Poll for Protestants. Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

In another thread I was told that not all Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura. I just want to take a poll to see how many Protestants believe (or don’t believe) in Sola Scriptura. Please vote (Protestants only)!

I voted yes, but as a Lutheran, my understanding of SS is dramatically different than that of, for example, most American evangelicals and the like. We do not exclude Tradition, the creeds, the ECF’s, our own confessions, etc., simply because they are not found verbatim in the Bible. We only say these things cannot contradict scripture, that scripture is the final norm.


“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.”


I like how you put that.

I would say that in the normally used term of Sola Scriptura, you could vote no. But if you put it that way, i believe The Roman Catholic Church could vote yes, too. I find no contradiction between the Church’s teachings and the Word of God.

Like he said.

I assume this is directed at me. If one describes SS as is often done here and by American evangelicals and nondenoms, I would vote no. Where there is often a difference in Lutheran teaching and the RCC is in areas not explicit in scripture, such as Marion doctrine. When scripture isn’t explicit, or it is not a matter salvation, the believer should not have his conscience bound. I generally accept the marion doctrines, Pastor Gary here may or may not. Neither is to be condemned.
Pastor Gary might be able to add more to it.


I used to, but as I study the teachings of the Catholic church I don’t as much. In some ways I have found church tradition and teaching to be very helpful in flushing out the scripture than just having the scripture alone.

I understand, however, you said contradictory. We take our understanding of Mary’s holiness and sinlessness not only from tradition but possibly from the Word.

I will, poorly of course, because i am not a theologian, philosopher, or anything of the sort, attempt to show some of the scriptural basis to the Assumption and Mary’s perpetual sinlessness.

We first find the understanding of what Grace is.
According to Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org, we understand that grace is
"a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels) for their eternal salvation, whether the latter be furthered and attained through salutary acts or a state of holiness."
Given that, we can understand that grace is something we all need, yes?

(I will be using the New American Bible)

'Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.

" Lk 1:28


χαριτόω,v {khar-ee-to’-o}

  1. to make graceful 1a) charming, lovely, agreeable 2) to peruse with grace, compass with favour 3) to honour with blessings

A little later we see in Luke the visitation of Elizabeth to Mary. Elizabeth is bearing a ‘prophet of the Most High’, John. Upon her visitation it says 'Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said ‘*Most ***blessed **are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.’ Lk 1:41b-42

εὐλογέω,v {yoo-log-eh’-o}

  1. to praise, celebrate with praises 2) to invoke blessings 3) to consecrate a thing with solemn prayers 3a) to ask God’s blessing on a thing 3b) pray God to bless it to one’s use 3c) pronounce a consecratory blessing on 4) of God 4a) to cause to prosper, to make happy, to bestow blessings on 4b) favoured of God, blessed

The same word, in this greek version, to describe the blessedness of Jesus. Throughout the New Testament the same word is used to describe God in his many forms throughout the new testament.
However, when you look at instances like the beatitudes, and Luke 23:29 (Blessed are the barren women…)

This word is used, Blessed, but different.

μακάριος,a {mak-ar’-ee-os}

  1. blessed, happy

Humbly, I accept that I am not qualified to explain this. However, in my heart, and from all my understanding (sola scriptura in your explanation) I find that this sufficiently could explain a small portion of the biblical aspect of her sinlessness. Her being full of grace, and most blessed among women. We consider her the new Eve, and Jesus most blessed among Men, the new Adam. Brought into this world without sin, to be protected by the Grace and Love of God to set a whole new world for us to rejoice in, if we so choose: of eternal salvation.

Now, I, being a young catholic, found some cool information on the Mother of God doctrine in which we believe. What I would first like to explain though is that doctrines are created as a reponse to heresies in this world.

The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.


I don’t want to be too wordy, lacking any content and just putting words on a page, so i will get to my point. Mary is considered the Mother of God, biblically this is 100% true.

Mother of God
Jesus is God and Mary was, therefore, the Mother of God. This is more than merely a biological fact, but is a mystical reality which is true forever. The role of Mary as Jesus’ mother is an eternal role. Since the Church is the body of Christ, and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is therefore the Mother of the Church.

To say that Mary is the mother of Jesus’ physical nature but not His divine nature is to affirm the Nestorian heresy which proclaimed that Jesus had two natures.


I couldn’t have put it any better than stated here. For us to say that Jesus Christ had two natures and not one wholly divine and wholly human nature, I believe, as well, is impossible. Jesus couldn’t have possibly been God one minute than human the next, He is always God and always man, two in one.

The ‘Assumption’ of Mary is likewise I believe to be concluded from a Biblical basis. Her, being sinless, would cause her judgment to be unnecessary and pointless, and the assumption Doctrine does not state she didn’t die, for we all must die. But her body was taken into heaven because she has no stain on her.

I, being the ‘catechumen’ I still am, hope that this is somewhat explanatory, or even Biblically corresponding, because I have learned much from studying all this, and hope that if you find any irrationality in it, which i am sure you will, that you bring it up.

God bless you!

Keep voting!

Her perpetual virginity and protection by Grace from sin? Ok. Her IC and assumption are a bit more difficult from scripture. Actually, you make your points quite well. :slight_smile:


Wesley, At this point, there are two that say ye, and 5 that say no. Me thinks some Catholics are voting. ;):stuck_out_tongue:

Being a fathful protestant who goes to a non-denominational, Bible-teaching church, I would say that the more important question is, “Do you believe the Word of God to be infallible?”

