Does Sola Scriptura need to state as such?

[JugglingReferee]

For sola scriptura to be valid, does the Bible need to say that only the Bible should be used?

That is, what common sense argument(s) are used to justify SS without requiring that the Bible state as much?

 

[Cachonga]

2 Tim 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (RSV). It’s clear that the Scriptures are a dependable and infallible rule of faith (as God Himself has inspired it). Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else is equal to Scripture? If nothing else is equal to or greater than Scripture, then Sola Scriptura must be true!

Just a quick response in case anyone wants to refer to 2 Thes 2:15 (“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” RSV), this is reffering to traditions, but notice, It is the SAME traditions that are taught orally AND by letter! Pay attention to the either/or portion of the verse and you will see that it is a single tradition taught in 2 different ways, both of which are valid, but the written traditions (Scripture) is still available. Anything above what is written is not trustworthy!

 

[Randy_Carson]

2 Tim 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (RSV). It’s clear that the Scriptures are a dependable and infallible rule of faith (as God Himself has inspired it). Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else is equal to Scripture? If nothing else is equal to or greater than Scripture, then Sola Scriptura must be true!

Just a quick response in case anyone wants to refer to 2 Thes 2:15 (“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” RSV), this is reffering to traditions, but notice, It is the SAME traditions that are taught orally AND by letter! Pay attention to the either/or portion of the verse and you will see that it is a single tradition taught in 2 different ways, both of which are valid, but the written traditions (Scripture) is still available. Anything above what is written is not trustworthy!

Not exactly. Let’s examine this more closely by backing up one more verse…

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

Another point to consider is that Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

 

[Randy_Carson]

2 Tim 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (RSV). It’s clear that the Scriptures are a dependable and infallible rule of faith (as God Himself has inspired it). Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else is equal to Scripture? If nothing else is equal to or greater than Scripture, then Sola Scriptura must be true!

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura
By Dave Armstrong
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

1. 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.
2. When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But 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.

 

[beth40n2]

Study early Church history. The Bible was not canonized until the 4th Century. The church was set up before then. Just reading the book of acts will show how Peter was the leader of the church. It shows ordanation of deacons and then later priests (presbyters).

 

[RSD]

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura
By Dave Armstrong
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

1. 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.
2. When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But 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.

Okay I understand and accept the gist of your argument. I have only one question- where are steps 2-9?

 

[melchesidechpio]

For sola scriptura to be valid, does the Bible need to say that only the Bible should be used?

That is, what common sense argument(s) are used to justify SS without requiring that the Bible state as much?

Sola Scriptura is 100% refutable. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the Bible is the final authority or that only the Bible should only be used. It is isn’t even referenced in that way at all in scripture. It is stated that all scripture is to be used, tried and reproven. Which it is and scripture also states that nothing should be taken or added to it. Most Bibles even fall in that category especially Protestant Bibles. Just look at the Lord’s Prayer in the KJV, it adds for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory. In what way is adding that to scripture justified. No one can give me an answer to that one.

 

[JRKH]

For sola scriptura to be valid, does the Bible need to say that only the Bible should be used?

That is, what common sense argument(s) are used to justify SS without requiring that the Bible state as much?

Randy has done a wonderful job as he always does in providing proper proofs.
I would add one other bible passage in large extent because it is written by the same person and [to] the same person. That is from St Paul to Timothy in 1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

So here we have stated that while ALL Scripture is “useful”, it is the “Church” (ekklesia) that is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. I also find it ineresting that Paul tells Timothy that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (1st Tim)before he tells him that Scripture is useful (2nd Tim(.
This passage demonstrates that Paul sees the Church, the ekklesia as an essential defender and arbiter of Truth. Thus we can see that Paul does not see Scripture as standing alone, on it’s own without someone to properly use it for, “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

Now the main reason I bring this up is becuase there is another Protestant belief that is closely tied to SS and that is Private Interpretation. Even more that Sola scriptura, it is this notion of private interpretation that has led to the many dividions in the body of Christ, and of the two beliefs Private Interpretation is far more dangerous than Sola Scriptura. And Far less Biblical, in fact I’d say it is anti-biblical.

Christ and St Paul both revere Scripture. They also revere the community, the ekklesia for the protection of Truth. Christ Gave authority to the ekklesia and tell us to take problems (sins) to the ekklesia (Mt 18:15-18). The Apostles demonstrate the ekklesia in action in Acts 15 where they hash out the issue of circumcision and the mosaic Law in general.
Nowhere in Scripture is the idea of “private interpretation of Scripture” seen. Even St Paul who was chosen and instructed by Christ - apart from the other apostles, shared what he had bbeen teaching and comments that they (the other apostles) had him change nothing. Indicating that if there had been disagreement, they would have hashed it out amongst themselves so that they would all be on the same page.

Now this is not to say that we don’t each draw different things from bible passages. One of the beauties of Scripture is it’s ability to speak to us wherever we are in our lives. But when it comes to doctrinal differences, there is no Scripture saying it is ok to “agree to disagree”. Doctrinal differences need to be taken “to the Church” and then we need to listen “to The Church”.

Now THAT’s biblical

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Okay I understand and accept the gist of your argument. I have only one question- where are steps 2-9?

