Two Very Short Refutations of Romanist Objections to Sola Scriptura

Refuting Fallacious Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

I. “Sola Scriptura is Responsible for Doctrinal Differences Among Protestants.”

            We hear the term protestant so often that it is easy to think that we belong to an inverted form of the Roman Catholic Church called the Protestant Church. This manner of addressing sola scriptura and the supposed problems it causes is fallacious because it groups all non-catholic professedly Christian religious groups under a broad term that (i.)only addresses the group’s disagreement with Rome and (ii.)cannot, by its own definition, signify any one particular group of individuals. The fact that Roman Catholic apologists argue this way shows that their understanding is flawed from the onset. Protestant does not signify a united front against Roman Catholicism; protestant simply signifies an individual or group that has protested against the abominations of the Roman Catholic organization. Muslims argue the same way, interestingly, when attempting to cast doubt upon the Divine origin of the Word of God.

II. “Protestants don’t hold to Sola Scriptura because they need to make a decision to believe the Scriptures, and doing so requires that they believe in a particular interpretation of the Scriptures. But how will they know whether or not the particular interpretation of the Bible they believe is or is not correct? They need an authoritative interpreter of the Scripture: Either they will be that authority, or the Holy Roman Magisterium will be that interpretative authority. ”

To be blunt about this sort of “argument,” it’s stupid. Firstly, Scripture teaches us that the Holy Spirit is the One who reveals God’s Truth to His elect people, so there is ipso facto no need for a “holy” and “infallible” body of interpreters of the Bible. The Holy Spirit is the only Infallible interpreter of His own Word. Every man, excepting Christ, is a sinner and is, therefore, liable to interpretative error. The argument is already refuted, but let’s look at another aspect of the argument that is equally false (and stupid), viz. the false dilemma that Catholics claim “the protestants” will face. If Sola Scriptura is false because it requires us to make a decision to believe a particular interpretation which we cannot know for sure has or has not met with Christ’s approval, then the Magisterium is also to be rejected, for they stake their claim to authority on the basis of their interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. How can we know that their particular interpretation has been authorized by Christ if they are appealing to their interpretation of Scripture that they claim has been authorized by Christ?!

This is not only viciously circular, it is also a concealed appeal to authority and is, therefore, doubly fallacious. The Roman Catholic either autonomously accepts the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture – without having any way whatsoever to prove whether or not their interpretation of Scripture has been authorized by Christ – and thus overrides the authority of the Magisterium and sins against God (by God’s command no less!), or he tries to suffocate his conscience which is very loudly condemning him for fighting God and His Christ.

Sola Scriptura.

Solus Christus.

Sola Gratia.

Sola Fide.





5 thoughts on “Two Very Short Refutations of Romanist Objections to Sola Scriptura

  1. Nick says:


    While I would say your Objection #1 is true to some extent, it actually ends up affirming what it’s trying to deny. As you (correctly) noted, the only thing that really defines “Protestant” is one who opposes Rome, and maybe affirms the slogan (but not any specific definition) of “Sola Scriptura”. But this means Protestants are not and cannot be united in an significant sense, and the only ‘culprit’ possible is Sola Scriptura.

    As for your Objection #2, if you deny an authoritative interpreter, you must admit no dogma can be proclaimed, because the only option left is “educated guesses”. If you say the Holy Spirit definitively confirms a given doctrine to an “elect” individual, you’re merely replacing the Magisterium of Rome with the one-man “Magisterium of myself”. To compound that latter problem, anyone can claim they’re led by the Holy Spirit, and thus when two Pastors disagree, one must be deceived.


  2. Hiram says:

    Hey Nick,

    No offense, but I’m curious as to how you are contributing something to my arguments, in the way of a rebuttal? You’re simply reaffirming what I’ve already shown to be false.

    With respect to #1. your organization errs in glossing over the theological distinctions between non-Catholic professedly Christian groups by calling them “the Protestants.” This assumes a unity that isn’t there, which you believe should be there, that you then argue cannot be there because of Sola Scriptura.

    If “the Protestants” are not united, which goes without saying considering the fact that “Protestant” merely refers to non-Catholic professedly Christian religious bodies, then on what basis do you identify them as a group that (you imply) should be united but is not?

    This was my first point: You are arguing against a strawman.

    In the second place, you seem to miss the bigger point here. If I am the one who must submit myself to Rome, then I am the one who must judge between Rome’s interpretation of Scripture and, say, a Lutheran’s interpretation. Since this is the case, it is not the Magisterium that decides but me. How am I supposed to know that Rome’s interpretation of Scripture is correct since it claims to be based on Scripture?

    Am I not, in this case, the one who is judging Rome?

    And if I am judging Rome, then upon what basis does Rome tell me that I cannot properly interpret Scripture without the Magisterium?

    The problem is simple, but devastating for your organization, Nick:

    If Rome is right, and she alone can infallibly interpret Scripture,
    Then you should not be doing Romanist apologetics, since apologetics involves presenting your case Scripturally –

    and neither you nor I can properly interpret the Scriptures without Rome infallibly giving us the thumbs up.

    Liked by 1 person

involve yourself

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.