What I have learned, via ‘sola scriptura’ is that the attributes of God include His omniscience (He is all-knowing), omnipotence (He is all-capable) and omnipresence (He is always everywhere) as well as His immutability (He cannot be changed in any respect.)
This last one says a lot about perfection. This is why sola scriptura carries so much weight. In order for God to be changed, it would mean that His perfection was somehow incomplete, and that is a contradiction of terms. Since we are unable to comprehend absolute perfection, we are called to believe by faith and not to try to manipulate the will of God to accommodate our understanding.

I am unable to post an answer to the survey, but do not know why. This forum is difficult to navigate for a newcomer.

Peace and Grace to you,

Welcome to CAF. When you first click on the thread, the opportunity to vote in the poll should come up. After you vote, that opportunity will not be available (no fair voting more than once :D)

Thank You, Jon.
I still do not understand, because there is a line underneath the voting graphic that said I am not allowed to vote. I may have clicked on something inadvertently, but I would think that I would have been notified of my vote.
Oh well, I just give it to the Lord, as it is all in His time.
My belief is that Scripture should not be over-written by man, and that is the reason that I attend a so-called protestant church.

Joyful blessings,

I agree with you, Scripture cannot be re-written, it has been done already. God inspired it, so if he inspired it, why would there need to be change?

I want to make a few points, not trying to indoctrinate you or anything, but merely share some cool information I found.

The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible ; neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known.


I know this is contradictory to what you may have been taught, but here me out, i will attempt to explain this in a clear way.

…yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered “as sacred and canonical”. They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New.


We know that from the beginning of our Christian Church the bible was compiled by the Faith of our Fathers. However, the question that I always bring up is, if The roman Catholic Church claims that they have been around for these past 2,000 years, it must have been the members of which that compiled it.

Actually if we look at St. Jerome, his main job in the 4th century was the continuation of the inspection of the Bible and translation. (This is before they had printed copies and they were all manuscript.)

Tradition plays a huge part in how we compiled the bible, the tradition is why the books of the Pentatuch (the Torah) are ordered in such a way. Tradition is not merely human, but inspired by God as well. I think that it is important to realize that because ‘it is not in the bible’ does not mean it is not truth. And to hold on to these ‘oral’ or non-biblical truth’s would be to respect God’s grace and his usefulness for us. However, it is of importance that all Christian faiths hold the bible to be free from error, though not always literal (genesis for instance), and infallible.

I say if it is contradictory to the Word of God, which comes first because it is 100% sure to be inspired by God, then we can conclude that the revelations to God’s beloved are not Truth, but untruth. And i find that your community is where you look (Faithful community) so that you do not misunderstand what we are to get from the Bible, and the best way to find what the Bible actually means i believe is from those who first understood it, our fathers of Faith… Such as :

St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-(98-117) AD)

Pope St. Linus

St. Iranaeus

There is so much truth out there that is not written in the bible, but we have our Faith in God and truth in the Bible to lead us to which is actually truth and which, as i said, is untruth.

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

John 21:25 (NAB)

I apologize if some parts are choppy or lightly put, but I have faith that tradition is as important as the Bible.

God bless you!

Welcome, by the way. Glad to have you aboard, haha.

Welcome aboard!!
The reason you cannot vote in the poll, is that you are a new member. (I remember the frustration back when I joined over this! I:p like to participate!!) It makes sense if you think about it; people could join under half a dozen names, vote, & skew the results totally before being found out & given the [well-deserved] boot. Your time will come.

Oh yes: I do NOT believe in sola scriptura. (Indeed, to the extent that I understand them, I do not believe in any of the solas…but I am an old lady who has been up all night reading, & I may have :oforgotten something.:slight_smile:

Jerome and the Apocrypha

Question: St Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures. What are your comments?

Answer: True, yet he classed the Apocrypha in a separated category. He differentiated between the canonical books and ecclesiastical books, which he did not recognize as authoritative Scripture. This is admitted by the modern Catholic church:

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture.

…So, I guess my definition of truth and yours are separated by a gulf.
The truth about Jerome and the Apocrypha can be found at:

Lord Bless,

Thank you for the answer, dear sister. (o:


You have to define “Sola Scriptura.”

And, of course, some Protestants would say that if you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, you are by definition not Protestant! And some Anglicans would agree, defining themselves as Catholics rather than Protestants precisely because they don’t believe in sola scriptura.

I will take sola scriptura to mean “only the Bible should be accepted on faith as a source by which divine revelation comes to us, and all other sources of theology must be subordinated to Scripture.” When defined that way, I still have to say “I don’t know.” If forced to choose one way or the other, I would say “no,” because the historic proclamation of the Church (what I take Vatican II to mean by “tradition”) is also a means by which we have access to the original divine revelation, and clearly that proclamation could still mediate divine revelation even if there were no Bible. But I think that tradition passes on divine revelation in a radically different way than the Bible, so that there’s a sense in which I can agree with sola scriptura if carefully defined. I certainly believe that the Bible as (as the Church has historically confessed) the supreme repository of divine revelation by the standard of which everything else needs to be judged.


Yes, Agreed. You make a good point, so I must ask you, Do you believe in the inerrant Word of God?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17)

God is no author of confusion, but of order. Therefore the cry of the reformers as sola scriptura was not to create any schism in the church, but to try to bring the church back to God’s Word. And this because the church was giving far too much prominence to tradition, and making the Word take a ‘back seat’.
This was creating divisions within the church over practices such as the sale of indulgences in order to build a cathedral.
The reformers were simply trying to put the focus back on God’s Kingdom, and away from the desires of man.
The words sola scriptura do not hold the same weight today due to all that has transpired since then.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.