In a recent work defending sola scriptura (“canonical” sola scriptura to be exact) (John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016]), John C. Peckham wrote the following on pp.153-54 which is rather telling, showing that sola scriptura is, ultimately an empty promise and a form of epistemology that cannot provide solid, definitive answers, something critics thereof have been saying for centuries.
So, which church or tradition? Acceptance of a particular tradition or church merely because that tradition or church claims to be the true one amounts to the circularity that appeal to tradition or ecclesial authority is purported to avoid. Some appeal instead to the widest consensus, but this raises questions regarding which consensus within which self-identifying Christian community and about whether a majority community perspective is legitimate simply in virtue of being predominant (and, if so, what of community rejection of Jesus himself?) If, on the other hand, a tradition or church is authoritative insofar as it is on consonance with Scripture, such an approach first requires the primacy and interpretation of Scripture (requiring that the community is not itself authoritative in biblical interpretation).
The footnote (p. 154 n. 45) for this passage reads as follows, in reference to Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001):
Mathison partially recognizes the problem with his view: In “Tradition 1, the true interpretation of Scripture is found only in the Church. Yet the true Church is identified largely by its adherence to the true interpretation of Scripture. How then do we identify the Church when there are numerous communions claiming to be the Church” without “falling into radical subjectivism or logical circularity? (Shape, 319). He claims that we might “identity the Christian churches” by “their adherence to the apostolic regula fidei,” thus “identifying the fragments of the true visible Church by their acceptance of the common testimony of the Holy Spirit in the rule of faith, especially as expressed in written form in the ecumenical creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon” (Shape, 321). Yet why that “rule of faith” and whose interpretation of it? He suggest it is because the “Holy Spirit has borne a miraculously unanimous witness to a common fundamental creed throughout this same Christendom” (Shape, 321). Yet some who self-identity as Christians have rejected these creeds so this once again assumes that one already knows who the true Christians are, which is the very point at issue. How, then, does this get beyond the vicious circularity or radical subjectivity that Mathison wants to avoid? Cf. the similar problems faced by Oden’s consensual orthodoxy and Lindbeck’s appeal to the consensus fidelium. Further, even if one were to accept the content of ecumenical creeds as the rule, how would that help to resolve the denominational fragmentation over the host of issues that are not addressed in such creeds? See the following chapter.
We also find the following in the same chapter of Peckham’s book:
Patrick Madrid seeks to defeat sola Scriptura via a pragmatic test, asking for even one example “of sola scriptura actually working, functioning in such a way that it brings about doctrinal certitude and unity of doctrine among Christians.” However, the premise of Madrid’s argument is invalid, at least with reference to this canonical approach, since sola Scriptura does not entail any claim to provide “doctrinal certitude” or “unity of doctrine” and thus is not defeated by the lack thereof. (p. 162)
And then later on (p. 164) we read this:
The canonical sola scriptura approach, then, advocates far-reaching epistemic humility, recognizing that both are the interpretations of individuals (including ourselves) and communities are fallible. As such, the individual and collective task of Christians is to seek to bring our interpretation into ever-greater conformity to the canon. This task might be advanced via a rigorous process of theological interpretation that applies a canonical approach wherein a hermeneutical spiral is continuously employed to bring interpretations closer and closer in line with, and in full submission to, all of Scripture.
After 500 years, one would have expected Protestantism to have resolved such issues if Sola Scriptura were a workable and true doctrine and practice that could bring about clarity as its opponents claim it can, once properly understood and practiced. Again, it just shows that Sola Scriptura, as well as the entirety of Protestantism itself, is a shell-game: something promised, but when you examine them, there is nothing there.