501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura Book Summary

Listen to this article

Title: 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?
Author: Dave Armstrong

TLDR: This book systematically dismantles the Protestant doctrine of “sola Scriptura” (Bible alone), using extensive biblical evidence, historical analysis, and logical reasoning to demonstrate its inconsistencies and argue for a more comprehensive view of Christian authority that includes Scripture, Tradition, and the Church.

Part I: Arguments from Holy Scripture

I.1 The Binding Authority of Tradition (Arguments #1-82)

This chapter challenges the Protestant perception of tradition as inherently suspect and contradictory to Scripture. Armstrong argues that the real issue isn’t “tradition vs. no tradition,” but rather, discerning true, apostolic tradition from false, human traditions. He argues that tradition is inseparable from the Bible, pointing out that Jesus Himself upheld valid Jewish traditions while condemning only those that corrupted God’s Law.

Armstrong cites numerous biblical examples of Jesus and the apostles upholding Jewish oral tradition, such as:

Jesus’ recognition of the Pharisees’ authority: Matthew 23:1-3, where Jesus instructs His followers to follow the Pharisees’ teachings because they “sit on Moses’ seat.” This implies an acceptance of Pharisaic oral tradition as authoritative.
New Testament citations of Jewish apocalyptic literature: 1 Peter 3:19 (referencing 1 Enoch), Jude 9 (possibly the Assumption of Moses), and Jude 14-15 (directly quoting 1 Enoch 1:9), indicating the apostles’ acceptance of extra-biblical Jewish traditions as valid sources.
New Testament references to oral traditions not found in the Old Testament: James 5:17 (mentioning a 3-year drought absent in 1 Kings 17), and 1 Corinthians 10:4 (referring to a rock following the Israelites, a detail found in rabbinic tradition).

Furthermore, Armstrong argues that the Bible itself explicitly speaks of a true, divinely ordained tradition that complements Scripture. He cites passages like:

1 Corinthians 11:2: Paul commends the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions he delivered to them.
2 Thessalonians 2:15: Paul urges the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions taught by the apostles, whether through oral or written means.
2 Timothy 1:13-14 & 2:2: Paul instructs Timothy to follow his teachings and entrust them to faithful men who will teach others, demonstrating the importance of oral tradition for transmitting Christian doctrine.
Jude 3: Jude urges believers to contend for the faith “once for all delivered to the saints,” highlighting the existence of a unified, authoritative body of teaching passed down from the apostles.

Armstrong counters the common Protestant argument that “tradition” simply refers to the gospel message now found in the New Testament. He demonstrates through biblical examples that the “Word of God” encompasses both written and oral proclamation, often referring specifically to the apostles’ preaching.

He concludes that the Bible itself acknowledges both true tradition and corrupt traditions, demonstrating a nuanced understanding that differs from the Protestant view of tradition as automatically suspect.

I.2 The Binding Authority of the Church (Arguments #83-125)

This chapter delves into the biblical evidence for the Church’s binding authority in interpreting and safeguarding Christian doctrine. Armstrong argues that the Bible consistently assumes the existence of one true, institutional Church, tasked with maintaining doctrinal unity and ensuring the faithful transmission of apostolic teaching.

He counters the Protestant argument that the Church’s fallibility renders its authority invalid by drawing parallels with the writing of Scripture: just as God used fallible men to produce an infallible Bible, He can use fallible men to lead and govern an infallible Church, protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Armstrong cites several biblical passages supporting the Church’s authoritative role, including:

Matthew 16:18: Jesus declares that He will build His Church on the rock of Peter, indicating the establishment of a visible, enduring institution with a clear leader.
Acts 15:1-29: The Council of Jerusalem demonstrates the binding authority of Church councils guided by the Holy Spirit. Their decision on circumcision was binding even before being recorded in Scripture, challenging the sola Scriptura claim.
Ephesians 2:20: Paul teaches that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, highlighting the concept of apostolic succession – a key element of Catholic ecclesiology.
1 Timothy 3:15: Paul calls the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” emphasizing its role in upholding and protecting Christian doctrine.

He also addresses the concept of an “invisible church,” often invoked by Protestants to explain denominational divisions. Armstrong argues that while Scripture speaks of the mystical union of believers, it also clearly points to a visible, institutional Church with a defined structure and authority.

