The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sola Scriptura

I don't see any biblical basis for sola scriptura. I think it is a human tradition. What do you think are the strongest verses which support this idea?

No offense... really, I don't intend to make light of your statement-question, but don't you think it is rather self-contradictory? I mean you reject "Sola Scriptura" (grounds not provided) which is the doctrine that says the inspired, infallible and inerrant written Word of God, the Bible, is the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. But, then you ask for verses from the very source which you reject as being ultimately authoritative.

Now, I would like to ask this very sincere question of you... What is your purpose in asking about "Sola Scriptura"? Is it because you enjoy debating with Protestants on this and other issues which are contrary to Rome's doctrines/practices? Or, are you questioning the position of the Roman State Church and thus are wanting answers? If the former, then personally, I don't have the time to enter into fruitless debates. If the latter, then I will certainly make the time to try and provide biblical, rational and historical arguments for the doctrine. Doubtless, the others here would be in agreement as well re: spending time.

For a brief defense of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura see here:

1. The Authority of Scripture, by William Webster
2. Sola Scriptura and the Church, by William Webster
3. The Authority of Scripture, by John Armstrong
4. The Authority of Scripture, by Paul Cook
5. What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?, by Robert Godfrey

For a definitive defense of Sola Scriptura, I would point you to the 3-volume work by William Webster and David King (I have an inkling you know about this set already. ), Sola Scriptura [Book Review].

Thanks, Pilgrim. Message recieved.

Are you guys willing to discuss Sola Scriptura at this point?

A few things about me: I am a reformed Christian. I don't believe that Sola Scriptura is a part of the reformation of the Catholic (i.e. Christian) Church.

Any reason why you say so?

Johan

Patricius,

First, did you read the articles Pilgrim recommended?

Second, what is your point in referring to yourself as a "reformed Christian"?

Yes. The reason is because it is not a constant belief of the historic Pillar and Ground of the Truth, the Light of the Word (1 Tim 3:15, Mt 5:14).

The other--related--reason is because it is not stated in the Catholic Scriptures.

Thus the doctrine of S.S. is self-contradictory.

1. S.S. says the Bible is the only source of Christian doctrine.
2. the Bible does not teach S.S.
3.Therefore S.S. says that S.S. is not Christian doctrine.

Firstly, no, since S.S. Christians have to go by Scripture alone. Just give me one Biblical verse, please. If this is a fundamental rule of faith, there must be at least one explicit verse.

Secondly, my point is that I am a reformed Christian, meaning that I agree that those within the Christian Church needed much reform at the time of "the reformation", which was really doctrinal "deformation".

The true reformation was worked by those that were loyal to Christ. Though, I am no bigot. I see all true Christians as members of the Catholic Church, even if they have been confused by the S.S. doctrine or other a-historical propaganda given by those they had a right to trust.

I am also "reformed" in the sense that I know I deserve Hell. And for this, reason, I don't consider myself superior to anyone.

May we all come to the fulness of the constant, historic Christian faith.

P.S. Pilgrim Wrote:

Going by the Scriptures does not mean going by the Scriptures alone, unless you have a syllogism which shows otherwise. My point is not to prove my case at the moment, but to show that Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory, since it is not stated in Scripture.

I accept the Bible as history, and then from there deduce the whole picture of Jesus and teh Church, and the Church's Book, and that it is inerrant.

patricius,

Let me simply reply that there is no explicit verse that teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, yet it is an incontrovertible truth taught by Scripture. Does your assent to the doctrine of the Trinity rest in church councils or in God's inspired, infallible, inerrant written Word, aka: the Bible?

Secondly, given that there is no explicit verse which you nor the Roman State Church would accept as teaching Sola Scriptura, although we believe there are myriad passages when taken as a whole; something which most RC's and Fundamentalists seem to reject or ignore (aka: the Analogy of Faith), I would like to point out, hopefully by reminder at least, that the Lord Jesus Christ did not look to tradition, good or bad, as His authority. His authority was directly from God the Father. And yet, the Lord Christ equated what was written by Moses and the Prophets, vis a vis... the Old Testament scriptures as the very words of God.

Now, I have to ask, 'Why would I look to another source of alleged truth different from what my Lord looked?' Even the disciples of the Lord Christ were of this mind when they confessed, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." (Jh 6:68) And later, the Lord Christ affirmed this truth and confirmed it with these words, "Sanctify them in the truth, Thy Word is truth." (Jh 17:17) And lastly, Peter counseled all his readers that they should look no further for any communication with God with these amazing words,

Don't you find that an amazing statement? Peter says, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the written Word of God is more sure than the audible spoken word of God from heaven, for its origin is God the Spirit Who guided without error those who penned the Scriptures which would reach throughout the entire world and not be restricted to that place where Peter, James and John accompanied Christ and witnessed His transformation, cf. Matt 17:1ff.

The Church is not infallible and has clearly erred in both doctrine and life since the beginning. I put no trust in man... any man, yet but one man, the man Christ Jesus and His Word.

Some scripture for thought. - Gabriel.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [His] disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in His name. - John 20:30-31

Is Sola Scriptura scriptural?

