PROTESTANTS! Answer me this....

  1. Please reveal to me “the” ( the definition that speaks for all of the non Catholic denoms) definitive definition of “sola scriptura”

  2. Please reveal to me “the” definition of “sola fide”

  3. Please show me where the bible explicitly teaches both of thes doctrines.

  4. Please show me where the bible teaches that each person is able to interpert the bible and that interpretation is valid.

  5. Thank you so much for your guidance!


**1) **

There isn’t one…next…

really though, I suppose the common denominator is that scripture is the only source of divine revelation for the church. In that it is the norm for the way God directs his authority to the Church.

Beyond that each major block will have different opinions on how this should be taken. For instance the more Reformed have in worship the “regulative principle”, where unless it is commanded then it is forbidden. Whereas Luther and the Anglican Church (in general) are looser, and what scripture does not comment on is allowed. Same with various opinions on the role of tradition and church authority. Anglican (especially) and Luther had a larger role, the reformed had some role (magisterial reformation), and then the Zwinglian and Anabaptist tended to be more extreme.

Being Anglican I give unto thee:

“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read
therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be
believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the
name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New
Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. Article VI”

“Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?
A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of
the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true
interpretation of the Scriptures.” CAC (Catechism of the Anglican Church:D)

Book recommendation: “the Last Word”, by Bishop N.T. Wright

"XI. Of the Justification of Man.

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified
by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is
expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XII. Of Good Works.

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot
put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and
acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith;
insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the

So by “salvation” we mean “Justification”. How one is considered to be a child of God, and leads to being adopted into the family and given the gift of the Holy Spirit, ect. One in this state can expect to be with their Lord when they die. And that good works are not done to aver God’s wrath, although he will use discipline to correct, but not in judgment.

I’d say that is a good summary of all Protestants…but still there may be slight nuances.

**3) **
sola scriptura is derived, not explicit. More like we know that scripture is a source of infallible divine revelation and authority, but have not been given assurance about anything else.

sola fide is derived from the all the salvation passages that describe Justification by faith, by the teachings especially in the book of Romans on Abraham and Galatians on the contrast with the works of the law, and then by Protestants believing the few verses that seem contrary to be interpreted differently. I would say most all of our arguments for it derive from our interpretations of Romans and Galatians

But I’m sure these have been debated back on forth on this forums allot, so I’ll refrain from scripture bombing :smiley: This would be the normal lines of arguments we take boiled down.
4)** Please show me a Protestant confession or creed which says this in the way you said and nuanced it
5)** You’re welcome!

May be better if you want to recommend some Protestant systematic theologies, if you get a Lutheran, Reformed Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican (although we don’t really have much in the systematic theologies area unless it is from the Tractarian era) and a generic Evangelical and look up definitions in them, what would give a good overview of the spectrum.


As an evangelical/born again/bible believing christian I agree with you.:thumbsup: :smiley: You said you were angelican so that is 2 denoms down that agree how many to go?:cool:


I’m a Baptist. I agree. That’s 3.:slight_smile:


So you’re Catholic?:smiley:


The Protestant Denominations I belonged to could only agree on one thing…They did not submit to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome!!! - Funny I guess the Pope is unifying after all:D


Why are you not Anglican also then?


So then there are 3 denominations that believe the same thing (so far). MeekFundamental, why are you not an Anglican? Why do you all agree and yet you all insist on this denominationalism? Which, by the way, Christ condemns in scripture.

Please explain. Thank you.


Hi, I was raised Episcopalian. I left as a teenager(no surprise ther:rolleyes: ) I didnt start looking for a church until I was an adult and honestly it didnt matter to me what denom as long as they taught straight from the bible.:thumbsup: I just happen to visit a baptist church first and loved it and there you go. I left there because of Pastoral problems and there were no programs going on and I was not being fed spiritually so I ended up where I am now and I and my children are thriving spiritually.:smiley:

Honestly, Im glad I never went back to the Episcopal church because of all that is going on.:frowning: The minister who married my husband and I just went through some scandal and was forced to retire and is getting a divorce. Not really good role models for my children.:eek: I could handle the scandal but my kids are a different story.