Furthermore, he tackles the issue of excommunication and anathemas, demonstrating that the Catholic Church’s practice of condemning heretical doctrines follows the biblical example of Paul, who repeatedly issued anathemas against those who preached a different gospel.

Armstrong concludes that the Bible provides strong evidence for the Church’s binding authority, entrusted with preserving and transmitting the apostolic deposit of faith.

I.3 The Binding Authority of Popes, as Seen in Petrine Primacy (Arguments #126-146)

This chapter focuses specifically on the biblical foundations for the papacy, rooted in the unique leadership role given to Peter by Jesus. Armstrong argues that the Bible clearly depicts Peter as the first among equals, entrusted with specific authority and responsibilities that foreshadow the papal office.

He highlights numerous scriptural instances of Peter’s preeminence, including:

Matthew 16:18-19: Jesus builds His Church on Peter, renames him “Rock,” and gives him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” This imagery, drawn from Isaiah 22, points to a specific, ongoing office of authority and jurisdiction within the Church.
Luke 22:32: Jesus instructs Peter to “strengthen your brethren,” highlighting his unique responsibility to lead and guide the other apostles.
John 21:15-17: Jesus commissions Peter as the “Chief Shepherd” after Himself, instructing him to “feed my sheep” and “tend my lambs.” This underscores Peter’s responsibility for the entire Church, not just a local community.
Acts 2:14-41: Peter delivers the first authoritative sermon after Pentecost, interpreting Scripture and issuing doctrinal decrees for the early Church, demonstrating his role as a leader and interpreter of Christian doctrine.

Armstrong counters the Protestant argument that Peter’s authority ended with his death by emphasizing the concept of succession inherent in the imagery of the “keys of the kingdom.” He argues that just as the office of steward in Isaiah 22 was passed down, so too would Peter’s authority be passed on to his successors.

He further refutes the claim that Paul’s ministry contradicted Peter’s primacy, demonstrating through scriptural analysis that Paul actually recognized and submitted to Peter’s authority, seeking his approval and acknowledging his leadership within the early Church.

Armstrong concludes that the Bible, properly understood in its historical context, provides ample evidence for the papacy, rooted in the unique authority and responsibilities given to Peter by Jesus Himself.

I.4 Counter-Arguments Against Alleged Sola Scriptura Prooftexts (Arguments #147-171)

In this chapter, Armstrong tackles common Protestant prooftexts used to support sola Scriptura, systematically dismantling them and demonstrating their inadequacy for establishing Scripture Alone as the sole rule of faith. He argues that these verses often simply affirm the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture – a truth Catholics also uphold – but fall short of excluding tradition and Church authority.

He analyzes several key passages, including:

Deuteronomy 6:6-9 & Psalms 119:159-160: These verses, often cited to support the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture, primarily exhort parents to teach God’s Law to their children. Armstrong argues that this does not equate to sola Scriptura or perspicuity, as it doesn’t address the issue of authoritative interpretation.
Proverbs 30:5-6: While this verse emphasizes the truthfulness of God’s Word, it doesn’t preclude the existence of other sources of truth or the need for authoritative interpretation. Armstrong points out that Jesus and the apostles frequently cited extra-biblical sources to support their claims.
Isaiah 40:8 & Matthew 24:35: These verses affirm the enduring nature of God’s Word, but Armstrong argues that this doesn’t imply Scripture stands alone or negates the role of tradition and Church authority in interpreting and safeguarding doctrine.
Acts 15:15, 1 Corinthians 4:6, & Galatians 1:8-9: These passages, often used to support testing all things by Scripture, either focus on specific ethical exhortations or condemn false teachings contrary to the apostolic gospel. Armstrong argues that they don’t address the broader issue of formal authority or exclude tradition and the Church.
2 Timothy 3:14-17: This passage, highlighting the inspiration and usefulness of Scripture, is often seen as the strongest prooftext for sola Scriptura. However, Armstrong argues that it doesn’t address the formal sufficiency of Scripture or exclude other sources of authority. He points out that Paul himself repeatedly refers to oral tradition throughout his letters, indicating a broader understanding of Christian authority.
James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, 2 Peter 1:12 & 3:15-16, & 1 John 2:27: These verses emphasize the power of God’s Word, but Armstrong demonstrates that they often refer to the preached gospel or the act of proclamation rather than solely to written Scripture.
Revelation 22:18-19: This passage, often invoked to argue against adding to Scripture, specifically refers to the book of Revelation and doesn’t prohibit authoritative teaching outside the biblical text.

