r/Protestantism • u/No_Bag2218 • 17d ago
Soula Scriptura
I don’t understand this Protestant concept. If you believe soula scriptura, wouldn’t you then not go to a church where a Father or an elder explains the Bible because his words aren’t the written word of god? Didn’t Jesus choose his apostles to spread the word of god through vocalization as many of the gentiles couldn’t read? When someone is confused with the scripture they ask questions for interpretation throughout the Bible, doesn’t this contradict soula scriptura? Lastly, if soula scriptura is your belief wouldn’t one have to learn Greek or Latin and make his own translation of the written word of god as it originally appears and not translated to a common tounge to be possibly misinterpreted? Pleas help me out here I’m genuinely confused.
5
5
u/AntichristHunter 17d ago
Please note that it is not "Soula Scriptura", but "Sola Scriptura".
Also, your question seems to be based on misconceptions and misunderstandings of what the principle actually is. It does not imply any of the things you stated. For your considerations, here are a few videos you may want to watch:
Sola Scriptura defended in 6 minutes
For your consideration, here are other great videos by Gavin Ortlund explaining the concept and defending it from history and reasoning and scripture itself.
3
2
3
u/TheRedLionPassant Anglican (Wesleyan-Arminian) 17d ago
In the words of Cranmer:
The Holy Scripture is a sufficient doctrine for our salvation: For in Holy Scripture is fully contained what we ought to do, and what to eschew; what to believe, what to love, and what to look for at GOD'S hands at length. In these books we shall find the Father from whom, the Son by whom, and the Holy Ghost in whom all things have their being and keeping up, and these three persons to be but one GOD, and one substance. In these books we may learn to know ourselves, how vile and miserable we be, and and also to know GOD, how good he is of himself, and how he maketh us and all creatures partakers of his goodness. We may learn also in these books to know GOD'S will and pleasure, as much as (for this present time) is convenient for us to know. And (as the great clerk and godly preacher Saint John Chrysostom saith), whatsoever is required to salvation of man is fully contained in the Scripture of GOD. He that is ignorant may there learn and have knowledge. He that is hard-hearted, and an obstinate sinner, shall there find everlasting torments (prepared of GOD'S justice) to make him afraid, and to mollify or soften him. He that is oppressed with misery in this world, shall there find relief in the promises of everlasting life, to his great consolation and comfort. He that is wounded by the Devil unto death shall find there medicine whereby he may be restored again unto health.
How the knowledge of the Scripture may be attained unto: And in another place Chrysostom saith that man's humane and worldly wisdom, or science, needeth not to the understanding of Scripture; but the revelation of the Holy Ghost, who inspireth the true meaning unto them, that with humility and diligence do search therefore. He that asketh shall have, and he that seeketh shall find, and he that knocketh, shall have the door open (Matthew 7:7-8).
A good rule for the understanding of Scripture: If we read once, twice, or thrice, and understand not, let us not cease so, but still continue reading, praying, asking of other, and so by still knocking (at the last) the door shall be opened (as Saint Augustine saith.) Although many things in the Scripture be spoken in obscure mysteries, yet there is nothing spoken under dark mysteries in one place, but the selfsame thing in other places is spoken more familiarly and plainly, to the capacity both of learned and unlearned.
Human reason, pastoral teaching, and spiritual experience, are all means of understanding or interpreting the Scripture, and shouldn't contradict one another.
1
u/NoSheDidntSayThat christian (refomed) 17d ago
I wrote this explanation about a decade ago, and I think it would help you a lot in terms of understanding what we actually mean when we say "Sola Scriptura"
1
u/Visible_Technology_1 15d ago
Sola Scriptura is defeated by the fact that the scriptures themselves do not tell you what scriptures belong.
2
u/Metalcrack 13d ago
Again......2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. God made sure what we needed was in the Bible.
-1
u/Visible_Technology_1 12d ago
That scripture does not prove Sola Scriptura. Even people who do not agree with Sola Scriptura agree that scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. That Scripture does not state that scripture ALONE is the only profitable source of those things.
2
u/Metalcrack 12d ago
Of course not. But it is the only with authority to be used for doctrine, for proving doctrine, to correct false doctrine, used for the very foundation of faith, and how to be saved.
If you do not understand the book of Daniel, reading a book about it IS profitable for knowledge. What do you use to check if that explanatory book is accurate.....your uncle Bob? No, the Bible.
A church has a Statment of Confession of the Catachism of Latter Day Conventions. Are their beliefs heretical...... How would you access this?