Well, no because I did not go through the sacrements so I cant be catholic.:wink:

The rest I will plead the fifth as not to start a riot aimed at me!!:eek:


I am Methodist and if you will notice the Methdist Articles of Religion and the Articles of the Church of England posted above are word for word the same;)


Interesting. I wonder why, then, that the Methodists, and the Anglicans insist on remaining different denominations if their articles of faith are the same? Any answers…?


I am curious, which church teaches the truth? We have to agree that there is one truth and not many different ones. So, did the “pastoral” problems then reveal to you that the Episcopalians or the Baptists did not posses the truth? I also wonder if the lack of “programs” is what reveals to us that the truth was not present. And you happened upon the truth in the church you are currently attending? Sounds like amazing luck, but I could be wrong. I really am curious, let me know.


“So what happened before the Apostles”

By “Church”, we mean the institution of believers in Christ, so that any concepts of the Church in the OT notwithstanding, sola scriptura in our Theology only properly applies to post-Christ.

However it fits the pattern in that Moses gave the first set of divine revelation, then the Prophets gave revelation which was recorded and stored in the Temple. If God appeared or sent a prophet then new revelation could be given. But there was still only the Law and wittings that constituted the authoritative revelation. Christ was the next, and then he appointed the Prophets to teach and they wrote scripture or approved of scripture, along with Paul who received a special divine revelation.

So “before the Apostles wrote” we had the apostles, when the Apostles died out then the Church was to keep to the teachings of Christ handed down to the Apostles, which was then canonized as scripture. We hold then that If there is authoritative revelation outside of scripture, then following the pattern it would be a special case through a prophet or other special means of divine revelation, but nothing like an institution that holds within itself a non-written continual stream of revelation, or that can discern revelation. The idea of having prophets after Christ is debated, but even charismatics will usually not have these prophecies added to scripture. Which is our Point, all authoritative revelation generally binding on the people of God as a whole given in ages past was eventually added to scripture, as opposed to running along side it.

"Why has the Holy Spirit…caused so many rifts in the body of Christ? "

We would say he hasn’t of course, just like you would, we disagree both disagree with each other on what we thought the proper teaching was. The reason for the disagreement is due to human sin as it tried to interpret scripture. I would argue the Spirit has lead the Church to know many truths, like that of the Trinity, but it is up to the individual churches to accept them.

"This of course begs the question “What great authority has assured you that the 27 books…”

Which begs the question that it was Rome that is the basis for the NT canon for non-Catholics. :smiley: I doubt the Eastern Orthodox say they accept the NT canon based on a decision from Rome either. Which council did Rome decide the canon of the NT? I have seen several early canon lists and don’'t remember when Rome declared one, nor when one was accepted because Rome authorized it. At most the canon of Laodecia which I believe was affirmed by an ecumenical council, being a general acceptance from the whole Church and not just Rome. It was really a process that came to a general consensus, like the OT canon with the Jews.

We accept the 27 NT books because they seemed to be in general accepts by the early Church through the Muratorian and Athanasius canons, the various Fathers who listed authoritative books, like Irenaeus or Origin. and evidence from early local councils such as Laodicea , Carthage and Hippo. It has more to do with a general consensus of the faithful, by the fact that each book was either written by and Apostle or endorsed by one, and by they way they fit into other books already accepted. I would say most Protestant theologians have objective book-by-book reasons along with what was a general early consensus for how we know what the NT books are, more so then we look to an ontologically-infallible source for figuring it out. Again it will be like with the Jews, it was a process over time, more then an organizational decision, at most it would have happened at the council of Jamina (debatable). R.C. Sproul actually once said that the canon “might” be wrong, as it is a possibly fallible collection of infallible books.

So in asking that question you are assuming we Protestants have the same concept behind canon that you do, but we don’t so that not having an authority to declare what the NT books are is not a problem because it can be deduced from Church history in general, authorship and general content of the books.