Armstrong concludes that these alleged prooftexts are either misinterpreted, taken out of context, or simply insufficient for establishing the principle of sola Scriptura. He argues that a proper understanding of these passages, considered alongside other biblical evidence, points towards a more nuanced and comprehensive view of Christian authority, encompassing Scripture, Tradition, and the Church.

I.5 Counter-Arguments Against Alleged Refutations of the Binding Authority of Tradition (Arguments #172-219)

This chapter focuses on refuting specific Protestant arguments against the binding authority of Tradition. Armstrong systematically addresses each objection, demonstrating its flaws and inconsistencies while reaffirming the biblical and historical support for Tradition as an integral part of Christian authority.

He tackles several key arguments, including:

The rejection of “extra-biblical” traditions: Armstrong counters this by arguing that “extra-biblical” doesn’t automatically mean “unbiblical” or “contrary to Scripture.” He demonstrates that the apostles themselves relied on and cited extra-biblical Jewish traditions, indicating a broader understanding of authoritative sources.
The claim that tradition is simply the gospel message found in Scripture: Armstrong refutes this by showing that the “Word of God” in the Bible encompasses both written and oral proclamation. He cites numerous examples of the apostles’ preaching and teaching being referred to as the “Word of God,” indicating a larger body of tradition than just the biblical text.
The argument that the Pharisees’ corrupt traditions invalidate all tradition: Armstrong clarifies that Jesus condemned specific Pharisaic traditions that distorted God’s Law, not tradition itself. He points out that Jesus Himself upheld valid Jewish traditions and recognized the Pharisees’ authority when they taught in accordance with Scripture.
The assertion that oral tradition ceased to be authoritative after the canonization of Scripture: Armstrong challenges this by asking where the Bible states that oral tradition becomes irrelevant once the canon is established. He argues that the early Church Fathers clearly continued to rely on and transmit oral tradition, indicating a continuity of authoritative teaching beyond the biblical text.
The claim that the existence of competing traditions renders tradition unreliable: Armstrong counters this by pointing out that competing interpretations exist within Protestantism as well, despite its reliance on sola Scriptura. He argues that the existence of disagreements doesn’t invalidate the concept of a true, authoritative tradition, which can be discerned through historical analysis and the guidance of the Church.

Armstrong also addresses the practical difficulties of interpreting Scripture without the aid of tradition. He emphasizes the importance of understanding historical context, hermeneutical principles, and the accumulated wisdom of the Church in arriving at a correct understanding of Scripture.

He concludes that the Protestant arguments against tradition fail to account for the nuanced biblical understanding of Tradition, the historical reality of the early Church’s reliance on both written and oral teachings, and the practical difficulties of interpreting Scripture without the guidance of authoritative interpreters.

I.6 Counter-Arguments Against Alleged Refutations of Binding Church Authority (Arguments #220-292)

This chapter focuses on refuting Protestant objections to the Catholic Church’s claim of binding authority. Armstrong addresses common criticisms related to infallibility, circular reasoning, the supposed autonomy of the Church, and the role of the Holy Spirit.

He dismantles several key arguments:

The claim that belief in an infallible Church is circular reasoning: Armstrong argues that the Catholic view is rooted in the historical person of Jesus and the authority He granted to His Church, as recorded in Scripture. He points out that the Church’s infallibility is based on God’s promise to protect His Church from error, not on the Church’s own self-proclamation.
The objection that the Church places its authority above God: Armstrong clarifies that the Catholic Church recognizes God as the ultimate authority, believing that He guides and protects His Church through the Holy Spirit. He argues that the Church’s infallibility is a manifestation of God’s power, not a usurpation of it.
The assertion that the Church’s fallibility renders its authority invalid: Armstrong draws parallels with the writing of Scripture, arguing that if God could use fallible men to produce an infallible Bible, He can also use fallible men to lead and govern an infallible Church. He emphasizes that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error, just as He inspired the biblical authors.
The argument that the “invisible church” negates the need for an institutional Church: Armstrong acknowledges the biblical concept of a mystical union of believers, but argues that this doesn’t negate the clear scriptural evidence for a visible, institutional Church with a defined structure and authority.
The claim that the Church stifles individual reason and freedom: Armstrong counters this by explaining that the Church’s authority serves to protect and guide believers, not to suppress their minds. He argues that submitting to the Church’s authority is an act of faith, akin to accepting the authority of Scripture.

