Sola Scriptura vs Solo or Nuda Scriptura


I wanted to start a new fresh thread on the topic above that I am borrowing from another thread how do protestants study the bible.

Steadfast mentions that “Solo or Nuda Scriptura” would be the heretical belief that every doctrine is explicitly and clearly stated in the Bible such that no interpretation or appeal to tradition or even context is necessary to understand and apply it.

Steadfast also mentions that “Sola Scriptura” means that everything we need to know and believe in order to be in right relationship with God can be found clearly presented within the pages of the Bible. Nothing else is necessary.

I will agree with both statements but as a convert to the Catholic Faith it intrigues me that many protestant have the attitude of a Nuda Scriptura without knowing they are are heritical. It also intrigues me that as a protestant I would go to “worship” and listen to my preachers words of what the bible means, as a Catholic I go to worship and recieve the liturgy of His Word and His Flesh and Blood, with a small homily that is related to the readings.

Sola Scriptura has in itself shown us both a spiritual Church and a physical Church, the Church does not take one thing away from Sola Scriptura, even tradtion is recognized in the bible alone.


I think you’re right.

Many Protestants have no clear idea what Sola Scriptura is and there’s a lot of bad information out there.

But I disagree that a “spiritual” and “physical” church are made necessarily distinct by Sola Scriptura.


Most people are fairly stupid theologically, and I dont exclude myself from that characteriztion. When educated people start to conceptualize this grand definition of what sola scriptura means it is beyond the comprehension of the average person. It becomes unworkable and necessarily vague. In addition, such complicated notions of sola scriptura contradict the very sense of the term and become an entity so different from what Luther and the reformers held to that many simply regard it is a new, ongoing invention. IMHO much of this “tampering” with the definition of Sola Scriptura is a direct result of the contradictory theology which the doctrine has generated. When confronted with the REALITY of strict “sola scriptura” generating mutually exclusive theology then several possibilities arise:
1. Not all are being led by the Holy spirit in interpreting Scripture
The comfort from this solution is short lived. Once it is recognized that some simply believe they are being led by the HS, but in fact are not, the big question remains unanswered from Scripture: which of the competing doctrines is an interpretation guided by the HS? Without an authority to provide the answer we are left with confusion.
2. The differences which emerge are “disputable” and not binding on one’s salvation and therefore dont really matter. This is a nice attempt to blend ecumenism with humility and would appear to be very Christlike. But ultimately it too fails because you simply cannot sweep everything under the rug and pretend that there is unity of faith when people cannot agree on some very basic things - very basic. Is Jesus God? Is Baptism only symbolic? Do Sacraments convey Grace? Is salvation by Faith alone? Is OSAS true? I could go on and on…
3. **Sola Scriptura doesnt simply mean what many believe it to mean and that is why they fail in illiciting correct doctrine from Scripture. **This is just a variation of option 1, placing the burden on the person’s intellect rather than on the HS - in my opinion. It still leaves us with no definitive answers as to which doctrines are correct. There also is no endpoint to the possibility of some “new information” reversing a previously believed doctrine. Im sorry but it simply doesnt provide for the unity of faith that we should expect Scripturally.

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