Sola Scriptura?

Question

is it Biblical?

sola scriptura: by scripture alone.

LineDancer, like how about give me the verse where it's said so, so that I can try to ponder on it?

Lucid Freedom, ask the Bible-fundies. I am searching for answers myself, and I am asking them as well.

Answer 1

No, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is assuredly not Biblical. In fact, the Bible indicates in several places that there are important sources for spiritual guidance that are *not* written down. First, let's look at the argument in favor of Sola Scriptura. The verses I most commonly see quoted to justify it are as follows:

2 Tim 3:16-17 - "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Nowhere here does it say that ONLY Scripture is inspired of God or that ONLY Scripture is profitable to teach, etc. I absolutely agree with Paul's statement here, but I don't think this verse actually says what our Protestant brothers and sisters think it says.

1 Cor 4:6 - "...so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written, so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another." Taken at face value, this fragment of a verse certainly seems to suggest that we should not use non-written material as a source of our belief. What Sola Scriptura proponents fail to mention is that Paul spent the previous 5 verses talking about Judgment, when God will judge the Jews based on what is written *in the Book of Life.* He's not talking about Scripture here, at all. Furthermore, if Paul DID mean that only written Scripture should be used for spiritual guidance, then we must throw out John's Gospel, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, none of which were written down at the time Paul made this pronouncement. I do not find that to be a defensible position.

So, if the common justifications for Sola Scriptura do not really justify it at all, may we dismiss the doctrine? Perhaps, but it is shaky logical ground to say that if particular arguments in support of a premise fail, then the premise itself must fail. Let us instead search Scripture for instances where we are instructed to go beyond what is written.

2 Thess 2:15 - "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle." Here, Paul is clearly instructing the Thessalonians to practice the faith as they were taught both by his epistles AND by his verbal instructions. Furthermore, he instructs them to hold fast to *Traditions*, implying that Tradition was of some importance in the early Church.

2 John 12 - "Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete." John intended to visit a Christian community and teach the congregation there *without writing anything down*. Should this community disregard John's teachings because they are not written Scripture?

3 John 13-14 - "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face." John was apparently not big on writing things down. If Sola Scriptura is valid, then we must disregard the oral teachings of the beloved Apostle, which were passed on to us by the Traditions of the early Church. I doubt anyone would be prepared to make the argument that the Apostles should be ignored based on their preferred medium of communication.

1 Cor 11:2 - "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you." Here, Paul *praises* the Corinthians for honoring the traditions he taught them. These were not traditions recorded anywhere in Scripture, but rather were passed on by word of mouth. Why should Paul praise this kind of behavior if Sacred Tradition were not an important source of Christian belief and behavior? If Sola Scriptura were supported by Scripture, Paul should rather chastise his congregation for going beyond what is written.

John 20:30-31 - "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 (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name." Here, straight from the Gospels, is clear evidence that there were important elements of Christian belief and of Jesus' life that were never written down. Does this mean that these "other signs" performed by Jesus are somehow less worthy or less valid because they were not all recorded in written form?

The very words of Scripture indicate that important events, teachings, traditions, and so on, of the early Christian church were *never written down.* The existence of these things *is* mentioned, however, and in several places. This being the case, it is proper to conclude that Sola Scriptura is not a Biblically supported doctrine and should not be followed.

Answer 2

No it isn't. Here is what the Bible has to say about it:

Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral tradition.
Acts 2:42 ... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 ... Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 ... more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:30-31 ... guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
Heb 5:12 ... need to be taught.

Answer 3

Perhaps if we had true copies of intended scripture rather than a cross section of modified and mistranslated stuff that a bunch of people decided to stick together back in the fourth century.
Since we have no idea what books god intended us to use or if the ones we have say anything close to what the origenals did, if sola scritura is the way we are all doomed.

Answer 4

They always omit three items, 1) "scripture" means something written, like the "gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "he Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - both written, ok... 2) 2 Tim 3:15... which clarifies the word "scripture" to mean, that which Timothy knew from a child... which is the Tanakh, the Jewish scriptures. 3) even if we admit other books, the ones considered "inspired of god" have changed over the years, by vote of man.

Answer 5

No, it isn't.

Those who believe it is, using the Bible Alone, please show me:
1) Where does it say that the number of books in the New Testament is supposed to be 27?
2) Where does it say the names of the books that belong in the New Testament?
3) Where does it say the correct version of the books that belong in the New Testament? For example, there was a version of Matthew with 8 chapters worth of text, another with 18, and a third with 28.
4) Where does it say the correct translation of the books that belong in the New Testament?

And of course there would be more for the Old Testament

Answer 6

Some say, "Everything one needs to believe in order to be saved is in the Bible," or "God has revealed everything in the Bible alone."