Armstrong also addresses the practical implications of rejecting Church authority, highlighting the inevitable doctrinal chaos and sectarianism that result when individuals become the ultimate arbiters of truth. He argues that the Church’s authority is essential for maintaining doctrinal unity and ensuring the faithful transmission of the apostolic deposit.

He concludes that the Protestant objections to Church authority fail to account for the biblical basis for the Church’s role, the historical reality of the Church’s authoritative teachings, and the practical necessity of a guiding institution to safeguard Christian doctrine and promote unity.

I.7 Counter-Arguments Against Alleged Refutations of Binding Papal Authority (Arguments #293-303)

This chapter deals with Protestant objections to the papacy, specifically focusing on the unique authority granted to Peter and the implications for his successors. Armstrong refutes arguments that minimize Peter’s role, deny the concept of papal succession, or equate the papacy with worldly monarchies.

He tackles key Protestant arguments, including:

The claim that the “keys of the kingdom” refer only to Peter’s faith, not to a specific office: Armstrong demonstrates through scriptural analysis and historical context that the imagery of the keys, drawn from Isaiah 22, clearly points to a concrete, ongoing office of authority within the Church.
The objection that the power to “bind and loose” was granted to all the disciples, not just Peter: Armstrong clarifies that while all apostles received this power, Peter was uniquely entrusted with the “keys of the kingdom,” symbolizing a greater jurisdiction and responsibility for the entire Church.
The assertion that Paul’s ministry contradicted Peter’s primacy: Armstrong refutes this by highlighting scriptural instances where Paul actually sought Peter’s approval and acknowledged his leadership within the early Church. He argues that Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles was complementary to Peter’s leadership, not a challenge to it.
The argument that the papacy is analogous to the rejected monarchy in ancient Israel: Armstrong points out that the monarchy was a human innovation opposed by God, whereas the papacy was instituted by Jesus Himself, as evidenced in Matthew 16:18-19.
The claim that the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention papal succession: Armstrong argues that the concept of succession is inherent in the imagery of the keys and the office of steward, which were passed down from one person to another. He points out that it’s illogical to assume an office established by Jesus would simply cease with Peter’s death.

Armstrong further emphasizes the historical development of the papacy, explaining that while its scriptural foundations are clear, the full understanding and application of papal authority unfolded over time. He argues that this development is consistent with the Catholic view of doctrinal development, where the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, gradually deepens its understanding of revealed truths.

He concludes that the Protestant arguments against the papacy fail to account for the biblical evidence for Peter’s primacy, the concept of succession inherent in the imagery of the keys, and the historical development of the papal office within the Church.

I.8 Arguments From the Non-Equivalence of Sola Scriptura and the Material Sufficiency of Scripture (Arguments #304-326)

This chapter clarifies the distinction between “material sufficiency” and “formal sufficiency” of Scripture. Armstrong argues that while Catholics affirm the material sufficiency – meaning all Christian doctrines are found explicitly or implicitly in Scripture – this doesn’t equate to sola Scriptura, which claims Scripture is the sole rule of faith and excludes tradition and Church authority.

He emphasizes several key points:

Material sufficiency doesn’t exclude the need for interpretation: Armstrong argues that acknowledging the Bible’s sufficiency doesn’t mean everyone can interpret it correctly without guidance. He points out that the Bible itself acknowledges the need for authoritative interpreters, as seen in stories like Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch.
The Church’s role is to safeguard and interpret, not to create doctrine: Armstrong clarifies that the Church doesn’t add to or contradict Scripture, but rather authoritatively interprets its meaning and ensures the faithful transmission of apostolic teachings. He argues that this interpretive role doesn’t negate the Bible’s sufficiency but complements it.
Doctrinal development is consistent with material sufficiency: Armstrong explains that while all Catholic doctrines are grounded in Scripture, they may not be fully developed in explicit form. He argues that the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, gradually deepens its understanding of revealed truths over time, drawing out the implicit meanings and implications of Scripture.

