Just a Few of My Favorite Articles and Resources on the Refutation of Sola Scriptura

 Below are a few of my favorite articles; books and videos online that do a great job refuting the Protestant doctrine of  sola scriptura or “Bible Alone” mentality. 

https://douglasbeaumont.com/2015/04/20/does-1-corinthians-46-teach-sola-scriptura/

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/refute.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/macart.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/macart.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter3.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter4.html

https://christianrenaissancemovement.com/2017/10/31/sola-scriptura-7-fatal-flaws-of-a-bleak-doctrine/

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/10-point-biblical-refutation-of-sola-scriptura

http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/solascriptura_earlychurch.htm

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/athans.htm

https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/how-to-refute-sola-scriptura/

https://chnetwork.org/2018/03/27/is-sola-scriptura-historical-part-i-going-deep-in-history-with-cardinal-newman/

https://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/Luke_Wilson_Response_to_01.htm

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2020/09/dealing-with-issue-of-sola-scriptura.html

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/01/did-jesus-teach-that-bible-is-final.html

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/06/does-mark-7matthew-15-support-sola.html

Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis

Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions

Idem, The Meaning of Tradition

Dave Armstrong, Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, and Biblical "proofs" for"Bible Alone"

Idem, 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?

Idem, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Gerard Loughlin, Telling God's Story: Bible, Church, and Narrative Theology

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture

John Whiteford, Sola Scriptura: An Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformation Theology

Mark Aziz, Sola Scriptura or Sola Traditione?: The Orthodox Theology of Tradition as a Solution to the Reformation Debate about Theological Authority

Patrick Madrid, Scripture and Tradition

John Breck, Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church

Geoge H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church. The crisis of the Protestant Reformation

Joel Peters, Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

Mark P. Shea, By What Authority?

George Agius, Tradition and the Church

John Salza, The Biblical Basis for Tradition

Devin Rose, The Protestant's Dilemma

Casey J Chalk, The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity 

Joel Peters, Sola Scriptura Doesn’t Work- 25 Practical Reasons to Reject the Doctrine of ‘Bible Alone’

The Bible Alone? Is The Bible Alone Sufficient? Edited by Marcus Grodi

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/03/not-by-scripture-alone-latter-day-saint.html

https://youtube.com/shorts/8C52_azXQ2E?si=9_KuTye1ZxkuxSWc

https://www.youtube.com/live/CV01DNwNmig?si=zpbg_aix_XUvNia0 Trent Horn vs James White

https://youtu.be/TFJTRRoAgx8?si=zAibh2pdkNAvOTgz James White vs Tim Staples

https://youtu.be/LlLlzDBHhhA?si=S1sdpcYI1j4pvKaT James White vs Patrick Madrid 

https://www.youtube.com/live/kn7qdPSHSJk?si=N6Gv9YkqEdIMcWzR Trent Horn vs Gavin Ortlund 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1HYW8yjFNm/?mibextid=wwXIfr

http://catholicsilentcrusade.blogspot.com/2013/12/24-sola-scriptura-bible-alone.html

Very Good Insights on Acts 2:38 In Relation to Baptism and Forgiveness of Sins.

 I really like Jack Cottrell’s work on Baptism! I highly recommend reading his book Baptism: A Biblical Study https://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Biblical-Study-Jack-Cottrell from which the insightful read below is taken from!

“The relation between Christian baptism and forgiveness of sins is much more specific and clear, though, especially here in Acts 2:38, where baptism is said to be “for [eis] the forgiveness of sins.” The key word here is eis, translated in different versions in a wide variety of ways including “for,” “unto,” “into,” “in order to,” “in order to have,” “so that,” “with a view to,” and “in relation to.” The preferred terminology is a matter of considerable controversy since exegetes often try to make the word conform to a preconceived view of baptism.

Three main approaches may be identified. The first is that eis here retains its most common meaning of direction or motion toward something, which includes the concepts of purpose and goal. On this understanding the purpose or goal of baptism is to bring about forgiveness of sins. This view is consistent with the idea of baptism as a condition for salvation and for entrance into the kingdom of God. A second approach is that eis here means because of, the idea being that a person is baptized because his sins have already been forgiven. The third view is that eis here means the same thing as the preposition en (“in”), which does not mean motion toward but simply location in. This view posits only a very general connection between baptism and forgiveness, viz., “be baptized in relation to forgiveness of sins.” The last two views are preferred by those who reject the conditional relation between baptism and salvation.

