Why was Sola Scriptura ever even worthy of arguing about?


It is just as foolish to argue about it today as it was when it was invented.

There’s no such thing as “Sola Scriptura”, and to claim otherwise is to be foolish, and Our Lord tells us not to cast our pearls before swine, that is, don’t bother arguing with fools!

“Sola Scriptura” is simply good cover for someone that wants to be an “armchair pope”.

I could invent something called “Sola Romanus”, and claim that only St Paul’s Letter to the Romans should guide the Faithful, and if enough people bought into it over a period of years (for whatever reasons) it would still be just as ridiculous as it was the day I invented it, and would really merit no argument.
Why argue with an absurdity?**


Eh, when St. Paul travelled around he came across people doing absurd stuff, like treating some statue they made with their own hands as it were almighty God. He reasoned with them to show them the truth. But you are right, at some point you just have to dust off the sandals.


How can anyone argue about a doctrine that cannot be practiced (and never was practiced)?


I’ve heard of folks who hit a little ball with a stick and then run around in a circle. Go figure!


Why? Because it was a necessary doctrine to justify dismissing the authority of the Church. It was all about being able to reject the Church.


Whoa, lets leave Baseball out of this. Everyone knows it is second to the Catholic Church. Protestants get the bronze.


Yeah, it’s silly to argue the merits of whether to believe the Word of God or the Word of men. :rolleyes:


Very good point. Interestingly, there are some in the Evangelical world who would like to make this unbiblical, unTraditional doctrine as the unifying factor in their ideal universal church:

The Ideal Church

Its hard for me to believe that the doctrine used to undermine and sever the authority of the Church could be used as the unifying factor of any “universal” church (unless it agrees with the founders’ personal eisogesis).


This is the point.

Some (as we’ve just seen on this thread) can dismiss the authority of the Church as “the word of men.” That’s why sola scriptura is worth arguing over. Actually, it was recognizing the invalidity of sola scriptura that helped convert me.




Protestants don’t agree on much beyond “Christ is Lord”.

“Sola scriptura” and “sola fide” are as close as one gets to Protestant universal doctrine.

It is necessary to refute it because once “sola scriptura” and “sola fide” are debunked for the frauds they are minds and hearts open to the Truth.

I was a Protestant for well over 30 years, and a pretty well-versed one to boot. In all that time, I don’t think I spent 60 minutes of honest, critical thought about these pillars of Protestantism. There is a strong reluctance to discuss these in detail in most Protestant quarters. Part of this is no doubt because Reformation history is not taught, and when it is, is confusing for the Protestant.

It is important to refute each using Scripture because Protestants are thoroughly indocrinated in the notion that anything else doesn’t count unless it comes from their own pastor, or at most their codenominationalists.

Even then, progress will be slow because Protestantism is the dominant religious theology in America and is far more a political and cultural phenomenon than a religious one in much of the country.


Sola Scriptura is not about this.

Sola Scriptura is a word of man. It cannot be practiced and cannot be found in the Bible.


What so ironic about this fact is that, for the longest time when I was Protestant, I believed the opposite was true: Protesantism was True Religion™ and Catholicism was just a “cultural thing.”



It wasn’t even practiced by the apostles regarding the Scriptures they accepted. They also used Oral Traditions in their teachings.

closed #15

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.