I'm glad the article resonated with you and thank you for reading it! Beyond theological differences, these were the reasons why I just couldn't continue being a Protestant in good faith, knowing I was giving myself too much power to misinterpret Scripture. And as you say, God is a God of order and I only found that in the Catholic Church.
I'll be praying for you and many blessings for you and yours!
I would suggest you go back to some of the Protestant reformers and see what they actually teach if you find this article convincing. There is really nothing in this piece that the reformers did not address centuries ago when these debates first erupted. While you may still conclude that the Roman Catholic approach is superior, at least do so having engaged with the doctrine itself (which this author really only caricatures).
I agree, Theodore. I do believe it's important to engage with the strongest forms of Sola Scriptura. I'm reading Keith Mathison's the Shape of Sola Scriptura in order to do just that, as Mathison claims to be reintroducing the classical form of Sola Scriptura to the modern Protestant church.
Mathison presents Scripture as being the only infallible authority, not the only authority. He proposes that the institutional Church and Tradition are both essential but fallible authorities, and says that the Bible should be interpreted within the context of the institutional Church.
That being said, even this definition of Sola Scriptura is inherently flawed because it leaves open the most important question: whose interpretation gets to be the one that binds the conscience of the Church? Who gets to be the authoritative interpreter of Scripture?
If it's not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, then it's going to be some other Magisterium (which isn't something Mathison proposes, as far as I can tell) or it's going to be yourself.
Additionally, Mathison seems to completely ignore the fact that if you believe Scripture is the only infallible authority, it is not hard to see how some people would take the next logical step (to declare it's the only authority you need) when they read the Bible and see apparent contradictions between it and Tradition.
Either way, whether you go for the classical form of Sola Scriptura or for its relative Solo Scriptura, doctrinal chaos is created. A doctrinal chaos that cannot be fixed as long as Protestantism adheres to either.
Christ’s will for the Church is unity. The Protestant Reformation produced unprecedented disunity in the Western Church, which had remained one Church for 1,500 years.
Because of this, it doesn’t seem like a leap of logic to conclude that the Protestant Reformation was not a work of the Spirit of God and that therefore, no one should be a Protestant.
Excellent essay. In my experience, a very large number of Protestants harbor deep animosity and hatred towards the Catholic Church. When I've rebutted some of these attacks, it became clear to me that they are attacking their idea of what the Catholic faith is, not its reality. Chesterton wrote a pithy line about that.
Yeah, exactly. Bl. Fulton Sheen also mentions that: "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."
Amazing article, @Simple Man. Thank you for presenting all of these lucid points for the greater glory of God, so that “they may all be one.” (John 17:21)
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura rests on a profound misunderstanding of how sacred literature actually evolves. Historically, all great works from the Homeric epics to the Indian Vedas existed for centuries as oral traditions before being codified into text. The Bible followed this exact pattern; it was birthed within a living community that prioritized oral transmission and communal memory. Even the New Testament was initially an exclusively oral proclamation (Kerygma). It was only much later, as the original eyewitnesses of Jesus began to pass away, that the necessity to record these traditions in writing arose to preserve them. Theologically, "divine inspiration" is centered on God’s direct communication with a person, making the living encounter the primary revelation. The written record is a secondary development, never intended to be isolated from the oral tradition that interpreted it. Consequently, by stripping the text from the living context that produced it, Sola Scriptura fails to withstand both historical and scientific scrutiny.
Just a long winded way of saying you need a church to tell you what to think, and that you couldn't possibly figure out scripture and Truth without the lense of the church, or a priest, bishop, cardinal, etc. to focus it for you. Every time I start looking at my Catholic or Orthodox brothers and sisters as walking the same path just with different maps I read something like this, and I'm reminded why Protestant and Orthodox/Catholic will never be in true lockstep, because Catholics and Orthodox both lie that you must and need both a church and its leaders to interpret the Bible FOR YOU, and that's without touching the idolatry and or the politics or putting a priest between a follower and the Lord, which are also red flags. I read scripture either everyday or almost everyday weekly, and there's hardly a day goes by I'm not absorbing some form of faith or historical education on the subject to bolster my knowledge. I read scripture, then research said scripture and absorb all of the difference interpretations and beliefs about it, then read it again, and then repeat, until I'm confident in those beliefs. Not once have I required a priest or church member to step in for me. I've listened to many of them, yes, but not once have I needed them to spoon-fed me the final and unequivocal answer. If I'm confused or unsure I research, and then I can come to a very educated and reasonable understanding; no institution required to tell me what I NEED or MUST understand to get it "right", or through what *church approved only lense* is essential for wisdom. Before anyone sets in about Protestant problems with this church and that church, I don't belong to any denomination, and I'd likely criticize those churches for the same reasons truth be told. I'm sickened by many of them and their false doctrines. I find preachers I like and I listen, but finding a church with no liberal influence is a tall order. I only say all of that to disarm any attempt to put my beliefs in a box. Either way, I'll be leaving now, but thanks again for reminding me why relationships between Protestant and Orthodox must remain superficial and personal, because as soon as you bring in the institutions, there can be no harmony.