What if a church leader says "all religions are a path to God” . Are you to take that at their word.....? No you are to be like the Bereans, and see if it is so Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Where did they check? Vogue magazine? The answer is John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Therefore this leader was proven wrong by the highest authority, which is God's word, alone. Not by a man's word.
How about a prominent voice in Protestantism telling you that saying a prayer will save you? Believe it as its on TV....... or Romans 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. You must be born again as Jesus stated in John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Therefore this leader was proven wrong by the highest authority, which is God's word, alone. Not by a man's word.
So again I say 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. God made sure what we needed was in the Bible. The Bible is the only authority.
1
u/Visible_Technology_1 12d ago
Where did you get the Bible you have? How do you authoritatively know that you have the right canon?
1
u/Metalcrack 11d ago
I use and reference two different versions. I mainly use the King James and the NASB, which are word for word. KJV was translated from the original Greek Textus Receptus and the Masoretic texts for the old testament. Nothing more definitive. I have read most of the apocryphal texts and Enoch I as well.
As you are here questioning, what other than the Bible is to be used for doctrine and which version of the Bible is best?
1
u/OppoObboObious 17d ago
To understand your Salvation you really only need to go so far as basically what the early Reformers like Luther and Calvin were saying. It's not that complicated. Salvation is the main point and it's not only reserved for polymath scholars. Now, if you want to get into deeper things like debating the Trinity and understanding prophecy then yeah, learn Hebrew and Greek, and as much history as you can cram into your brain.
-2
u/Legitimate-Panda2926 17d ago
Sola Scriptura is not philosophically sound. This is not what God intended, if yes then Jesus would have written the whole New Testament. Instead Jesus built a Church with the apostles (with Peter as rock), as the New Jerusalem.
6
u/Metalcrack 17d ago
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. The Bible is of God, and is our instruction manual.
1
u/Legitimate-Panda2926 17d ago
Totally agreed with what you said here. Im not discounting the Bible at all. The Bible contains the word of God. But taking the Bible outside the Church or community that compiled it in the first place, disaster happens. Look at how many “Bible-centered” protestant church splinters we have that do not agree with one another. Jesus established a Church with his apostles who in turn by grace of the Holy Spirit produced and compiled the Bible.
5
u/VulpusRexIII 17d ago
But all Catholics agree with each other, right?
0
u/Legitimate-Panda2926 16d ago
Individual catholics no. But the Church has a mechanism to settle doctrinal disputes as a whole. Unlike the setup in Protestantism where if you disagree with your current church, just go to church in the next street or setup your own church.
3
u/VulpusRexIII 16d ago
Can't Catholics just go to the next parish down?
The proposed solution here still doesn't fix the fact of nominalism or diversity of opinions within Catholicism. Ever hear of Catholics for choice? Or father James Martin?
1
u/Legitimate-Panda2926 16d ago
Good question. Catholics for choice are obviously in error as abortion is wrong explicitly mentioned in the Cathechism. James Martin and other pro-LGBT agenda are a growing issue the Church still needs to resolve as a whole. But there is a way to move forward, unlike in Protestantism.
1
u/VulpusRexIII 13d ago
I believe that's a false comparison fallacy. Protestantism is an umbrella term, whereas Catholicism is a single institution. It would be equally valid for me to say that there isn't a way forward in Eclessialism (meaning those who claim that they are the one true church) because there isn't unity between Orthodox, Catholics, and Syrian church of the east, etc, but that would be a pretty silly thing to argue since there's no reason to expect such unity. Similarly in protestantism, there's also no reason to expect such a unity. Thus, your argument fails.
An equal comparison would be between denominations, such as Catholics versus LCMS or the Southern Baptist Convention, etc. However, those do have built in ways of solving doctrinal disputes, that also refute your argument.
However, simply acknowledging that an entity has the authority to fix something doesn't have the same effect as actually exercising that authority.
0
u/Legitimate-Panda2926 13d ago
My main point is that Sola Scriptura as a “church mechanism” for settling doctrinal disputes is not only ineffective but also not how God intended His Church to function. When we look at history, especially the early Church, we see a clear model for addressing heresies and preserving unity that does not rely on Scripture alone but includes the authority of councils and the bishop of Rome.
Take, for example, the Arian heresy, which threatened the Church’s understanding of Christ’s divinity. The early Church did not rely on individuals interpreting Scripture independently to resolve this crisis. Instead, it convened ecumenical councils like Nicaea, where bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned the truth together. These councils were authoritative because they represented the universal Church and were confirmed by the bishop of Rome, whose role as the successor of Peter was recognized as having the final authority in such matters. This approach ensured unity and doctrinal clarity, something Sola Scriptura has historically failed to achieve.
