Is Sola Scriptura (being limited to only the Bible alone for everything) Biblical, logical, and practical?

Nor is it what Luther taught without additional solas. In order to prove Lutherans wrong, a person has to do more than take one phrase and condemn Lutheranism based on only a misunderstanding of that one phrase.
Dear Janice,

I understand your reasoning - one should understand how Luther actually defined the term before criticizing Luther for it. So I collected all quotes that I could find where Luther used the term Sola Scriptura and other versions of this phrase:
forums.carm.org/threads/how-did-luther-and-foundational-lutheran-statements-use-the-term-sola-scriptura.8008/

To explain his idea in a very broad sense: When using this term, Luther seemed to try to reduce use of nonBiblical sources as much as he found reasonably possible. That is, he agreed with or encouraged using textbooks, commentaries, dictionaries and fathers, but his idea of Sola Scriptura seemed to be that when formulating religious teachings one should only use those nonBiblical texts to the extent that they are helpful to get into the Bible's meaning.

Regardless of my own interpretation, I invite you to read Luther's own explanations from the quotes that I gave. Hardcore Lutherans will find ways to argue that Sola Scriptura is logical, whereas in my opinion, it's a demonstrably mistaken core Lutheran dogma. Nonetheless, it's worth noting that Luther's "Sola Scriptura" alone was not enough to cause the Catholic Church to reject Luther. Luther had Catholic colleagues like Erasmus who practically taught Sola Scriptura while staying in the Catholic Church. Additionally: my impression is that some of Luther's "Sola Scriptura" idea is expressed in at least some of what Augustine wrote. However, neither Luther, nor Augustine, nor Lutherans are totally consistent in implementing Augustine's and Luther's Sola Scriptura teaching. An example of inconsistency is when we find Lutheran churches named after "Saint Augustine," even though the assertion of Augustine's sainthood is not establishable using the Bible Alone.

So on one hand, Sola Scriptura is so foundational to non-Anglican Protestantism that it's probably not something that Protestantism can easily abandon. Further, it's not something that Orthodoxy or Catholicism can really agree with. If Luther had just asserted Sola Scriptura as a "Theologumenon" or "Adiaphora" that Protestants are free to agree or disagree with, then it might not be as big an issue. I imagine that in Catholicism, one is free to disagree with Augustine's and other old RC theologians' statements that assert a version of Sola Scriptura. Trying to speak objectively, from a classical Christian POV, it's probably not a crucially mistaken teaching either.

All the best.
:)(y)???️?????
 
Dear Janice,

I understand your reasoning - one should understand how Luther actually defined the term before criticizing Luther for it. So I collected all quotes that I could find where Luther used the term Sola Scriptura and other versions of this phrase:
forums.carm.org/threads/how-did-luther-and-foundational-lutheran-statements-use-the-term-sola-scriptura.8008/

To explain his idea in a very broad sense: When using this term, Luther seemed to try to reduce use of nonBiblical sources as much as he found reasonably possible. That is, he agreed with or encouraged using textbooks, commentaries, dictionaries and fathers, but his idea of Sola Scriptura seemed to be that when formulating religious teachings one should only use those nonBiblical texts to the extent that they are helpful to get into the Bible's meaning.

Regardless of my own interpretation, I invite you to read Luther's own explanations from the quotes that I gave. Hardcore Lutherans will find ways to argue that Sola Scriptura is logical, whereas in my opinion, it's a demonstrably mistaken core Lutheran dogma. Nonetheless, it's worth noting that Luther's "Sola Scriptura" alone was not enough to cause the Catholic Church to reject Luther. Luther had Catholic colleagues like Erasmus who practically taught Sola Scriptura while staying in the Catholic Church. Additionally: my impression is that some of Luther's "Sola Scriptura" idea is expressed in at least some of what Augustine wrote. However, neither Luther, nor Augustine, nor Lutherans are totally consistent in implementing Augustine's and Luther's Sola Scriptura teaching. An example of inconsistency is when we find Lutheran churches named after "Saint Augustine," even though the assertion of Augustine's sainthood is not establishable using the Bible Alone.

