In a recent exchange over the question of women in ministry, a thoughtful commenter raised a provocative critique of the Protestant position. After I referenced sola scriptura, he responded:
“To disregard church history or the authority of the church fathers is to essentially take the position of Islam and assume there is no ambiguity in one’s own personal reading of a text… At some point historical arguments are accepted by all Christians, otherwise Mormonism has just as strong a claim as anyone else who wants to dismiss the past as fallible or corrupted.”
It’s a strong critique—but it misrepresents Protestant theology and collapses key distinctions. While Protestants affirm Scripture as the final authority in matters of faith and practice, this is not the same as rejecting history or theological tradition. Below are five reasons why the Protestant view is both biblically faithful and historically responsible.
1. Protestants Don’t Reject History—They Test It
The Protestant commitment to sola scriptura does not entail rejecting the history of interpretation. On the contrary, the Reformers were deeply shaped by the Church Fathers. Calvin cites Augustine frequently,1 and Luther famously said, “The Fathers must be read with discrimination, as they are not all alike trustworthy.”2
The sola in sola scriptura simply means that Scripture alone is the final, infallible authority—not the only source of theological insight. The Reformers practiced what John Wesley would later call the “rule of faith,” which includes Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience—with Scripture holding the highest place.3
As Paul exhorted the Thessalonians to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21), Protestants evaluate all theological claims, even those grounded in tradition, by the standard of Scripture.
2. Appeal to Tradition Is Not a Trump Card
Yes, the early Church restricted ecclesial leadership to men in many contexts. But historical practice, even when long-standing, is not equivalent to divine command. The Church has also historically endorsed slavery, denied communion to laity, and discouraged vernacular Bible translation—positions few would defend today.
Even Thomas Aquinas, who is frequently cited on questions of authority and gender, wrongly concluded from Aristotelian biology that women were “defective males.”4 Clearly, the historic consensus is not always correct, and Protestants recognize that tradition must be measured by Scripture. As Jesus told the Pharisees, “You nullify the word of God by your tradition” (Mark 7:13).
History matters. But it is not infallible.
3. Mormonism (nor Islam) Is Not a Parallel Case
To compare Protestant theology with Mormonism misunderstands both. Mormons explicitly claim that the biblical text has been corrupted and that the fullness of the gospel was restored through new revelation in the Book of Mormon.5 Protestants claim the opposite: that Scripture is sufficient, preserved, and authoritative, and that reform is needed when the Church strays from apostolic teaching.
This is why Protestants adhere to the words of Paul: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). The goal is not novelty, but fidelity. Reformation is not rebellion; it is repentance.
4. Protestants Uphold Apostolic Consensus on the Essentials
On the fundamentals of the faith—the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the authority of Scripture—Protestants affirm the historic and ecumenical teaching of the Church. The Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition, and the Rule of Faith are not rejected, but embraced.
This is why Protestants can affirm with the universal Church: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ… true God from true God, begotten, not made.” On these essential points, there is no dispute.
But where history shows internal disagreement—on the role of women, church governance, or sacramental theology—Protestants believe Scripture must speak with final clarity, even when that means departing from later church tradition.
5. Unity Requires a Shared Standard
The unity of the Church is not based on institutional continuity alone, but on shared allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Paul wrote, “There is one body and one Spirit… one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:4–6).
True ecumenism affirms the common core of the faith while recognizing that not all traditions are equally faithful to Scripture. Protestants do not aim to divide but to reform. As Peter reminds us, “If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).
The Protestant call to return to Scripture is not an attack on the Church—it is a call to faithfulness.
Conclusion: Grateful but Discerning
To affirm sola scriptura is not to dismiss history, nor to embrace individualism. It is to recognize that while the Church has preserved the gospel across generations, it has also sometimes erred—and when it has, Scripture must be allowed to correct.
We honor the saints, theologians, and councils that have shaped the faith. But we do not confuse their words with the Word of God. As Protestants, we are not throwing out the tradition of the Church—we are simply refusing to treat it as infallible.
And that’s not forgetting the past. That’s taking it seriously.
Footnotes
1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960), Book II is especially saturated with Augustinian references.
2. Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, in Luther’s Works, Vol. 1, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1958), 152.
3. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 1:76. While Wesley never formally outlined the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” his sermons and writings reflect this fourfold theological method.
4. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 92, a. 1: “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten.”
5. The Book of Mormon, Introduction (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1981).