Of these three views, the first is clearly the meaning in Acts 2:38 on both lexicographical and contextual grounds. Regarding its actual meaning, a study of the lexicons shows that the primary meaning and the overwhelmingly most common use of eis is “motion toward” in any one of a number of senses, the explanation of which takes two full pages in the Arndt and Gingrich lexicon. In this general category the two most common meanings are “moving from one physical place to another” (88 lines in the lexicon) and “goal or purpose” (127 lines—one full page). By contrast only five lines are devoted to the alleged causal use of eis. Arndt and Gingrich call this use “controversial” because there is reason to doubt that it ever has this meaning in Greek usage. M.J. Harris flatly declares that this causal sense “seems unlikely in any one of the passages sometimes adduced,” including Acts 2:38. A meaning similar to that of en is not disputed but is still relatively infrequent. Arndt and Gingrich use only 16 lines to explain that eis sometimes means “with respect to” or “with reference to.” Most of the cases where eis is used where en would be expected (30 of 34 lines) refer to physical location.

Of course it is understood that simply counting lines in a lexicon does not decide the meaning of a word in a particular verse. The point is to show that the primary meaning of eis involves motion toward or purpose, and that this is how it is used in the overwhelming majority of cases. The meaning “because of” is highly debatable simply because it has no solid basis in the Greek language as such. The meaning “with reference to” is possible but not as likely given its relatively infrequent use. Thus if eis has one of these last two meanings in Acts 2:38, that meaning would have to be contextually clear.

In the final analysis the meaning of eis in this passage will be determined by the context. The general meaning “with reference to” would be warranted only if the context itself did not suggest a more specific meaning, only if the connection between baptism and forgiveness remained vague in the context. But this is certainly not the case. We must remember that Peter’s statement is part of his answer to the Jews’ question of how to get rid of the guilt of their sins, especially their sin of crucifying Christ. They specifically asked, “What shall we do” to get rid of this guilt? Any instruction Peter gave them would have been understood by them in this light, and must be so understood by us today. When he told them to repent and be baptized “eis the forgiveness” of their sins, the only honest reading is that baptism is for the purpose or goal of receiving forgiveness. This meaning is not just warranted but is actually demanded by the context.

The fact that baptism is paralleled here with repentance confirms this meaning. Surely no one questions that Peter is telling his audience to repent for the purpose of bringing about forgiveness of sins. Even if such a connection between repentance and forgiveness were not already understood, it is perfectly unambiguous in this context. The fact that baptism is part of the same response to the same question makes its meaning just as clear and gives it the same basic meaning as repentance. In whatever way repentance is connected with forgiveness, so also is baptism. If repentance is for the purpose of bringing about forgiveness, so also is baptism.

Even if the so-called “causal” meaning of eis were not in doubt on lexicographical grounds, it would surely be excluded in Acts 2:38 by the context itself. “Be baptized because your sins have been forgiven” is the exact opposite of what would be expected and required in the situation. The whole point is that the Jews’ sins are not forgiven, and they are asking what to do to receive such forgiveness.

The bottom line is that the only meaning of eis that is consistent with the context of Acts 2:38 is its most common meaning of “motion toward,” specifically the purposive meaning of “unto” or “for the purpose of.” The Greek construction is exactly the same as Jesus’ statement in Matthew 26:28, that he shed his blood “for [eis] forgiveness of sins,” namely, for the purpose of bringing about forgiveness. Thus we must conclude that Peter is saying in Acts 2:38 that part of what a sinner must do to bring about forgiveness of his sins is be baptized.”

Cottrell, Jack. 1989. Baptism: A Biblical Study. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company.

Jack Cottrell’s Very Insightful comments on Romans 6:3-4 in regards to Water Baptism!

