Scripturally justify sola Scripture?

Question

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

Barry - Protestant pastors from the time of Luther and Calvin have realized that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to interpret Scripture, they must prohibit the exercise of this right to others, lest their group be torn apart by strife. It is the failure to prohibit the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over twenty thousand Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press World Christian Encyclopedia.

a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

c) In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

The Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

Granny - I agree completely. I have posted this question before, and that time also received very few responses because they CANNOT prove Sola Scripture and they know it!!

Answer 1

Catholics see it as one of the three pillars of the very Church (the other two being Sacred Tradition and the Magisterim -- the teaching authority of the Church).

The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen.

Christianity can only be fully grasped by understanding it for what it is: the Old Covenant growing into the New Covenant, the fulfillment of the Old Testament religion, the organic result of the coming of the expected Messiah Who was Himself from the Tribe of Judah.

Answer 2

Check 2Tim 3:16-17, that seems a good place to start.

Sola Scriptura and Inerrancy
A brief historical recapitulation of the steps that led to Luther’s Sola Scriptura dictum may be helpful. After Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, a series of debates, correspondence,

[p.104]

charges, and countercharges ensued, culminating in Luther’s dramatic stand at Worms in April 1521. The two most significant transitional points between the theses of 1517 and the Diet of Worms of 1521 were the debates at Augsburg and Leipzig.

In October 1518 Luther met with Cardinal Cajetan of the Dominicans. Cajetan was acknowledged to be the most learned theologian of the Roman Curia. In the course of their discussions Cajetan was able to elicit from Luther his views on the infallibility of the pope. Luther asserted that the pope could err and claimed that Pope Clement VI’s bull Unigenitus (1343) was contrary to Scripture.2

In the summer of 1519 the dramatic encounter between Luther and Johannes von Eck took place at Leipzig. In this exchange Eck elicited from Luther the admission of his belief that not only could the pope err but church councils could and did err as well. It was at Leipzig that Luther made clear his assertion: Scripture alone is the ultimate, divine authority in all matters pertaining to religion. Gordon Rupp gives the following account:

Luther affirmed that "among the articles of John Huss and the Hussites which were condemned, are many which are truly Christian and evangelical, and which the church universal cannot condemn!" This was sensational! There was a moment of shocked silence, and then an uproar above which could be heard Duke George’s disgusted, "Gad, Sir, that’s the Plague! ..." Eck pressed his advantage home, and Luther, trapped, admitted that since their decrees are also of human law, Councils may err.3

So by the time Luther stood before the Diet of Worms, the principle of Sola Scriptura was already well established in his mind and work. Only the Scripture carries absolute normative authority. Why? For Luther the sola of Sola Scriptura was inseparably related to the Scriptures’ unique inerrancy. It was because popes could and did err and because councils could and did err that Luther came to realize the supremacy of Scripture. Luther did not despise church authority nor did he repudiate church councils as having no value. His praise of the Council of Nicea is noteworthy. Luther and the Reformers did not mean by Sola Scriptura that the Bible is the only authority in the church. Rather, they meant that the Bible is the only infallible authority in the church. Paul Althaus summarizes the train of Luther’s thought by saying:
We may trust unconditionally only in the Word of God and not in the teaching of the fathers; for the teachers of the Church can err and have erred. Scripture never errs. Therefore it alone has unconditional authority. The authority of the theologians of the Church is relative and conditional. Without the authority of the words of Scripture, no one can establish hard and fast statements in the Church.

Answer 3

I've yet to hear an adherent of sola scriptura explain away 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

I've also heard some pretty impressive verbal contortions on "you are Peter, and upon this rock ..." I call it the big rock vs. little pebble defense.

Answer 4

a million Timothy 4:a million-4---"The Spirit of course says that for the time of later circumstances some will abandon the religion and stick to deceiving spirits and issues taught via demons. Such teachings come with the aid of hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a warm iron. They forbid human beings to marry and get them organized to abstain from particular meals, which God created to be won with thanksgiving via people who have confidence and who understand the fact. For each little thing God created is powerful, and not something is to be rejected no count number if it fairly is won with thanksgiving," Which faith forbids monks to marry and to no longer consume particular meals on particular days? there's no Scripture that designates the Pope will function king the two in heaven or on earth. LOBT

Answer 5

Keep in mind that the oft-cited passage in Timothy was written BEFORE there were any Gospels, and BEFORE the letters of Paul were made canonical. So it was referring ONLY to the Jewish Scriptures, the so-called "OLD Testament", not to the not-yet existing New.

Answer 6

The Bible says that the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing as to the thoughts and intents of the heart. Psalm 119 speaks of the sufficiency of Scripture. In the parable of the sower, the sower sows the word, not the word plus tradition. The gospel of salvation is the word alone.

Answer 7

I think Martin Luther proved that Sola Scriptura is a sound way to determine the will of God by the Word of God. What the Church was doing back then was heinous, and was not in any way in accordance with Scripture. They were not a good measuring stick for policy at that time.

Answer 8

Very true. There is no sola scriptura in the bible.

The passage most commonly brought up by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is 2 Timothy 3:16–17. In the King James Version, the verse reads this way: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient"—which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means.


2 Timothy 3:16–17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry.

Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written? The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.

Answer 9

timothy shows us that 'all scripture is good for teaching ,edification...' there are other scriptures that tell us to be mindful of the holy bible romans 3:31 we establish the law through our faith.so the holy bible tells us repeatedly showsus the soundness of the word of God.

Answer 10

Very true. It would take some serious circular reasoning to come up with an answer.