So on one hand, Sola Scriptura is so foundational to non-Anglican Protestantism that it's probably not something that Protestantism can easily abandon. Further, it's not something that Orthodoxy or Catholicism can really agree with. If Luther had just asserted Sola Scriptura as a "Theologumenon" or "Adiaphora" that Protestants are free to agree or disagree with, then it might not be as big an issue. I imagine that in Catholicism, one is free to disagree with Augustine's and other old RC theologians' statements that assert a version of Sola Scriptura. Trying to speak objectively, from a classical Christian POV, it's probably not a crucially mistaken teaching either.

All the best.
:)(y)???️?????
I personally reject Catholicism. I took instruction in the Catholic Church, I've visited the Vatican, etc. I will NEVER abandon Protestantism, nor will I engage in discussions with Catholics or Anglicans. I joyfully believe in the TRINITY after having spent many sad years in the Mormon church. I prefer to limit my time at Carm in the future. I generally agree with Theo's posts. I don't know your beliefs, but God does and He is CAPABLE of handling any and all people. So have a nice future.
 
I personally reject Catholicism. I took instruction in the Catholic Church, I've visited the Vatican, etc. I will NEVER abandon Protestantism, nor will I engage in discussions with Catholics or Anglicans. I joyfully believe in the TRINITY after having spent many sad years in the Mormon church. I prefer to limit my time at Carm in the future. I generally agree with Theo's posts. I don't know your beliefs, but God does and He is CAPABLE of handling any and all people. So have a nice future.
We affirm that the canon scripture, 66 books, alone are the full and supreme authority in regards to all matters pertaining to doctrines and practices, but that we also are encouraged to use additional sources to read and understand the bible, such as commentaries and lexicons!
 
, it's a demonstrably mistaken core Lutheran dogma.
So says a person affiliated with a sect which either doesn't know what Scripture says or doesn't care enough about it to use it. Sound harsh or unreasonable? It isn't.

The undivided Roman church, dominated by Gentiles, abandoned the Scriptures as given for what at best can be considered a translation of Scripture and then some. That "translation" is the so-called LXX.

In the Roman west that "translation" became a basis of the Latin Vulgate. In the Roman east it remains a basis of it's Bible. (This would be the place for someone affiliated with one of the now divided Roman church to insert whatever 'good" reason or reasons which their sect has taught them for implementing such an error.)

Regardless of whatever reason or reasons a member of the Roman sects might put forth, the questions are was their error a net gain or net loss and what is the evidence?

Looking at the history, within the Apostolic church (the real one, not the imagined ones) there was no debate, dissension, or call for a meeting of explanation among the faithful regarding John's use of the Word to identify God incarnate, Peter's identification of the Spirit as God, etc.

This was not the case among the later Gentile led Roman church which was primarily relying upon a translation. And so these, "wise," guys when faced with heresies from other Gentiles, who were also primarily relying upon a translation, compounded that error by developing answers regarding the incarnate LORD, the Spirit, etc., which were heavily influenced by and relied upon Gentile philosophy.

And so a readily identifiable intrusion by and a further slide into philosophy continued in the undivided Roman church and the later divided Roman churches.

The Scriptural and logical solution to such gross errors was and is the assertion of Scripture alone as lord and master over all other writings on earth. -A paraphrase of Martin Luther's now famous statement.
 
Last edited:
Third, if you could realistically use only the Bible alone to judge every question, then you could just strictly quote Bible verses to another open minded Christian with an opposite point of view whenever you want to both decide the Bible's position on any topic. You would not add your own sentences to what you quoted from the Bible to explain what it means, because when you do, you are using some source (your own) in addition to what is found in Scripture. So if someone asked whether to baptize infants, you could just quote to them from the Bible and they know what to do. But in practice that doesn't work. A Lutheran can't in practice just go to a sincere Protestant who denies infant baptism and without any explanations only quote the verse where Jesus says, "Let the children come to me," and the other Protestant will get the Bible's position on the topic, because the verse is not on-point enough on the specific question of baptizing infants. For instance, maybe the children were not "infants."