 In Romans 6:3–4 Paul assumes that every Christian already knows that he has been baptized into Christ. His point here is to show us specifically what this means. Don’t you know, he says, “that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death”? In the context he reminds us that Jesus died for our sins not only in the sense that He paid their penalty, but also in that He died to defeat sin and destroy its power and do away with it (see 6:6–10). And every Christian has come within the scope of this sin-destroying force of the death of Christ; we have tapped into its lethal power. When did we do this? In our baptism. There is absolutely no indication that this union with Christ in His death happened as soon as we believed or repented. We did not believe into His death; we did not repent into His death. Paul explicitly says we “have been baptized into His death” (v. 3). If this is not plain enough, he repeats the idea in verse 4: “We have been buried with Him through baptism into death.” Those who say that our union with Christ in His death, and thus our own death to sin, occurred before baptism are simply not taking the text at its word. The idea that baptism as a burial implies that death has already occured is an inference that goes contrary to the text itself. Romans 6:4 does not say we are buried in baptism because we have already died; it says we are buried through baptism into death.

What is true of our union with Christ in His death is true also of our union with Him in His resurrection. This passage does not speak explicitly of our being baptized into Christ’s resurrection or being raised up with Christ in baptism, but the implication is quite clear. The logical and chronological connection between death and resurrection is such that union with Christ in resurrection could certainly not occur prior to union with Him in death. Verse 4 specifically says that we were buried with Him through baptism into death for the very purpose of experiencing resurrection with Him, too. “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection” (v. 5). Colossians 2:12 does explicitly say that our resurrection with Christ occurs in baptism. (This passage will be discussed fully in a later chapter.)

Paul is telling us, then, that the historical events of the saving work of Jesus have their counterpart or fulfillment in a specific historical event in the life of every Christian, namely, our baptism. Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection are the events which save us, but the power of these saving acts is applied to us in baptism. As Oepke says, “Baptism … is for individuals the actualisation of this relation to salvation history.” Just as Christ really died and rose again, in our baptism we too really died and rose again in a spiritual sense by virtue of our being brought into a relationship with His death and resurrection at that point.

It would certainly not be out of place to comment at this point on the propriety of immersion as the only valid form of baptism. The reference to baptism as a burial with Christ (v. 4; see Col. 2:12) in itself underscores this fact. But the concept of burial should not be emphasized in isolation from the aspects of death and resurrection. In fact, the dying and rising with Christ are the main elements of baptism; burial is in a sense only incidental to these. Or rather, the main point is the full and unbroken sequence of death, burial, and resurrection, all of which are represented by the single act of baptism. It cannot be disputed that immersion is the only form of baptism that pictures this whole sequence; no other form even comes close. This connection must be intentional; God appointed immersion for this purpose because of its unique ability visually to represent death, burial and resurrection—both Christ’s and our own.

This acknowledges that baptism is a symbolic representation of a deeper reality, an “outward sign of an inward grace,” as the common description goes. This is a truth denied by practically no one. The serious error often connected with this truth, however, is that baptism symbolizes a reality that has already occurred. This would be true if we were thinking only of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus; in this case it does symbolize a past reality. But this is not true with regard to ourselves. In our case Scripture consistently teaches that baptism as the external symbol occurs simultaneously with the spiritual reality it is symbolizing. In Romans 6 that reality is the death and burial of our old life of sin and our resurrection to new life. It is a reality that occurs because we are “baptized into Christ.”

Cottrell, Jack. 1989. Baptism: A Biblical Study. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company.

Good responses to the Galatians 1:6-9 argument used automatically against Latter-day Saints.

 Galatians 1:6-9 was a passage I automatically would ramble off against Latter-day Saints in connection to the Angel Moroni’s visit to Joseph Smith supposedly proving that the gospel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a false gospel. The below links provide a good response to using the above passage as a default argument against the Book of Mormon as another gospel. 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Moroni%27s_visit/Angel_of_Satan

Paul warned about angels. Doesn't that condemn Joseph Smith? 