He further addresses the practical implications of confusing material and formal sufficiency, arguing that this leads to doctrinal chaos and sectarianism. He points out that if Scripture were the sole and self-interpreting rule of faith, there would be no need for denominations or competing interpretations, as everyone would clearly understand its meaning.

Armstrong concludes that while Catholics affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture, this doesn’t equate to sola Scriptura. He argues that the Bible itself, alongside historical and practical considerations, points toward a broader understanding of Christian authority, encompassing Scripture, Tradition, and the Church working together in harmony.

Part II: Arguments from Reason and Logic

II.1 Difficulties Posed by the Determination of the Canon of Holy Scripture (Arguments #327-383)

This chapter tackles the crucial question of how the canon of Scripture was determined, highlighting the unavoidable role of Church authority and the inherent difficulties this poses for sola Scriptura. Armstrong argues that the process of canonization itself demonstrates the need for an authoritative interpreter beyond the biblical text, contradicting the sola Scriptura claim.

He presents several key arguments:

The canon is a non-biblical doctrine: The Bible never lists its own books or provides explicit criteria for canonicity. Therefore, the very existence of a canon relies on extra-biblical authority.
Early Christians disputed the canon: Despite the eventual consensus on the 27 books of the New Testament, early Christians debated the inclusion of several books, demonstrating that canonicity wasn’t self-evident.
The Church’s role was essential: The final determination of the canon came through Church councils, acknowledging the broader consensus but providing a definitive and authoritative declaration.
Luther’s rejection of the deuterocanon further demonstrates the inconsistency of sola Scriptura: Despite relying on the Church’s authority for the canon, Luther chose to reject seven Old Testament books, highlighting the arbitrariness of selectively accepting or rejecting tradition.
The “self-attestation” argument is insufficient: While some biblical books contain internal evidence of inspiration, this alone wasn’t enough to definitively settle the canon. Church authority was ultimately necessary to overcome disagreements and provide a binding declaration.

Armstrong emphasizes the inherent circularity of using the Bible alone to determine what books belong in the Bible. He argues that sola Scriptura requires the very thing it denies – an authoritative interpreter outside Scripture – to even be established.

He concludes that the canonization process demonstrates the necessary interplay of Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority in establishing Christian doctrine. It highlights the insufficiency of sola Scriptura and the need for a guiding institution to safeguard and interpret the Word of God.

II.2 The Self-Defeating, Logically Circular Nature of Sola Scriptura (Arguments #384-410)

This chapter explores the inherent self-contradictions and logical inconsistencies embedded within the principle of sola Scriptura. Armstrong argues that the doctrine is ultimately self-defeating, as it claims to be based on the Bible alone while the Bible itself never explicitly teaches sola Scriptura.

He highlights several key contradictions:

Sola Scriptura isn’t found in Scripture: The Bible never explicitly states that Scripture is the sole rule of faith or that it excludes Tradition and Church authority.
The canonization process contradicts sola Scriptura: The determination of the biblical canon relied on Church authority, demonstrating that Scripture alone wasn’t sufficient for establishing Christian doctrine.
Private judgment undermines unity and leads to sectarianism: If each individual is the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, there can be no definitive resolution of doctrinal disputes, as evidenced by the endless divisions within Protestantism.
Sola Scriptura reduces to “my interpretation of Scripture”: Without an authoritative interpreter, sola Scriptura ultimately becomes a subjective and arbitrary standard, as each individual decides what they believe the Bible teaches.
Sola Scriptura relies on extra-biblical traditions: Despite rejecting tradition in principle, Protestantism relies on its own unbiblical traditions, such as sola Scriptura itself and the specific interpretations of its founders.

Armstrong argues that these contradictions render sola Scriptura fundamentally incoherent and incapable of providing a solid foundation for Christian faith. He points out that while Protestants may appeal to Scripture, their interpretations are inevitably shaped by their own pre-conceived notions and denominational traditions.