Thank you for reading and for your comment brother. With all due respect, you are proving my point: "I find preachers I like and I listen." That just means you believe YOU get to decide the truth.
Your comment also makes it clear that you have a strong animosity to any "institutional" religion, so I'd encourage you again, as I did at the end of the article, to do your own research, ponder on this, and be docile to the Holy Spirit. The things you claim about the Catholic Church ("and that's without touching the idolatry and or the politics or putting a priest between a follower and the Lord, which are also red flags") are simply not true, and you can easily verify that by learning what the Church actually teaches.
Ask yourself if your rejection of Catholicism couldn't possibly be because you resent it and misunderstand it (clearly you do), and if the points I make in the article don't apply to you, making you the only individual who can properly interpret Scripture.
God bless you and I hope this article at least gets you thinking and challenging some preconceived beliefs!
I was raised Catholic but fell away as I grew older. I became Protestant 5 years ago and recently have gone down the rabbit of hole of Catholic doctrine and believe whole heartedly the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth. In terms of Sola Scriptura advocacy, this article literally puts into words why I'm considering reverting. Great read bro. Love your work
I recently heard the Roman Catholic Church broke off from the Orthodox Church, and perhaps the Coptic, ànd Nestorian fit in here.
Perhaps GOD’s tent is bigger than we think?
Perhaps He uses our mistakes, iron sharpens iron, and He leads individuals through the thicket of their lives, through confusion by grace, with varied authorities, to truth, completed when we get to heaven. (Romans 8)?
@Deborah Good, from all my studies on that topic, the Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church largely over their rejection of the Papacy. In any case, protestantism is a much, much greater concern on this subject, as the author here has so eloquently and effectively pointed out.
This would be an interesting view if the Catholic Church actually solved the issue of sola scriptura. The church has only defined around six Biblical doctrines, usually to support specifically Catholic viewpoints rather than deal with heresy.
Even so, Catholic doctrine is constantly changing, with ecumenical councils deciding to add dogmas that were not required previously. Is it a sin to reject the perpetual virginity of Mary? Is it accurate? Why only for later Catholics?
I found this easy to be an interesting attack on sola scriptura, but not one that offered any form of a solution.
Coming back in unity under the Catholic Church that has a long history of killing Protestants and pre-protestant sola fide Christians is nothing most Christians are considering.
As to those logical issues presented: If there is a Spirit of God and a spirit of deception, if there is a liar and a truth teller, if there are angels and demons, is it really surprising that people will claim to use the Holy Spirit as their guide and comforter and still not? Because people are heretical and believe sola scriptura doesn’t really have any effect.
(Ik Catholics will work around this and claim that they are only infallible with doctrine but do you really think that makes sense) How much worse it it to trust your own walk with the Holy Spirit and the Bible than the group that decided it was morally right to slaughter thousands of innocent “Heretics” in the name of Christ? (I am referencing the Waldesians. A people with similar briefs to modern Baptists.)
Interesting essay, but largely lacking substance, and while thought-provoking, I see no world in which it will convince someone well read.
I think there is a misuse of what sola scriptura actually means here and it’s partially a historical one. It was moving the other direction to free the interpretation from the traditions of Catholicism to understanding what the Bible was teaching through greater exegetical concepts of not taking verses out of context…ie the same exact problem that also is going on in Protestantism (as the article shows). I do not disagree that the Bible needs interpretation (there is perspicuity of scripture (Ie you read the Bible on your own and you understand Gods Word through the work of the Holy Spirit…this goes together). I would argue these men have clearly misinterpreted Scripture and are in error just as much as the Catholic Church leveraged scripture to justify indulgences or Peter being the “first pope”. Even the concept of bishops/overseers/elders/ is biblical but without the context of sola scriptura this interpretation can get wild (and it did historically). If Scripture is Gods Word…then it is authoritative. Teachers who mishandle the word of truth are warned! False teachers who are wolves among the sheep. All of those false teachers used misinterpretation to put forward their own flesh and sin, not to glorify Christ in the church. 2 Peter amazing expounds on this problem of false teaching but it’s best to read the entire letter. If scripture is inspired and truly Gods Word it must be treated as the authority as they are His Words on the page and must be handled carefully : ““And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.”