Protestant Response: Yes.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
John 20:31

Catholic Response: No.
1 Timothy 3:15
2 Timothy 3:15
John 20:30

Sacred Tradition is Scriptural
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Timothy 2:2
1 Corinthians 11:2
1 Thessalonians 2:13
Acts 2:42

The Authority of the Church

Principle #1: Jesus founded one Church.
Matthew 16:18

Principle #2: The Church is authoritative.
1 Timothy 3:15
Matthew 18:15-17

Principle #3: The Church is called to show a visible unity.
John 17:11
John 10:16
Ephesians 4:4-5
John 17:21
John 17:23

And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:18

The Authority of the Church

Principle #4: The authority of the Church is Apostolic.
Matthew 28:18-19
John 20:21
Luke 10:16
Acts 1:15-26
1 Timothy 1:3
1 Timothy 4:11-13
1 Timothy 5:22
2 Timothy 1:13-14
2 Timothy 2:2
Titus 1:5-7

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” - John 20:21

Martin Luther & the Bible
Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Old Testament:
Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Baruch & Judith.
Revelation 22:18-19

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
- Revelation 22:18-19

General Rules for Scriptural Debates
1. Not all Christian Beliefs are found directly in Scripture.
Example: “Trinity” is not in Scripture

2. The Bible is NOT the sole rule of Faith.
Example: 1 Timothy 3:15

The doctrine of the Trinity—like the Biblical Canon--cannot be derived from Scripture alone. See the N.T. (esp. Mt 28:19) and these sites for to see evidence of the Church’s constant oral Word about God:.
http://www.catholic.com/library/god_christ.asp

or

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

The Scriptures are the written Word of God. The oral Word of God is the spoken Word of God. The two never disagree, which is why the Catholic Biblical interpretations are constantly in evidence throughout history (cf. Is 59:21, Is 9:7), while nobody in Jesus took the protestant position between 100 and 1100 A.D., for example. See:
http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

or

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

The Catholic Church—the only historical Christian group which lives up to Mt 5:14--historically has always believed that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Son is God, and likewise the Father. Pope Dionysius was writing about his in the 200s, for example. She has also always seen the Scriptures as inseparable from the oral Word taught by “the fathers” (2 Tim 1:13, 2:2).


This assumes the Sola Scriptura oral tradition. The Word of God is expressed in two forms which are equally indispensable and equal: Scripture and Tradition.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

In fact, there is no non-Catholic historical source of the N.T. Canon, and the earliest complete version of the N.T. Canon I know of is the Pope Damasus’s list from the Synod of Rome.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/canon.htm

The fact that the Bible does not give it’s own Canon proves that Sola Scriptura is false. (Very few Biblical books—at best—claim to be the inerrant Word of God. The Bible doesn’t even teach that the Canon is closed at a certain point. Jude 3 doesn’t say that of itself. The Word as a whole, in union with the Father and Spirit, does say this explicitly.

Many early Christians didn’t go by S.S. ,since many were illiterate, and since Christ never taught this. God wouldn’t give a doctrine condemnatory of any human being.

[i]“Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition [cf 2 Thes 2:15 and 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2, 34; 2 Tim 1:13 and 2:2] anifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.”[i]
For more of this article: [“Scripture and Tradition”. Catholic Anwers. San Diego, 2004:]
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp


I don’t know what you mean by Roman state Church. The idea that the Catholic Church changed her doctrines at the time of Constantine—or lost her spiritual purity—seems to be a convenient historical myth to perhaps distract from the total incoherence of the distinctive reformation doctrines with early Church history and the Scriptures.
http://www.catholic.com/library/faith_tracts.asp


I’m all about the analogy of faith. There are many verses teaching us to go by the Scriptures, but none saying that the written Word is more reliable or superior than the oral Word, or that an individual—apart from the Body of Christ—is the best interpreter of Scripture. Cf. 2 Pt 1:20.

As to the analogy of faith—another non-explicit idea: this is constant Catholic teaching. That is one of the main principles of Biblical interpretation. The other one—which many are missing--is that you must do as the good Jews and the Apostles did, which is to read the Scriptures in union with the oral Word (cf. 2 Tim 2:2, Gal 1:8.)


Jesus was the Word. He went by the Scriptures as they are indispensable to the Church, but he did not look to them alone! Cf. Jn 8:26. He looked to what the Father taught Him, and to the Scriptures, as interpreted by what he heard from the Father, His Magisterium. This is what historical Christians do. Cf. 1 Cor 4:15, which shows how Paul reflects the fatherhood of God to the Church. Jesus’s disciples didn’t go by the Scriptures “alone”. They went by the Scriptures and what they learned from Jesus’s words and example.


Exactly. This is the oral Word. And we know that everything Jesus said is the Word of God, though much of it is not explicitly stated in Scripture. Cf. Jn 20:30, Jn 21:25. I think that if Covenant were based on Scripture alone, Jesus would have written the N.T. from the start.


Right, and this Word is written and oral. Cf. 2 Thes 2:15, 1 Thes 1:8, 2:13, Dt 6:6-7.