He concludes that sola Scriptura is a self-defeating doctrine, ultimately reliant on the very things it claims to reject – tradition and human interpretation. He argues that a consistent and biblically grounded approach to Christian authority must acknowledge the necessary interplay of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church.

II.3 Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation) and Private Judgment (Arguments #411-502)

This chapter delves into the intertwined concepts of “perspicuity” – the alleged clarity of Scripture – and “private judgment” – the individual’s right to interpret Scripture without external authority. Armstrong argues that these principles, central to sola Scriptura, are contradicted by both Scripture and the historical reality of Protestant divisions.

He challenges the notion of perspicuity by highlighting:

The existence of endless Protestant denominations: If Scripture were truly clear in its essential teachings, there would be no need for competing interpretations and divisions. The fact that Protestants disagree on fundamental doctrines like baptism and the Eucharist undermines the claim of perspicuity.
The need for biblical scholarship and interpretation: Even Protestants acknowledge that some passages are difficult to understand, requiring expertise in hermeneutics and biblical languages. This contradicts the notion that Scripture is readily accessible to all.
Scriptural passages acknowledging the need for interpreters: The Bible itself speaks of the need for guidance in understanding Scripture, as seen in stories like Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch and Jesus explaining the Scriptures to the disciples on the road to Emmaus.
The historical reality of doctrinal disputes: Even with shared commitment to Scripture, brilliant theologians like Luther and Calvin disagreed on numerous doctrines, demonstrating that perspicuity isn’t a guaranteed path to unity.

Armstrong further critiques private judgment, arguing that it:

Makes each individual a “pope”: Without an external authority, private judgment elevates the individual’s interpretation above all others, leading to a subjective and potentially arbitrary understanding of Scripture.
Undermines Church authority and unity: Private judgment undermines the concept of an authoritative Church tasked with safeguarding and interpreting doctrine, leading to doctrinal chaos and fragmentation.
Contradicts the biblical emphasis on unity: The Bible repeatedly stresses the importance of unity and condemns divisions among believers, a reality directly contradicted by the principle of private judgment.

He argues that the Protestant system, based on perspicuity and private judgment, creates an impossible burden on individuals, requiring them to become experts in theology and biblical interpretation to navigate a sea of competing opinions. This, he argues, contradicts the biblical understanding of the Church as a guiding institution entrusted with protecting and transmitting the faith.

Armstrong concludes that the Protestant principles of perspicuity and private judgment are flawed and ultimately unworkable, leading to doctrinal confusion, sectarianism, and a subjective understanding of Scripture.

II.4 Arguments Concerning the Practical Impossibility of Application and Arbitrariness (Arguments #503-529)

This chapter explores the practical consequences of sola Scriptura, highlighting its inherent arbitrariness and the impossibility of consistent application. Armstrong argues that the Protestant system, lacking a definitive and binding authority, inevitably leads to subjective interpretations, doctrinal chaos, and an inability to resolve disagreements.

He presents several key arguments:

The arbitrariness of choosing a denomination: With hundreds of competing Protestant denominations, each claiming to be based on Scripture, individuals are left with an arbitrary choice, lacking a clear and objective criterion for determining the “true church.”
The inconsistency of “listening to the church”: While Protestants may claim to submit to their denomination’s authority, the principle of private judgment allows them to ultimately reject any teaching they deem unbiblical, rendering Church authority essentially advisory.
The impossibility of becoming an expert on every doctrine: Sola Scriptura places an impossible burden on individuals, requiring them to become expert theologians to navigate a complex web of biblical interpretations and competing claims.
The slippery slope of endless qualifications: As Protestants encounter difficult passages or disagreements, they are forced to introduce endless qualifications to sola Scriptura, undermining its clarity and coherence.
The lack of a final court of appeal: Without a definitive authority, Protestant disagreements can only be resolved through endless debate or the formation of new denominations, perpetuating doctrinal chaos.

Armstrong argues that these practical difficulties demonstrate the inherent flaws within the sola Scriptura paradigm. He points out that the system, while claiming to be based on objectivity and biblical clarity, ultimately reduces to subjective preferences and the authority of fallible human interpreters.

He concludes that sola Scriptura is an unworkable principle, incapable of providing the unity, certainty, and doctrinal stability that the Bible itself demands of the Christian Church.