2 Peter 1:19-20
Also remember that as shown here the word of God can be improperly handled by whole groups of people and essentially this is what sola scriptura argued within the context of the reformation. I do believe if one studies, reads, understands it’s a translation from Greek and Hebrew, applies hermetically and one prays diligently for understanding even as we are the fallible, we will arrive at the correct interpretation. The church is only protected by misinterpretation when it is composed of those who seek what it teaches, not what they want and use of scripture to justify. You could argue the pastors above are teaching heresy or an element of it and in fact is NOT sola scriptura at all but scriptura + something else. The “+ something else” is when things go wrong.
Well presented brother! I was born into protestantism, but recently I realized that I had so much despise, if not hatred for the catholic church. At some point I came to understand it was just inherited hatred, because I had never study any denomination's history, including protestantism. I have been on this path lately, studying the foundations, doing my best to dig as much as possible. I do not know much yet, but one thing I can tell you for sure that I realized is how the devil has toyed with the church so terribly. The more I learn, the more I understand how much ignorance reigns in our midst. I pray the Lord have mercy on us all. Thank you for this article. God bless you, and keep enlightening us all.
I wrote something about the Unity of the Church in case you would like to read it:
Okay haha finally had the time to read this. What I appreciate here is the honesty about how lonely faith gets when it turns into a solo project. That phase of just me and my Bible is familiar to a lot of people, and at first it feels pure and empowering. You’re finally taking God seriously. You’re reading for yourself. You feel close to Christ. But eventually the cracks show, not because Scripture fails, but because we’re limited. Questions come up that the text doesn’t answer in isolation, or answers too deeply to flatten into a quick takeaway. At some point you realize you’re still bringing yourself to every page.
The internet version of Bible authority really exposes the problem. Everyone claims the Spirit. Everyone claims fidelity. Everyone sounds confident. And yet the conclusions are all over the place, sometimes wildly so. That’s not just annoying. It’s destabilizing. If truth can stretch that far without breaking, then it’s not really truth anymore. It becomes preference dressed up in verses. Someone still has to decide what the Bible means. When there’s no shared authority, interpretation quietly slides into self rule. I don’t think most people choose that out of malice. It often comes from fear of being wrong or fear of being told no. Submission costs something. It asks you to trust that truth exists outside your own clarity or comfort. Thank you for a wonderful article -- couldn't have said it better than you did!!
This has been my exact thought process lately as I’ve been examining the early church history through the reformation. Sola Scriptura seems more devisive than helpful
Those are not the only options. The magisterial reformation (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican in their orthodox forms) sees scripture as the infallible authority, but in the context of the church across the ages. They all accepted the three great creeds, the ecumenical councils, and have detailed confessions which drew on the church fathers and medieval theologians and which are binding. We do NOT think it is just me and my Bible. I am sure there are people who do but we lament that as much as you do. We also believe that there are authorities other than scripture, such as the teaching office of the church, and in the case of Anglicans, bishops. We just believe that they must also be tested by scripture, and faithful to it, rather than in charge of it. It is very frustrating that Roman Catholics claim that the magisterium gives greater consistency, when it clearly does not. Your magisterium has been at odds with itself since at least the mid-twentieth century (and many other times in its history) and there is a profound disconnect between Trent and Vatican II. Your people feel it and they mourn. But a human hierarchy that sees itself as the ultimate authority is not likely, and risks its credibility if it does, to accept correction. That is the danger of an “infallible” papacy or magisterium. I do want to say that I really did love Benedict XVI, but then he was a scholar of scripture among other things and seemed a humble man of great faith.
I'm a Protestant strongly considering the Catholic Church.
Everything you wrote in this article expresses the core reason I am thinking about it, down to a T.
Sola Scriptura produces chaos and disunity. God is not a God of chaos and disunity, but of order and unity.
I'm glad the article resonated with you and thank you for reading it! Beyond theological differences, these were the reasons why I just couldn't continue being a Protestant in good faith, knowing I was giving myself too much power to misinterpret Scripture. And as you say, God is a God of order and I only found that in the Catholic Church.