Well done. I think we are on the “same page”, meaning: interpreting the Scriptures the way the Church always has.

[quote’Martin Luther & the Bible
Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Old Testament:
Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Baruch & Judith.
Revelation 22:18-19

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
- Revelation 22:18-19

General Rules for Scriptural Debates
1. Not all Christian Beliefs are found directly in Scripture.
Example: “Trinity” is not in Scripture

2. The Bible is NOT the sole rule of Faith.
Example: 1 Timothy 3:15
_________________________
YBIC,
Gabriel [/quote]

Amen. That covers most of the verses I would usually bring up, other than 2 Jn 12 and 3 Jn 13, Neh 8:8, and so no.

May we all realize our weakness, equality, and seek the full unity of the Christian faith through the Holy Spirit.

P.S. The habit of citing Scripture through chapter and verse ,and with precision, is in itself an oral tradition not found in Scripure. Christ Himself did not quote Scripture precisely. Cf. Jn 7:38. Personally, I think it detracts as much as it adds to discourse. It has a tendency to make us very un-childlike. However, I do it when necessary, I hope.

You need to read the sources to which you have been directed so that you can put aside your misconceptions about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Otherwise, there is nothing further to discuss with you.

hi Kyle,

My apology for taking so long ... I started readin the article by Webster ... the first one recommended ...

it reads


Why is Webster changing the word used there from "useful" to "sufficient"? And why does Webster ignore the context which shows how we need both the Scriptures and the Church's authority?(Cf. 2 Tim 1:6,13, 2:2, 3:10, 14-17) ... Cf. Luke 10:16, Mt 28:18-20.

But in any case, I do agree that the Scriptures are materially sufficient to understand everything about God ... and that there must be somebody qualified to interpret them and share them with others through the Spirit...because

faith comes from what is heard Roman 10:17

... which is why Paul says that "teaching, correction, rebuke, and training in righteousness" render a man "complete".etc

He is also suggesting the Truth that the Scriptures are both profitable and absolutely indispensable to the Body of Christ ... because this Book is God-breathed (as Paul here says) ... which is why we call It by the name of the Son of God ...

What do you think? I hope I'm not coming off rudely ... I am by nature over-excitable and prone to such things ... In Christ, Pat

Webster doesn't change the meaning of the word ophelimos from "profitable" to "sufficient", but rather he is interpreting the passage to mean that the Scriptures are 'sufficient'. There is a world of difference between changing a word's obvious and accepted definition and understanding what a passage means in which the word appears.

Now, the text in question certainly does teach the "sufficiency" of the WRITTEN Word of God, for 1) the word translated as "Scripture" in our English Bibles is graphe "writings"; that which was set down in writing. 2) those writings which came through holy men of God (2 Peter 1:21) were the result of God the Spirit "moving" them along to put in writing what God desired to reveal. Paul uses the word, theopneustos; God breathed. Please take special note of the fact that this is to be understood correctly as a passive verbal adjective and not active (cf. Matt 1:22; 2Pet 1:21; et al). Put in layman's language, "God is the speaker and men are but the instruments or mediums through Whom God speaks." The Scriptures are therefore ultimately authoritative and thus sufficient in and of themselves. There is no need of one to "interpret" them in order to make them authoritative or sufficient or even profitable. The Scriptures are self-sufficient, self-interpretative, self-explanatory for they originate with God.

Notice carefully also that it is the WRITINGS, and them only, which came first orally but were put into written words that are God-inspired. No oral tradition! No interpretation! No second-hand teaching! is inspired and thus all else compared to the Scriptures is errant, fallible and thus has no inherent authority or ability to convert the soul or sanctify it (Jh 17:17). This text teaches the "verbal inspiration" of the WRITTEN Word of God; the Bible, the Scriptures.

Thanks for participating and I am sure Kyle will be along to add his most welcomed thoughts.

Hi Pilgrim, Thank you for your good response.

We agree that the Scriptures are sufficient, though I disagree that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is commenting on this per se, since this idea is nowhere present, and the usefulness and Inspiriation of Scripture is commended to the power of the oral tradition.

useful for teaching correction rebuke and training in righteousness

As to the need of interpretation, I'm thinking of Nehemiah 8:8, where Nehemiah interprets the Scriptures, explaining them so that the people understand the sense. cf. Acts 8:31.

Your idea that the Tradition was at first inspired, and then later was referred to teh Scriptures alone, is somewhat different than Webster's (just below the quote in question), who denies any inspiration to the oral traditions, which Paul refers to in 2 Thes 2:15 ... but in any case, I don't find this idea of the ending of the Apostolic oral tradition (cf. 2 Tim 2:2) in Scripture, or in the early Biblical Church. Cf. Lk 8:16.

Now, the Pope's own preacher teaches the the Scriptures are an infallible spiritual direction--and amen--but, as with the Fathers, this is understood in the context of the Apostolic Kingdom ...Cf. Lk 1:31-33, Titus 1:5, Acts 1:20 ... rather than a private interpretive tradition ... Cf. 2 Pt 1:20-21; 3:16.

Thank you, Pat