A question for all Christians who follow Sola Scriptura???

Question

I am a Catholic, and I really don't understand the concept of Sola Scriptura. Apparently, you read the Bible, and you can only follow exactly what is in the Bible?

But (correct me if I am wrong), I do not believe the Bible has the idea of Sola Scriptura in it. So therefore, if it is not in the Bible, then you cannot believe in it, right?

I mean, if your religion is based on the concept that EVERYTHING you believe has to be in the Bible, then that idea should be in the Bible, also, correct?

Because, if I am not mistaken, Martin Luther started the idea of Sola Scriptura. That being said, the idea for Sola Scriptura is itself AGAINST Sola Scriptura, so it is therefore invalid.

Or is it in the Bible? I don't know. I am not trying to insult anyone's religion, just trying to get an idea about this.

Answer 1

A claim on Sola Scripture will mean you are bound by what is written in the Bible. Or rather be grateful for God who has the mercy to cause this wieldable volume to be written and printed for all His people. In fact, this may be so, for the book seems to tell any believer about how to live a godly life and holy life fit for the kingdom of God. But when you want to go beyond say to enquire about things not mentioned in the book, then you face the problem. You will be told by one who holds sola scripture, not to go into any area that is not mentioned in the bible. What a limited view or restrictive advice.

Yes, Bible is God's word. But there is no limit for us to go beyond the area not dealt with in details by the Bible. But when this is suggested, the beholders of sola scriptures will consider those who go beyond as blasphemous or irrespectful to God. But God is not that small or limited in power by his own word which he reveals to us. But the sola scriptures will say God cannot go back with His own word which is contained in the Bible. So God is caught by the Bible the human kinds caused it to be canonised. What a pity. We are in a delimma and we are again advised to ask God when we meet him face to face. Is that necessary when we are there with Him? We only want to know when we are alive and kicking. So I would rather wish to go beyond what is written in the bible which I take it to be the word of God to learn more about God and all his creation not mentioned in the Bible.

Answer 2

Paul and Jesus both made philosophical arguments documented in the Gospels based on one word in the Old Testament. I believe the Bible is self authenticating because of all the prophecy that has come true from the Old Testament and also the way things are shaping up in the world right now point to the rest of them getting ready to happen.

Think about this The book of Daniel was written 400+ years before Christ was born yet scholars have have discovered that the 70 weeks of Daniel minus the one week that is yet to come equals the exact day that Christ rode into Jerusalem on the donkey. Keep in mind that the Jews had a different Calendar back then. It's amazingly close IMO if you do figure it with our calendar though.

I love to listen to Chuck Missler and Tommy Nelson. The first is very provocative and the second is a pretty well known pastor of an evangelical church in Denton, Texas.
I recommend Systematic Theology by Tommy I'm in your contact list let me know if you would like to get a copy of it I'll send it to you.


I don't really understand how the Bible might not be enough for someone? In my opinion there is too much scripture for me to follow. It overwhelms me. Is there a part of life that you feel the Bible doesn't have an authoritative answer?

Answer 3

We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for “sola scriptura,” it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed – the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

Answer 4

I believe in adhearing only to the teaching found in the Bible. I had not been exposed to the term "sola scripture" until a week or so ago on the website.

I think bama_jld covered this pretty well.

I think the following scripture is crucial, since it is a warning directly from Jesus.
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:8-9).

Answer 5

I think that you misunderstand the idea of "sola scriptura", as well as the idea of the "cannon". I will try to explain it the way that I understand it; hopefully I will get it right.

The books that are in the cannon (the Bible) are guaranteed to have come from God. We have no such assurances as to written materials that come from other sources. maybe they are godly, maybe they are not.

That being said, God would not contradict himself, so anything that contradicts the Bible must be false, by definition of the word "cannon" (Deuteronomy 13:1-4; Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1-6). Likewise, any writing that agrees with the Bible must be true.

I don't think that I lost you so far.

The main bone of contention between Protestants and Catholics, as far as I know, is whether the Bible alone has sufficient information for either/or salvation and Christian living, or does one need additional sources of information in order to learn how to please God besides the Bible itself, because God gave his prophets incomplete information.

I think that you can see where this is going. The Pharisees said that Moses gave two different traditions at Mt. Sinai; one oral and one written. The written one was the the Torah (the first five books). They claimed that their unwritten tradition was based on Moses' oral teachings which were not written down. Jesus seemed to point out that this idea of an additional oral tradition, in effect, gave the Pharisees a means of rewriting the scriptures at will, since they could just make anything up and claim that it was an oral tradition from Moses (Matthew 15:1-13; Mark 7:1-13). The traditions of man cannot veto commands from God; likewise, a man has no right to add commands that God never intended in the name of tradition (Matthew 12:1-14; Acts 10:13-15; Colossians 2:8-23).

Most Protestants do not believe that traditions are bad, but we would have a problem with the idea that human traditions (which change over time since they are usually oral) have the same force and effect as the very words of God himself spoken of from the mouth of a prophet who has heard from God directly. The prophets (and the apostles, since they are prophets) do not have some gut feeling or instinct about what God wanted; they heard from God directly. The words of God are more important than the words of a mere human, even if the human is the Pope.


--------------------------------

...Let me begin with certain clarifications so as not to be misunderstood. I am not arguing that all truth is to be found in the Bible, or that the Bible is the only form in which the truth of God has come to His people. I am not arguing that every verse in the Bible is equally clear to every reader. Nor am I arguing that the church — both the people of God and the ministerial office — is not of great value and help in understanding the Scripture. As William Whitaker stated in his noble work: “For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men.”

The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.

The position I am defending certainly is what is taught in the Bible itself. For example, Deuteronomy 31:9 states: “Moses wrote down this law. . . .” Moses instructed the people by writing down the law and then ordering that it be read to them “so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law,” Deuteronomy 31:9, 12.

Moses declared to all Israel: “Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life,” Deuteronomy 32:46, 47.

Notice the clear elements in these passages:

The Word of which Moses spoke was written.

The people can and must listen to it and learn it.

In this Word they can find life.

The people do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word. The priests, prophets, and scribes of Israel certainly function to help the people ministerially. But the Word alone was sufficient for salvation. The prophets, who were indeed inspired, came very much in the spirit of Micah who said, “He has shown you, O man, what is good,” Micah 6:8. The function of the prophets and priests was not to add to or even clarify the law; rather, they applied it to the people who were sinfully indifferent....

Answer 6

Matthew 15:3 says, "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" In reading this in it's textual context it would seem that we are to live by the word of God and not the traditions of man. To clarify this point the Bible also says in II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" This verse and others definitely lends itself to the idea of Sola Scriptura. Psalm 119:105
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."

When I read your question it didn't seem as though you were trying to stick it to us old Protestants.Thanks, Good question.

Answer 7

Be careful because somebody will undoubtedly try and force "sola scriptura" into 2tim 3:16. Just a fair warning before it happens.

I notice that so far nobody can answer your question. Hmmmmm?

Answer 8

Im a Christian, so Im going to follow what God gave me - the Bible. Why should I follow man's tradition as well? Man always will be fallible, but God will always be infallible. I can trust the Bible, so that is what I follow.

Answer 9

Every principle and aspect or nature of GOD is found in the holy Scriptures known as the Bible.
No other source is required for GOD's perfect will is found there in to the enlightened.

Answer 10

Anyone who follows the bible , follows tradition. The
scriptures were decided upon by men who were annointed to do so by men who were annointed to lead the Church, who were annointed by the apostles, by the laying on of hands.They were annointed by Jesus Himself. If you believe that, than you must believe whatever else they said (ie;Church tradition). Amen and Amen!