I'll be praying for you and many blessings for you and yours!
Thanks, man! Appreciate it. Keep up the banger articles.
I would suggest you go back to some of the Protestant reformers and see what they actually teach if you find this article convincing. There is really nothing in this piece that the reformers did not address centuries ago when these debates first erupted. While you may still conclude that the Roman Catholic approach is superior, at least do so having engaged with the doctrine itself (which this author really only caricatures).
I agree, Theodore. I do believe it's important to engage with the strongest forms of Sola Scriptura. I'm reading Keith Mathison's the Shape of Sola Scriptura in order to do just that, as Mathison claims to be reintroducing the classical form of Sola Scriptura to the modern Protestant church.
Mathison presents Scripture as being the only infallible authority, not the only authority. He proposes that the institutional Church and Tradition are both essential but fallible authorities, and says that the Bible should be interpreted within the context of the institutional Church.
That being said, even this definition of Sola Scriptura is inherently flawed because it leaves open the most important question: whose interpretation gets to be the one that binds the conscience of the Church? Who gets to be the authoritative interpreter of Scripture?
If it's not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, then it's going to be some other Magisterium (which isn't something Mathison proposes, as far as I can tell) or it's going to be yourself.
Additionally, Mathison seems to completely ignore the fact that if you believe Scripture is the only infallible authority, it is not hard to see how some people would take the next logical step (to declare it's the only authority you need) when they read the Bible and see apparent contradictions between it and Tradition.
Either way, whether you go for the classical form of Sola Scriptura or for its relative Solo Scriptura, doctrinal chaos is created. A doctrinal chaos that cannot be fixed as long as Protestantism adheres to either.
Christ’s will for the Church is unity. The Protestant Reformation produced unprecedented disunity in the Western Church, which had remained one Church for 1,500 years.
Because of this, it doesn’t seem like a leap of logic to conclude that the Protestant Reformation was not a work of the Spirit of God and that therefore, no one should be a Protestant.
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” —Jesus
Matthew 10:34
Excellent essay. In my experience, a very large number of Protestants harbor deep animosity and hatred towards the Catholic Church. When I've rebutted some of these attacks, it became clear to me that they are attacking their idea of what the Catholic faith is, not its reality. Chesterton wrote a pithy line about that.
Yeah, exactly. Bl. Fulton Sheen also mentions that: "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."
Outstanding article 👏🏾✝️🙌🏾
Thank you, and thank you for reading 🙏🏼
Amazing article, @Simple Man. Thank you for presenting all of these lucid points for the greater glory of God, so that “they may all be one.” (John 17:21)
Thank you very much for the kind words Jaehne, I appreciate your support and glad you liked the article!
This is very well written, brother. Thank you for this. God bless you and yours.
Thank you brother. Really appreciate your support, and blessings to you and yours as well!
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura rests on a profound misunderstanding of how sacred literature actually evolves. Historically, all great works from the Homeric epics to the Indian Vedas existed for centuries as oral traditions before being codified into text. The Bible followed this exact pattern; it was birthed within a living community that prioritized oral transmission and communal memory. Even the New Testament was initially an exclusively oral proclamation (Kerygma). It was only much later, as the original eyewitnesses of Jesus began to pass away, that the necessity to record these traditions in writing arose to preserve them. Theologically, "divine inspiration" is centered on God’s direct communication with a person, making the living encounter the primary revelation. The written record is a secondary development, never intended to be isolated from the oral tradition that interpreted it. Consequently, by stripping the text from the living context that produced it, Sola Scriptura fails to withstand both historical and scientific scrutiny.
Perfectly said brother.
Ooohhh I can’t wait to read this later on!
Let me know what you think!
I certainly will — long comments and all!
