Five reasons why the doctrine of sola scriptura is impractical

Why does this topic matter? 

Because truth really matters.  If the Christian faith and how we live that out is the most central part of our lives, then nothing can be more important than the fullness of the faith.  

Almost every single church in existence claims to be Bible-based but yet teach competing and contradictory things. You often hear about going by the Bible alone and throwing away traditions as unimportant or uninspired. Or you hear of the comparisons between traditions and the Bible as if they were competing in a zero-sum game as if they were opposed to each other.  

Personally, this was something I struggled with in my own faith journey.  

Here is a list of some practical issues in my experience, that I found lacking in the doctrine of "Bible-alone."  

Issue #1: The Bible itself doesn't teach that Sola Scriptura is true

Sola Scriptura fails its own test.  Nowhere in the Bible is this doctrine taught, which makes it unscriptural.  One would expect this core doctrine to be spelled out clearly, but there is no chapter and verse for this doctrine. 

Issue #2: There is no inspired table of contents page 

The Bible doesn't say what books belong in the Bible. There is no inspired table of contents page.  The only reason you know what books belong in the Bible is... because the Catholic Church put together the canon of the Bible.  (Catholic meaning the undivided church, including Rome and the Eastern Orthodox). 

If you have to have something outside the Bible to validate the Bible, then the idea of "scripture alone" fails.  That is no longer by "scripture alone."  

Issue #3: Lack of interpretive authority leads to doctrinal chaos 

Without tradition as a guide, anyone can make up their own theology based on personal opinion and interpretation. And they do so. This leads to doctrinal chaos and endless church splits. The buck stops with the individual interpretation, so there can be as many Christianities as Christians. 

The question becomes: whose interpretation is authoritative? If no interpretation is authoritative, there are no practical means of discerning which one is correct. No one church can have an argument against another church in this scenario. 

It's a dead-heat: their interpretation versus yours. And no resolution because there is no ultimate interpretive authority. 

Issue #4: The Church came before the Bible 

From Pentecost in 33 AD to around 382 AD at the Council of Rome, Christians didn't have a fully compiled Bible.  That's almost 4 centuries without a full Bible. That's a historical fact.    

The first Christians couldn't follow the Bible alone and nothing else because... they didn't have a fully approved Bible. Historically, the Gospel flourished and conquered the Roman Empire without a Bible. They had to be going by the authority, traditions, and teachings of the Apostles and not by Scripture alone. If what they had was true and they didn't go by scripture alone, then there is no reason why we must now go by scripture alone. What was once true is not now false. 

Issue #5:  C.S. Lewis' idea of "chronological snobbery." 

The doctrine of the Bible alone came into Christianity about 500 years ago... AFTER the invention of the printing press. Without reference to prior interpretations or Church tradition, it is easy to "read into" the text 21st-century ideas that are not there in the Early Church. Ultimately, it comes down to personal opinions and interpretations and thinking that one knows better than the consensus of the Church, the Church Fathers throughout the entirety of Christian history.   

These are all practical problems of sola scriptura that I wrestled with and I hope that it helps inform your faith or may it help you to start asking questions and having these discussions.