Fourth, in practice Luther, Calvin, and their Churches did not follow Sola Scriptura in practice either. In order to learn, understand, and explain the Bible they and their Churches relied on the writings of the Church fathers, especially Augustine. So De Facto they were treating Augustine and other writers as authorities to understand the Bible's position on questions, as opposed to using only the Bible alone on them. Further, when it came to the practice of Church administration, they along with the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches found that they needed to use church leaders, documents, and institutions as authorities. So whereas the preceding generations of Christians used bishops, declarations, and councils like Nicea in addition to the Bible to decide teachings, Luther and other Protestants in practice did that too. The Lutheran and Calvinist bishops or elders, formulas or "confessions," and assemblies de facto were making decisions on major religious issues like whether to baptize infants. And their institutions had practical force because for instance they could depose Protestant clergy if those clergy violated the assemblies' decisions. In other words, it was not enough for those clergy to accept the Bible, but they also in practice had to accept the decisions of those Protestant bishops, elders, or assemblies. Calvinists could claim in response that they just have "elders" whose "confessions" just match the truth but are not "authoritative" like the bishops and canons of past Church generations who took decisions on issues. But in practice, they and past generations were both meeting the same definitions of "authorities" and "rules" because both the past bishops and the Calvinist "elders" had power to make decisions on issues.

Finally, Sola Scriptura is one answer and reaction against the Catholic idea of the infallible Magisterium, but is not actually the only or best answer to it. A more natural answer to the topic is the Orthodox Christian or Anglican or Methodist principle where Scripture is the highest authority, but not the only authority. In Anglicanism and the Methodist Church descended from Anglicanism, this principle is called Prima Scrptura, the idea that Scripture is the First in authority. The Methodists have Scripture as part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that includes Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

To better understand the Sola Scriptura principle, it is best to see how it stands in an opposite tension or "dialectic" with the Catholic Magisterium concept. The Catholic Church developed the idea that if all bishops everywhere agree on a teaching, then it becomes part of an "infallible" Magisterium. Luther was probably a Catholic monk reacting against this Catholic concept in a kind of action-reaction "dialectic." He objected to numerous Catholic traditions, and so to give his objections power, he advocated the "counter-dogma" of following only the Bible alone, not traditions. In essence, Luther threw the baby out with the bathwater. While he was right to challenge many of the Catholic Church's decisions, much of extrabiblical Christian Tradition has key value for Christianity. Further, Luther's premise that Christian institutions or writings outside the Bible have no authority is not actually correct or practical, as Luther's own practice as a church leader showed.

Luther's theory may have missed the fact that just because something like a Christian council, declaration, commentary, or assembly might be mistaken or "fallible" does not actually mean that it has no authority or should have no role in rule-making. His theory may have also overlooked that even if one considers the Bible as the highest possible written source to decide on any issue, it doesn't follow that it is the only source. Nor does it follow that it is best or realistic to use the Bible as the only source. This is because while the Bible has general positions, like Jesus using wine at the Last Supper, Paul recommending alcohol as being healthy, and to avoid drunkenness, it doesn't have clear on-point directly relevant positions on every issue, like whether one can unconditionally only ever use fermented red wine for Communion. One can theorize that the Bible's story of the Last Supper implies that we should use fermented red wine unless such wine is unavailable, like if you are in the arctic wilderness with no grapes. That is the Orthodox Church's position. But the fact that the Bible is not on-point on the question is what helps give rise to variations like medieval Catholics giving only wafers or many Protestant congregations using grape juice.

Yes, if no one has been given the authority to settle issues between Christians and scripture alone is the final authority then on any issue concerning the Christian faith the appeal should be to scripture alone - meaning the actual words of scripture. But that doesn't happen all the time and Christians end up appealing to an authority other than scripture.
 
Maybe you could use scripture alone to teach us the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
psalm 138:
I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your grace and truth; for you have made your word greater than the whole of your reputation.

(Psalm 119:89) For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Hebrews 6:17 So when God wanted to make the unchanging nature of His purpose very clear to the heirs of the promise, He guaranteed it with an oath.

Sola Scriptura isthe highest authorty because of its characteristics and attributes of Scripture;
not because of what Scripture says.


In the same way : does God need to say He is the highest authority for it to be true?
Or is God the highest authority because of His characteristics and attributes?
 
Last edited:
psalm 138:
I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your grace and truth; for you have made your word greater than the whole of your reputation.

(Psalm 119:89) For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Hebrews 6:17 So when God wanted to make the unchanging nature of His purpose very clear to the heirs of the promise, He guaranteed it with an oath.

