This blog post explores the author's journey as a Protestant who concluded that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logically and historically incoherent. Through careful examination of scripture and Protestant teachings, the author presents compelling arguments against Sola Scriptura, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of the role of tradition and authority in Christianity.
In this post, I will share my journey as a Protestant who concluded that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or "scripture alone," is fundamentally flawed. This realization came long before I had read any Catholic authors or church fathers. My conclusions were based on a careful study of scripture and a logical examination of the implications of Protestant beliefs.
Since my conversion to Catholicism, I have faced accusations of holding Catholic assumptions that lead to Catholic conclusions. Ironically, these accusations often come from Protestant acquaintances who know my background as a devout Protestant. However, I reached my conclusions about Sola Scriptura long before I had any exposure to Catholic thought. I want to outline my reasoning and the steps that led me to reject this foundational Protestant doctrine.
To understand my objections, we must first correctly define Sola Scriptura. Many Catholic apologists have misrepresented it as the belief that scripture is the only authority in the church. However, Sola Scriptura asserts that scripture is the only infallible authority in the church. Various Protestant sects may allow for human interpretation and historic creeds, but they maintain that scripture alone is infallible.
For the purposes of this discussion, I will use the term "infallible" in the sense I understood it as a Protestant, meaning without error. In Catholic theology, infallibility is a more nuanced concept, referring to a gift from God that protects the church's formal teachings on faith and morals from error.
As I grappled with my doubts about Sola Scriptura, I turned to the Westminster Confession of Faith, a classic Protestant creed. This confession defines Sola Scriptura as resting on two pillars:
The first pillar states that the whole counsel of God concerning salvation is either expressly set down in scripture or can be deduced from it. The second pillar emphasizes that the infallible rule of interpretation is scripture itself, and all religious controversies must be determined by scripture.
The first major objection I encountered was the logical incoherence of Sola Scriptura. A critical question arises: What books are considered scripture? If scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, one must know which books are included. However, Sola Scriptura does not provide an answer to this question.
For example, most Protestants accept 66 books as scripture, but how do they know these are the correct ones? The Westminster Confession states that the only way to resolve controversies about scripture is through the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture. Yet, there is no inspired table of contents within scripture itself to clarify which books belong. This lack of clarity means that adherents of Sola Scriptura cannot answer one of the most fundamental questions of faith coherently.
My second objection to Sola Scriptura was its inconsistency with sacred history. If Sola Scriptura is a doctrine revealed by God, where is it practiced in scripture? Throughout biblical history, there were communities guided by God before scripture was written. For instance, the events in the Old Testament were recorded long after they occurred, raising questions about how Sola Scriptura could apply to those who lived before the canon was established.
If Sola Scriptura were true, it would imply that all truths of salvation must come from a closed set of scripture. However, this contradicts the historical process of how scripture was formed. The New Testament itself was not complete when Paul wrote his letters, and there is no indication in scripture of when or how the canon would be closed.
My intuitions about Sola Scriptura were further confirmed by the respected Protestant theologian RC Sproul. In a lecture on the canon of scripture, Sproul stated that the compilation of the canon was a fallible process involving the church's diligent efforts. He admitted that the church did not claim infallibility in this process, which struck me as absurd given the importance of the canon in Protestant belief.
Sproul's assertion that the church could be wrong about the canon contradicted the very foundation of Sola Scriptura. If the church's decisions about the canon were fallible, how could we trust scripture as the sole infallible authority?
As I continued to reflect on Sproul's arguments, I realized that his three rules for determining the canon of scripture relied on extra-biblical tradition rather than scripture itself. This reliance on tradition contradicted the principles of Sola Scriptura, which claims that all religious controversies must be resolved by scripture alone.
Sproul's first rule, which required apostolic origin for a book to be included in the canon, was problematic because it relied on claims not found in scripture. His second rule, which emphasized the reception of books by the early church, also depended on historical consensus rather than scriptural authority. Finally, his third rule of doctrinal compatibility further highlighted the contradictions inherent in Sola Scriptura.
In conclusion, my journey led me to the realization that Sola Scriptura is not only logically incoherent but also inconsistent with the historical context of scripture. My study of scripture and the teachings of respected Protestant figures like RC Sproul revealed the limitations of Sola Scriptura and its reliance on human judgment rather than divine revelation.
Ultimately, I found that the very foundation of my faith, the Bible, could not rest on a fallible process. This realization prompted me to explore Catholic teachings, where I discovered a more coherent understanding of scripture and tradition. My journey continues, but I am grateful for the insights I have gained along the way, which challenge the assumptions I once held dear.