Just a long winded way of saying you need a church to tell you what to think, and that you couldn't possibly figure out scripture and Truth without the lense of the church, or a priest, bishop, cardinal, etc. to focus it for you. Every time I start looking at my Catholic or Orthodox brothers and sisters as walking the same path just with different maps I read something like this, and I'm reminded why Protestant and Orthodox/Catholic will never be in true lockstep, because Catholics and Orthodox both lie that you must and need both a church and its leaders to interpret the Bible FOR YOU, and that's without touching the idolatry and or the politics or putting a priest between a follower and the Lord, which are also red flags. I read scripture either everyday or almost everyday weekly, and there's hardly a day goes by I'm not absorbing some form of faith or historical education on the subject to bolster my knowledge. I read scripture, then research said scripture and absorb all of the difference interpretations and beliefs about it, then read it again, and then repeat, until I'm confident in those beliefs. Not once have I required a priest or church member to step in for me. I've listened to many of them, yes, but not once have I needed them to spoon-fed me the final and unequivocal answer. If I'm confused or unsure I research, and then I can come to a very educated and reasonable understanding; no institution required to tell me what I NEED or MUST understand to get it "right", or through what *church approved only lense* is essential for wisdom. Before anyone sets in about Protestant problems with this church and that church, I don't belong to any denomination, and I'd likely criticize those churches for the same reasons truth be told. I'm sickened by many of them and their false doctrines. I find preachers I like and I listen, but finding a church with no liberal influence is a tall order. I only say all of that to disarm any attempt to put my beliefs in a box. Either way, I'll be leaving now, but thanks again for reminding me why relationships between Protestant and Orthodox must remain superficial and personal, because as soon as you bring in the institutions, there can be no harmony.
Thank you for reading and for your comment brother. With all due respect, you are proving my point: "I find preachers I like and I listen." That just means you believe YOU get to decide the truth.
Your comment also makes it clear that you have a strong animosity to any "institutional" religion, so I'd encourage you again, as I did at the end of the article, to do your own research, ponder on this, and be docile to the Holy Spirit. The things you claim about the Catholic Church ("and that's without touching the idolatry and or the politics or putting a priest between a follower and the Lord, which are also red flags") are simply not true, and you can easily verify that by learning what the Church actually teaches.
Ask yourself if your rejection of Catholicism couldn't possibly be because you resent it and misunderstand it (clearly you do), and if the points I make in the article don't apply to you, making you the only individual who can properly interpret Scripture.
God bless you and I hope this article at least gets you thinking and challenging some preconceived beliefs!
I was raised Catholic but fell away as I grew older. I became Protestant 5 years ago and recently have gone down the rabbit of hole of Catholic doctrine and believe whole heartedly the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth. In terms of Sola Scriptura advocacy, this article literally puts into words why I'm considering reverting. Great read bro. Love your work
Interesting.
I recently heard the Roman Catholic Church broke off from the Orthodox Church, and perhaps the Coptic, ànd Nestorian fit in here.
Perhaps GOD’s tent is bigger than we think?
Perhaps He uses our mistakes, iron sharpens iron, and He leads individuals through the thicket of their lives, through confusion by grace, with varied authorities, to truth, completed when we get to heaven. (Romans 8)?
@Deborah Good, from all my studies on that topic, the Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church largely over their rejection of the Papacy. In any case, protestantism is a much, much greater concern on this subject, as the author here has so eloquently and effectively pointed out.
This would be an interesting view if the Catholic Church actually solved the issue of sola scriptura. The church has only defined around six Biblical doctrines, usually to support specifically Catholic viewpoints rather than deal with heresy.
Even so, Catholic doctrine is constantly changing, with ecumenical councils deciding to add dogmas that were not required previously. Is it a sin to reject the perpetual virginity of Mary? Is it accurate? Why only for later Catholics?
I found this easy to be an interesting attack on sola scriptura, but not one that offered any form of a solution.
Coming back in unity under the Catholic Church that has a long history of killing Protestants and pre-protestant sola fide Christians is nothing most Christians are considering.
As to those logical issues presented: If there is a Spirit of God and a spirit of deception, if there is a liar and a truth teller, if there are angels and demons, is it really surprising that people will claim to use the Holy Spirit as their guide and comforter and still not? Because people are heretical and believe sola scriptura doesn’t really have any effect.
(Ik Catholics will work around this and claim that they are only infallible with doctrine but do you really think that makes sense) How much worse it it to trust your own walk with the Holy Spirit and the Bible than the group that decided it was morally right to slaughter thousands of innocent “Heretics” in the name of Christ? (I am referencing the Waldesians. A people with similar briefs to modern Baptists.)
Interesting essay, but largely lacking substance, and while thought-provoking, I see no world in which it will convince someone well read.