II.5 Problems of Denominationalism and Sectarianism (Arguments #530-570)

This chapter addresses the problem of denominationalism, a direct consequence of the Protestant principles of sola Scriptura and private judgment. Armstrong argues that the endless divisions within Protestantism contradict the biblical emphasis on unity and demonstrate the failure of Scripture Alone to provide a unifying standard.

He highlights the following points:

Denominationalism is unbiblical: The Bible consistently condemns divisions among believers and calls for unity in doctrine and practice, a reality directly contradicted by the existence of hundreds of competing Protestant denominations.
Sola Scriptura inevitably leads to sectarianism: If each individual is the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, disagreements are inevitable and will ultimately lead to fragmentation and the formation of new sects.
Denominationalism undermines the Church’s witness: The endless divisions within Protestantism create confusion and weaken the Church’s ability to present a unified and compelling message to the world.
The “invisible church” argument is insufficient: While Protestants may appeal to the concept of an invisible church uniting all true believers, this fails to address the practical reality of doctrinal differences and institutional divisions.
The “sin argument” is too simplistic: While sinfulness contributes to divisions, it’s not the sole cause of denominationalism. The flawed principles of sola Scriptura and private judgment are the root cause of Protestant fragmentation.

Armstrong argues that the Protestant system, while claiming to be based on Scripture, has resulted in a state of affairs directly opposed to the biblical vision of a unified Church. He points out that the very existence of denominations is a testament to the failure of sola Scriptura to provide a clear and objective standard of Christian faith.

He concludes that denominationalism is an unbiblical and harmful consequence of Protestant principles, undermining the Church’s unity, witness, and doctrinal stability.

II.6 No Theological Certainty?: The Biblical Understanding of “Truth” vs. “Essential” and “Secondary” Doctrines (Arguments #571-620)

This chapter examines the Protestant concept of “essential” and “secondary” doctrines, a framework used to justify doctrinal disagreements and downplay the significance of differences. Armstrong argues that this distinction is unbiblical and ultimately leads to a relativistic view of truth, undermining the pursuit of theological certainty.

He critiques the Protestant approach by highlighting:

The lack of biblical basis: The Bible never suggests a hierarchy of doctrines, with some being essential and others optional. Jesus commanded His disciples to teach “everything” He commanded, not just a select set of “essentials.”
The arbitrariness of determining “essentials”: Protestants lack a clear and objective criterion for determining which doctrines are essential. Different denominations prioritize different teachings, leading to subjective interpretations and ongoing disagreements.
The slippery slope of relativism: The concept of secondary doctrines opens the door to doctrinal indifference and downplaying the significance of theological truth. If some doctrines are unimportant, what’s to prevent all doctrines from becoming subject to individual preference?
The denial of God’s desire for unity: The Bible repeatedly emphasizes the importance of doctrinal unity, a reality contradicted by the Protestant acceptance of doctrinal diversity.
The practical impossibility of achieving certainty: If truth is relative and disagreements on “secondary” doctrines are acceptable, theological certainty becomes unattainable, leaving individuals with a fragmented and subjective understanding of faith.

Armstrong argues that the biblical understanding of truth is absolute and comprehensive, encompassing all areas of doctrine and practice. He emphasizes that God desires His people to know and embrace the fullness of truth, not to settle for a watered-down version based on arbitrary “essentials.”

He concludes that the Protestant distinction between essential and secondary doctrines is unbiblical, arbitrary, and ultimately harmful, leading to a relativistic view of truth, doctrinal indifference, and a diminished understanding of God’s desire for unity in His Church.

Overall Conclusion:

Throughout this book, Dave Armstrong systematically dismantles the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura, demonstrating its biblical, historical, and logical inconsistencies. He argues that the Bible itself, properly understood, provides ample evidence for a broader understanding of Christian authority, encompassing Scripture, Tradition, and the Church working together in harmony.

Armstrong’s arguments challenge Protestants to reconsider their foundational principles and to embrace a more comprehensive and biblically grounded approach to Christian authority, one that recognizes the essential role of Tradition and the Church in safeguarding and interpreting the Word of God.

Can Mary Really Hear Millions of Prayers at Once?