Soula Scriptura

[u/No_Bag2218]

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.

[u/Legitimate-Panda2926]

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.

[u/Metalcrack → u/Legitimate-Panda2926]

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.

[u/Legitimate-Panda2926 → u/Metalcrack]

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.

[u/VulpusRexIII → u/Legitimate-Panda2926]

But all Catholics agree with each other, right?

[u/Legitimate-Panda2926 → u/VulpusRexIII]

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.

[u/VulpusRexIII → u/Legitimate-Panda2926]

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?

[u/Legitimate-Panda2926 → u/VulpusRexIII]

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.

[u/VulpusRexIII → u/Legitimate-Panda2926]

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.

[u/Legitimate-Panda2926 → u/VulpusRexIII]

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.

[u/VulpusRexIII → u/Legitimate-Panda2926]

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.

[u/WinterSun22O9 → u/Legitimate-Panda2926]

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?