"But the “alone” part is nowhere in scripture, well except where it says “not by faith alone”. The thing is, The Catholic belief of “Faith and…” fits without having to interpret passages differently then they read. "*

Except Ephesians 2:8-9 which contrasts faith with what someone does, and not the result of works.

"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God–
9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast."
Eph 2:8-9 (NRSV)

Doesn’t even use “law” here, but works, we are saved by faith apart from works, and it is not even their own doing. Which is what we mean by “faith alone”.

And everyone interprets passages with some level of Theology in the background. everyone has some verses where we say “yes, it says that, but it really means…blah” due to context or out of a desire to harmonize with other scripture. Should we not we expect this? After all, some things in scripture are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16), so there will be verses that may have to “be interpreted differently then they read” because the way they are “being read” badly either grammatically, contextually, culturally or canonically.

So what, we have a hard time with James 2? There are plenty of debates on the meaning of this one verse, many of which will say to see this as a faith and works justification is out of context

a) canonically (in accord with Romans and Galatians) and

b) culturally (the concept of “faith” in Hebrew thought never meant mere cognition, and therefore this verse is in harmony with defining what true, saving faith looks like) and

c) contextually (the faith being described of demons is “God is one”, base monotheism which we would both agree is not enough doctrinally anyway, plus demons lack faith because they do not submit, James is speaking of faith differently then Paul, just because it is the same word does not mean it has the same meaning in every context)

On the positive side we argue the overall argument of Romans for Paul and Galatians which makes a contrast between righteousness by following the law and righteousness by faith apart from the law is the basis for faith being the deciding factor in justification, and not faith with works, but a real faith will produce works as the essence of that “true and lively faith” as the Prayer Book says.

“The Protestant Denominations I belonged to could only agree on one thing…They did not submit to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome!!! - Funny I guess the Pope is unifying after all”

does that may the Eastern Churches and the Oriental Churches also Protestant then since they do not accept the authority of Rome?? :smiley:

Sorry that was long, but it was several things that books could be written over, and I tend to be a long winded person :wink:


There are historical reasons, John Wesley himself never broke off (and never wanted to), but the differences in the growing Methodist movement and the established CoE lead to a gradual split. There are some theological distinctions also, Methodism is Wesleyan in its Theology which is more focuses on Free-will and has the idea of preveinaint (sp?) grace (Arminian is sometimes throw about, but is inaccurate and unfair for his theology which was more unique then that. whereas Anglicanism tends to be more Calvinist/Reformed. i’m not sure how much these difference show up in the Anglican and Methodist articles…BUT

we have been working together and having talks and inter-communion for awhile now, so there is no indication that we will not see eventually more of a merger back, but for now we are actually fairly cooperative for two denominations, even if not organizationally united.


My Baptist brother or sister here and I will disagree on several other things though, we just happen to agree on these issues :slight_smile: I would venture to say that if I tried to install gold candles, vestments, infant baptism, “Eucharist” with kneeling and altar rails, and some form if any of a “priesthood” in their church then you would soon see some things that divide! We may even have different ideas on how sola scriptura plays out, for instance Anglicans have several creeds, Baptists (in general) are anti-creedal. So we still have some things that we do not agree on :slight_smile:


2Ti 3:16
ALL scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for REPROOF, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth REPROOF shall die.

Not only sola scriptura but believe it or die. That’s explicit enough don’t you think?



Both churches had the truth. I did not leave because of any doctrinal issues. It was more I wasnt being spiritually fed where I was. Im sure catholics switch parishes for the same reasons. I see it as the same thing. Ive heard people here say to other people to find a better parish. I see that as the sane in protestantism. Some just dont teach the truth as well as others do.:frowning: I personally needed more then my former churches were offering–that’s all.:thumbsup:


The difference is that with Baptists and Episcopalians (40 years an Episcopalian, here), there is no court of appeals. If your pastor preaches idiocy, he/she [sometimes in concert with a political movement] can more or less claim freedom in the Holy Spirit . . . It’s draining and demoralizing.

As a Catholic, if my Pastor veers off into idiocy, at least we KNOW it’s idiocy (or heresy, or what-have-you). There is a lodestar by which to navigate.

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