Let us take a look at some scripture passages which some use to make this point. Then we will comment on the passages.
1. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16)
Comment: It says, "All scripture... is profitable." It does NOT say "All scripture is sufficient." If we take Paul's statement to mean that the scriptures were all that were needed, then we would have to reject the New Testament, since the scriptures Paul referred to were Old Testament (probably Septuagint) only. He was writing about A.D. 67. Most of the New Testament was not written yet, and the final decision as to what books make up the New Testament was not made until 300 years later.
2. "And consider that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation - as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Comment: Peter is indicating that Paul's writings are part of the Scriptures. But the scriptures of the New Testament were not decided upon for another 300 years.
3. "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)
Comment: It does NOT say that we need ONLY what is written. It says that these are written that we might believe.
4. "He answered and said to them, 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?' " (Matthew 15:3)
Comment: Jesus condemns human traditions or customs which undermine Christian truths. He is not referring to truths handed down by Tradition in the Church.
5. "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." (John 5:39)
Comment: Jesus was referring to the Old Testament only, since the writing of the New Testament was not even started yet. Jesus was saying that He fulfilled the Old Testament.

Answer 7

Sola Scriptura is a false, late day tradition of men that seeks to usurp the God given power of the indefectable church and replace it with the personal scripture interpretations of fallible men.

Answer 8

Name kinda gives it away that it is biblical;) Seriously though, why would you only believe a portion of the bible, if you dont believe all of it? If it were fallible (which i do not believe it is) how would you possibly know which part to believe and which part to refute? Just my thoughts.

EDIT: sorry to confuse, my questions are more rhetorical with a general "you"

Answer 9

We need to remember that Jesus and Paul both accepted Non-Biblical oral and written traditions. Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority, outside of written revelation. For example:

A) Matt 2:23: the reference to "…He shall be called a
Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down "by the prophets." Thus, a prophecy, which is considered to be "God's Word" was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture.

B) Matt 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses' seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down is taught.

And now two examples from the Apostle Paul:

C) In 1 Cor 10:4, St Paul refers to a rock which `followed' the
Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exo 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13). But rabbinic tradition does.

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

The perfect example of the Teaching Church and its binding authority at work is seen in the book of Acts at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30). In the Jerusalem Council, we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) which was binding on all Christians:

Acts 15:28-29: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that:

… As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)

This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding – with the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself! Thus we see in the Bible an instance of the gift of infallibility that the Catholic Church claims for itself when it assembles in a council.

This kind of binding authority is first seen in the Old Testament Jews. These Jews did not believe in sola scriptura, they saw a necessity of interpretation. To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

A) Ezra 7:6,10: Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish
law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (7:25-26)

B) Nehemiah 8:1-8: Ezra reads the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (8:3). In 8:7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra, and who helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chronicles 17: 8-9). In Nehemiah 8:8: …they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.

So the people did indeed understand the law (Neh 8:12), but not without much assistance – not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself, but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original language, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament.

C) And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch … seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah…So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" (Acts 8:27-28, 30-31)

D) …no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own
interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)

E) …So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him…There are some things in them [Paul's letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

F) With many such parables he spoke the words to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything. (Mark 4:33-34)

In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the
different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it even though we see the need of teachers and interpreters in Scripture itself. And I declare that you will not be able to find anyone able to defend successfully the position of formal sufficiency.

God Bless
Robin

Answer 10

Yes. 2 Tim. 3:16, 17: "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

Some in the 16th century chose to go against tradition and examine the Scriptures in an attempt to clarify certain mysteries. Their motto was sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Those who rejected the Trinity doctrine—some of whom were later called Unitarians, as opposed to Trinitarians—often became the object of intense persecution by Catholics and Protestants alike. They printed their widely read works under pseudonyms and hid themselves away to avoid persecution. Anti-Trinitarians were also at the forefront in the fight for tolerance. Some, such as the Spanish theologian Michael Servetus, even paid for their convictions with their lives.

If you are looking for the expression "sola scriptura" in the Bible, you won't find it. As I mentioned above, it became the motto for those who contended that all doctrinal matters are to be confirmed by Scripture only (sola scriptura) and not by popes or church councils. 2 Tim. 3:16, 17 supports that view.

Catholics are against sola scriptura. To them, traditions are just as important as the Bible. But the Creator wisely arranged for the truth to be committed TO WRITING to safeguard us against error and the mistakes of imperfect human memory. Even details of actual happenings are quickly forgotten and get distorted by the passage of time if left to oral transmission. While traditions of a global flood are to be found in all ancient civilizations, the details of such traditions are contradictory and often fantastic. But the Bible has preserved an actual eyewitness account in the “history of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.” (Gen. 10:1) If the danger of inaccuracy exists in the oral transmission of actual, physical, visible happenings, how much more so when it comes to the transmission of ideas that are purely spiritual and pertain to things invisible to man. It is in this field particularly that there are to be found many traditions in Christendom’s religions that are not only contrary to God’s written Word, but, yes, actually of pagan origin. May it be that ideas and beliefs that you have long accepted as Bible truth are not actually to be found in the Bible? What about the trinity doctrine of three gods in one, the immortality of the human soul, purgatory, a hell of torment for the wicked? Are these Bible teachings or human traditions?