) and Sola Scriptura as “Bible alone.”

In fact, a new word/doctrine has emerged within Protestantism: Solo Scriptura.*
quote

I very much agree with that and have said the same thing to Protestants in recent times. The distinction between the Scripturas is important, but in recent times it’s kind of is a too easy “get out of jail free card” cop out. People who use it and cry strawman when debating often make it sound like the distinction between Solo vs. Sola is obvious and has existed from the very beginning of Protestantism etc. Which really is not true if you examine the history of Protestantism and it advocacy of Sola Scriptora. The term itself is a “fuzzy concept” that has changed with the times and the people advocating it.

Not to mention there is a matter of “internal consistency” as far as belief is applied. Luther. Luther and Lutheranism would normally be considered in the Sola camp, however Luther at Trent chief argument at Trent that he will only be convinced of the error of his ways by “Reason and the Bible” very much is a Solo Scriptora way of doing things.

Actually, it was at the Diet of Worms, not Trent. But that said, while Luther probably didn’t rely as much on councils and ECF’s (except of course Augustine and perhaps Jerome on the canon) as, say, Melanchthon, neither did he reject them out of hand.

As for the fuzzy concept, and knowing that you are speaking generally here, the Lutheran concept has been consistent. Here is what the Epitome of the Formula of Concord says:

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. **

My understanding is that the solo scripturist would reject virtually entirely.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

Actually, it was at the Diet of Worms, not Trent. But that said, while Luther probably didn’t rely as much on councils and ECF’s (except of course Augustine and perhaps Jerome on the canon) as, say, Melanchthon, neither did he reject them out of hand.

As for the fuzzy concept, and knowing that you are speaking generally here, the Lutheran concept has been consistent. Here is what the Epitome of the Formula of Concord says:

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.

Jon,
I always appreciate the quality and substance of your posts and the fact that you provide clarification regarding the Lutheran faith.

Peace,
Anna