Sola Scriptura isthe highest authorty because of its characteristics and attributes of Scripture;
not because of what Scripture says.


In the same way : does God need to say He is the highest authority for it to be true?
Or is God the highest authority because of His characteristics and attributes?
Did not jesus handle and defeat satan by using scripture alone, as did not quote the traditions of the jewish leaders also to him!
 
I have a major soft spot for Lutheranism because I was baptized Lutheran and its positions so frequently match early patristic ones, like on the Real Presence. This draws me to consider and evaluate one of its foundational dogmas or axioms, "Sola Scriptura."

Luther and the Lutheran Church who created the Sola Scriptura concept defined it in their writings like the Formula of Concord to mean that the Bible Alone is the Only rule and authority:


Accordingly, one would not also use other sources outside the Bible like early Christian writings or Church Councils to help decide on teachings. It's a nicely convenient idea to imagine that we have a single text alone that addresses all religious questions. It also is a convenient way to avoid being forced into the tons of extrabiblical Catholic teachings of the Magisterium.

But the Lutheran and Reformed dogma of Sola Scriptura appears disprovable in both logic and practice. Following the dogma of Sola Scriptura, one should use the Bible alone to judge whether to use the Bible alone. When we turn to the Bible alone to judge this question, we find passages on tangential topics: It says that all Scripture is inspired and it commends early Christians for following the apostles' "traditions." At one point Paul writes in a Biblical epistle that women should wear head coverings and not have authority over mean, and says that his teaching on the topic, which cover numerous verses, is not inspired. However, the Bible alone never specifically says that the Bible alone is the only rule or authority to decide all teachings.

In fact, the Bible gives lots of suggestions to use other helpful sources and materials in addition to judge questions. For example, John's Gospel noted that Jesus gave sayings that were not recorded in the Bible, and the Bible notes that the apostles appointed overseers or bishops over the Christian community. One of the first bishops was Clement of Rome whom Paul mentions. Early writings like II Clement have sayings by Jesus outside the Bible. If you were living in the mid-1st Century, Jesus' sayings and the decisions by apostles and bishops would have some rulemaking authority for you, even if they were neither written in the Bible nor infallible decisions.

The early Church responsible for the Bible must not have wanted and intended for the Bible to be the only authority for Christians because they would have said so in it. The Torah has many detailed prohibitions like avoiding mixing wool with linen. Naturally, if they wanted Christianity to teach such a foundational Lutheran idea as Sola Scriptura, they would have written something like "Scripture is the Only rule" or "never use any authority outside Scripture." Nor does it even claim to cover all religious questions.

Then there is the practical problem. If Sola Scriptura was correct, a faithful person or community could just read the Bible alone and would reasonably find the Bible's position on every issue from it. But in practice, if sincere individual Christians or their groups go by the Bible Alone, they don't understand what its writers intended on all issues. If you give a Bible to a person or group who were never taught anything about Christianity, whether they are tribal people in Africa or young college educated European or Chinese inquirers, they are de facto not going to choose the right answer to every major religious question from Trinitarianism to the Real Presence to Infant baptism.

Second, the Sola Scriptura denominations, from Lutherans to the Amish to Baptists to Calvinists, disagree on what the Bible teaches on such major issues as having bishops, baptizing infants, and the objective Real Presence in the elements. Each one may believe that they have found the Biblical position by reading the Bible alone and that all other Bible-Only believers are wrong. But objectively and practically speaking, if the Bible Alone were the right, correct approach for faithful Christians, then they would not read it and come to so many opposite conclusions on so many questions so frequently.
In a nutshell....

Sola Scriptura....

As long as the Scripture is silent concerning a matter? Man is free to do as he pleases within reason.

Once a matter contradicts an attitude or precept prescribed in Scripture? Then Scripture must be the final authority.

I other words? The Bible is not going to tell you buy a certain car. But, it will tell you to obey the laws of the land while driving it.

This anti-sola Scriptura sentiment is much ado about nothing.
Luther penned the term in regards to rejecting the apostate teachings of the Catholic church.
It does not mean the Bible is to dictate for you what to do for every detail of your life.
Yet, it will set guide lines on how to live while you make choices for every area of your life.
 
Back
Top