I believe you have two passages in mind:

Gal. 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Cor. 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Paul warns against anyone accepting any other Gospel than what Christ and the Apostles preached, regardless of its apparent source, and I agree. Now consider this: what was early Christianity? What did Christ teach? What was His Church? Christ taught faith and repentance, followed by baptism by immersion for those who believe (Acts 2:37-38; John 3:3-5; Matt. 4:17; Mark 16:16; Romans 6; many others). Anything else - infant baptism, baptism by sprinkling, etc., is not the same Gospel. Christ instituted an unpaid ministry (Matt. 10:8; 1 Cor. 9:18; John 10:11-13; Acts 20:33-35; 2 Thess. 3:7-8) comprising apostles and prophets and other offices (Bishops, Seventies, etc.) which was lead by revelation from Him (Eph. 4:11-14). Any other form of organization must be questioned. Where do we find the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands as in the early Church? (Acts 8:17) Where do we find priesthood authority given by the laying on of hands, by revelation and by the laying on of hands, by those who have received it from God? (Heb. 5:4; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6) For centuries these things were not to be found on the earth, but they have been restored now through the promised "restitution of all things" (Acts 3:19-21) which came after the prophesied time of apostasy (2 Thess. 2:1-3; Acts 20:29,30).

Does Paul say that we should not accept angels or their ministry? That's not at all what he warns against. He warns against being deceived. He warns that Satan can appear as an angel of light, which is a deception only because it sort of looks like the real - and holy - thing. Counterfeits don't work unless they imitate something real. Angels are real, and they look human and are bright, as we gather from several Biblical descriptions. Cornelius, for example, describes the angel who ministered to him as a man in bright clothing (Acts 10:30-32; see also Heb. 1:7). Two angels are described as men in white clothing in Acts 1:10-11. They announced the birth of Christ, they ministered to Christ (Luke 22:43), they rolled away the stone in front of his tomb and announced His Resurrection (Matt. 28); they were present after He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:11),and they will yet come with Christ (Matt. 16:27). Angels have been sent by God to visit men long before Paul wrote anything, angels ministered to and delivered Paul himself (Acts 27:23), and angels ministered to others such as John (see the Book of Revelation) after Paul wrote Galatians and Corinthians. John even prophesied of angels ministering to men in the future (e.g., Rev. 14:6,7, where an angel proclaims the "everlasting Gospel" to the world - perhaps an allusion to the role of the Angel Moroni). Angels can be spirits (Ps. 104:4), including those of righteous men of God who lived before, such as Moses and Elias who appeared to Christ and some apostles in Matt. 17. Since the time of Christ, they may also be resurrected spirits, as may be the case for the former prophet who appeared as a glorious angel to John the Beloved (Rev. 22: 8,9), and was the case for the angel Moroni who appeared to Joseph Smith to help bring forth The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Christ, a record which confirms and verifies the Bible and convinces millions that Jesus is the Christ. Angels were a real part of the early Church. If there is no more ministering of angels in some quarters, perhaps its for the same reasons that we don't find apostles and prophets and modern revelation and other gifts of the Spirit. Where do we find the ministry of real angels today? In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

How can we tell a message from a false angel versus that from a real angel? The same as we can tell a false prophet from a real prophet: "by their fruits ye shall know them." The definitive fruit of Joseph Smith is the Book of Mormon, translated by the power of God from an ancient manuscript. That book begs to be examined and pondered carefully. It's power and Christ-centered message of truth have changed my life. I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true and I have an intellectual knowledge as well that it could not have been fabricated and that it is clearly an ancient document, translated into a modern language (King James style English - and now many other languages as well).

Some modern Christians reject the idea that God would send an angel to testify of anything, forgetting the words of Christ ("I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things. . . ." in Rev. 22:16). Real angels from God have been sent in these days to testify, to instruct, and to return sacred authority and power and ordinances from God, bringing back the fullness of the Gospel of Christ, not some other Gospel of men. I hope you'll take some time to look into the Restored Gospel and hear its simple but beautiful message from authorized servants of God, the LDS missionaries. They have received Priesthood authority for their ministry in the true Biblical manner, by prophecy and by the laying on of hands from other authorized servants who in turn can trace their authority back to Christ, thanks to the ministry of angels - even Peter, James, and John - who Christ sent to Joseph Smith to restore the Priesthood power of God- https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Facet.shtml#angels