You mention that individual Protestant denominations have mechanisms for resolving doctrinal disputes, but the reality is that these mechanisms often lead to fragmentation rather than unity. When disagreements arise, the result is typically a split, with each side claiming to follow the Bible but arriving at conflicting interpretations. This has led to the proliferation of thousands of Protestant denominations, each with its own understanding of doctrine, yet no objective way to determine who is correct.
In contrast, the Catholic Church provides an objective way to identify the legitimate Church through its apostolic succession and teaching authority, grounded in Christ’s promise to Peter: “You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). The Magisterium, guided by the pope and bishops in communion with him, ensures that doctrinal disputes are resolved in a way that maintains the unity Christ intended for His Church.
This distinction is crucial. While Protestant churches may have internal mechanisms, these are not universal or binding on other denominations. In Catholicism, however, there is a universal authority recognized by all Catholics, which has been exercised consistently throughout history to safeguard the faith and resolve disputes without fracturing the Church.
This historical and theological consistency is one of the reasons I find the Catholic understanding of authority compelling. It aligns with the early Church’s practices and reflects God’s design for a visible, unified Church with a clear means of discerning truth.
1
u/VulpusRexIII 12d ago
Schism within protestantism is a valid critique of protestantism. However, I would point to other issues that are at cause rather than just Sola scriptura.
That said, the Catholic answer is not as simplistic as you make it seem.
I would challenge you to find a council throughout church history that did not also result in a church split or schism. Even the one you mentioned had serious consequences to it as a result, with many opponents to Arianism being exiled. It's not as though in the first 1500 years in Catholicism you had unity, and then protestantism comes along and now you have schism. Many Denominations that split from early church councils still exist today, and still hold a claim to being the one true church, just as Catholicism does. Now you have competing claims of authority, laying on of hands, and whoever has Peter's seat.
Second, I think you're operating on a mistaken understanding of sola scriptura. I, and most other Protestants, would affirm at least the first four ecumenical councils of the early church. They are authoritative, but are not equally authoritative as scripture itself. Sola scriptura also does not mean solo scriptura, as you seem to assume. I do not believe that I must submit to my own interpretation of the Bible and that's it. Rather, Sola scriptura means that there is no higher rule of faith than the word of God itself. There are rules of faith, but none are equal to scripture in the way that Catholic and Orthodox claim. Sola scriptura exists as a reforming principle, and it was necessary given the immense and institutionally ordained corruption present in the church during the time of the reformation.
Sola scriptura came about because of the downside of the Catholic model of authority during the time of the reformation: an institutionally-wide spread alteration of the gospel (you can now buy salvation with money, and decrease time in purgatory through interaction with relics), immorality of the papacy, bishops, and priesthood, which nothing was done about until Trent after many who stood against it were burned at the stake, and the elevating of accretions in doctrine (Marian dogmas 3-4, veneration of icons, papal supremacy/infallibility) to infallible truths.
A huge reason why I'm not Catholic is because the system of Catholicism allows you to add to God's word with no internal reform possible (infallibility is a dangerous sword to wield), and infallibly claim matters of historical fact that go against verifiable reality.
1
u/WinterSun22O9 9d ago
Wait, so Catholics have been pointing the finger at Protestants for being "divided" while actually being equally guilty of disagreeing with each other this entire time?
Why isn't this hypocrisy ever addressed?
5
u/TheRedLionPassant Anglican (Wesleyan-Arminian) 17d ago
Didn't those same apostles produce most of the New Testament Scripture though?
11
u/freddyPowell 17d ago
So, you have in your head a fairly extreme view of sola scriptura. In practice it means something closer to this: firstly, that the bible is the highest authority, nothing that contradicts it can be allowed to stand, and secondly that everything necessary to salvation is to be found in the bible (or at least all knowledge necessary: merely reading the bible through does not save you, but if you act upon what you have read you can be saved).
Therefore we are saved by the scriptures alone not in the sense that interpretation of the scriptures is not often necessary, and in the case of translations we may have to rely on the interpretations of others. However, we must always return to the scriptures in developing our opinions, not allowing ourselves to follow blindly the accumulated writings of later scholars, and all our beliefs and practices should remain firmly grounded in scripture.
Regarding the question of oral teaching, the roman empire, as far as I understand it, was not totally illiterate. A cursory google suggests that somewhere on the order of one in every six or seven romans could read, enough that most congregations would have at least one literate individual. It is worth remembering that though the Lord himself did not write very much down, his apostles wrote a great deal, especially Paul, but also the others. If there had been a strong practical reason not to write things down (as you seem to suggest) it seems implausible that they should have forgotten it so quickly. I do not doubt that our Lord had other reasons for acting as he did, but I do not know them.