I think there is a misuse of what sola scriptura actually means here and it’s partially a historical one. It was moving the other direction to free the interpretation from the traditions of Catholicism to understanding what the Bible was teaching through greater exegetical concepts of not taking verses out of context…ie the same exact problem that also is going on in Protestantism (as the article shows). I do not disagree that the Bible needs interpretation (there is perspicuity of scripture (Ie you read the Bible on your own and you understand Gods Word through the work of the Holy Spirit…this goes together). I would argue these men have clearly misinterpreted Scripture and are in error just as much as the Catholic Church leveraged scripture to justify indulgences or Peter being the “first pope”. Even the concept of bishops/overseers/elders/ is biblical but without the context of sola scriptura this interpretation can get wild (and it did historically). If Scripture is Gods Word…then it is authoritative. Teachers who mishandle the word of truth are warned! False teachers who are wolves among the sheep. All of those false teachers used misinterpretation to put forward their own flesh and sin, not to glorify Christ in the church. 2 Peter amazing expounds on this problem of false teaching but it’s best to read the entire letter. If scripture is inspired and truly Gods Word it must be treated as the authority as they are His Words on the page and must be handled carefully : ““And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.”
2 Peter 1:19-20
Also remember that as shown here the word of God can be improperly handled by whole groups of people and essentially this is what sola scriptura argued within the context of the reformation. I do believe if one studies, reads, understands it’s a translation from Greek and Hebrew, applies hermetically and one prays diligently for understanding even as we are the fallible, we will arrive at the correct interpretation. The church is only protected by misinterpretation when it is composed of those who seek what it teaches, not what they want and use of scripture to justify. You could argue the pastors above are teaching heresy or an element of it and in fact is NOT sola scriptura at all but scriptura + something else. The “+ something else” is when things go wrong.
Well presented brother! I was born into protestantism, but recently I realized that I had so much despise, if not hatred for the catholic church. At some point I came to understand it was just inherited hatred, because I had never study any denomination's history, including protestantism. I have been on this path lately, studying the foundations, doing my best to dig as much as possible. I do not know much yet, but one thing I can tell you for sure that I realized is how the devil has toyed with the church so terribly. The more I learn, the more I understand how much ignorance reigns in our midst. I pray the Lord have mercy on us all. Thank you for this article. God bless you, and keep enlightening us all.
I wrote something about the Unity of the Church in case you would like to read it:
https://wprincewrites.substack.com/p/a-generation-that-resists-the-holy
Okay haha finally had the time to read this. What I appreciate here is the honesty about how lonely faith gets when it turns into a solo project. That phase of just me and my Bible is familiar to a lot of people, and at first it feels pure and empowering. You’re finally taking God seriously. You’re reading for yourself. You feel close to Christ. But eventually the cracks show, not because Scripture fails, but because we’re limited. Questions come up that the text doesn’t answer in isolation, or answers too deeply to flatten into a quick takeaway. At some point you realize you’re still bringing yourself to every page.
The internet version of Bible authority really exposes the problem. Everyone claims the Spirit. Everyone claims fidelity. Everyone sounds confident. And yet the conclusions are all over the place, sometimes wildly so. That’s not just annoying. It’s destabilizing. If truth can stretch that far without breaking, then it’s not really truth anymore. It becomes preference dressed up in verses. Someone still has to decide what the Bible means. When there’s no shared authority, interpretation quietly slides into self rule. I don’t think most people choose that out of malice. It often comes from fear of being wrong or fear of being told no. Submission costs something. It asks you to trust that truth exists outside your own clarity or comfort. Thank you for a wonderful article -- couldn't have said it better than you did!!
This has been my exact thought process lately as I’ve been examining the early church history through the reformation. Sola Scriptura seems more devisive than helpful
Those are not the only options. The magisterial reformation (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican in their orthodox forms) sees scripture as the infallible authority, but in the context of the church across the ages. They all accepted the three great creeds, the ecumenical councils, and have detailed confessions which drew on the church fathers and medieval theologians and which are binding. We do NOT think it is just me and my Bible. I am sure there are people who do but we lament that as much as you do. We also believe that there are authorities other than scripture, such as the teaching office of the church, and in the case of Anglicans, bishops. We just believe that they must also be tested by scripture, and faithful to it, rather than in charge of it. It is very frustrating that Roman Catholics claim that the magisterium gives greater consistency, when it clearly does not. Your magisterium has been at odds with itself since at least the mid-twentieth century (and many other times in its history) and there is a profound disconnect between Trent and Vatican II. Your people feel it and they mourn. But a human hierarchy that sees itself as the ultimate authority is not likely, and risks its credibility if it does, to accept correction. That is the danger of an “infallible” papacy or magisterium. I do want to say that I really did love Benedict XVI, but then he was a scholar of scripture among other things and seemed a humble man of great faith.