They are in the linked article

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay I understand and accept the gist of your argument. I have only one question- where are steps 2-9?

Just follow the link to Dave Armstrong’s article.

 

[RSD]

They are in the linked article

Peace
James

Thank you. I guess if I were smarter I would have noticed the link. As it was, I thought it was just a joke to call it a “quick 10-step” argument. Skipping steps 2-9 would certainly make it quicker.

 

[RSD]

For sola scriptura to be valid, does the Bible need to say that only the Bible should be used?

That is, what common sense argument(s) are used to justify SS without requiring that the Bible state as much?

The best “common sense” argument to justify Sola Scriptura is that it is a Tradition among certain Protestant churches. It is not a tradition that can be traced all the back to the Apostles*, but it is a tradition that is so strong it cannot be questioned or refuted.

• The Catholic Church only considers a tradition to be a valid basis for doctrine if it has come to us from the Apostles.

 

[JM3]

Anything above what is written is not trustworthy!

The Bible over God? over Jesus?

 

[thistle]

2 Tim 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (RSV). It’s clear that the Scriptures are a dependable and infallible rule of faith (as God Himself has inspired it). Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else is equal to Scripture? If nothing else is equal to or greater than Scripture, then Sola Scriptura must be true!

Just a quick response in case anyone wants to refer to 2 Thes 2:15 (“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” RSV), this is reffering to traditions, but notice, It is the SAME traditions that are taught orally AND by letter! Pay attention to the either/or portion of the verse and you will see that it is a single tradition taught in 2 different ways, both of which are valid, but the written traditions (Scripture) is still available. Anything above what is written is not trustworthy!

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

 

[ProVobis]

2 Tim 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (RSV). It’s clear that the Scriptures are a dependable and infallible rule of faith (as God Himself has inspired it). Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else is equal to Scripture? If nothing else is equal to or greater than Scripture, then Sola Scriptura must be true!

Scripture to us is only as good as the translations we read. Nothing infallible about all these modern translations, which are mostly inspired by something or someone other than God. In my opinion, anyway.

 

[JRKH]

2 Tim 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (RSV). It’s clear that the Scriptures are a dependable and infallible rule of faith (as God Himself has inspired it). Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else is equal to Scripture? If nothing else is equal to or greater than Scripture, then Sola Scriptura must be true!

One point of clarification. You are confusing the term “infallible” with "inerrant. The written word of God, as inspired to the original writers does not contain error, it is inerrant. Falliblility or infallibility are not traits of the written word but rather of the person reading the word. inerrant comes from the idea od containing no “error” Falibility comes from the root of word, fail - we either succeed or fail to properly understand God’s Word which contains no error.
For example, I can easily point to people here at CAF (athiests) who read the Word of God and don’t believe it. Same words, different understanding and conclusion.
Another example is the discussion tanking place right here. Same words, different conclusions. The words are not in error (inerrant), but our understandings may fail (falliblility).

Just a quick response in case anyone wants to refer to 2 Thes 2:15 (“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” RSV), this is reffering to traditions, but notice, It is the SAME traditions that are taught orally AND by letter! Pay attention to the either/or portion of the verse and you will see that it is a single tradition taught in 2 different ways, both of which are valid, but the written traditions (Scripture) is still available. Anything above what is written is not trustworthy!

comment on the bolded section. Do you see how you have taken the biblical term “or” and translated it in your head as “And” ?
St Paul says, “by word of mouth or by letter”. While we certainly can assume that what is contained in the letters is the same as what is also taught by word of mouth, we cannot make the assumption that everything taught by mouth is contained in the letters.

While I dont know the specific passage, I recall St Paul also mentioning in one of his letters that the reason for his writing was because he could not come in person. Thus stating that, had he been able to come in person, the teachings contained in the letter would have NOT been written down but delivered orally (and likely in greater detail).
Perhaps someone could point out the passage or correct me if I am in error here.

In any event, your desire to read “Or” as “And” seems pretty clearly to be a “fallible” interpretation of the text for I checked several translations and every one, including the KJV and NKJV render this as “Or”.

Peace
James

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

A good post Randy. Just one thing I want to point out to some out there because I have seen confusion regarding the 3-legged stool. There are only TWO sources of revelation (Scripture & Tradition) which flow from the single deposit of faith. The Magisterium is the “3rd leg” but is not a source of revelation, but rather its caretaker and interpreter via the movement of the Holy Spirit. I have seen confusion in response to the 3-legged stool from some Protestants who mistakenly think the Magisterium is a “3rd source” of revelation.

 

[yosephdaviyd]

For sola scriptura to be valid, does the Bible need to say that only the Bible should be used?

That is, what common sense argument(s) are used to justify SS without requiring that the Bible state as much?

Answer:

1. Yes. SS teaches that the Bible is the sole source of authority for the Christian and the Church. Therefore, if Scripture is the source source of authority then Scripture should say so, otherwise how do we ever truly know that it is the sole source of authority?
2. What common sense arguments? None - I think all of their arguments are dumb and lack the follow through that logic and reason demands. Let’s remember that SS did not originate with the Bible - it originated at the hands of one man who only asserted merely as a remedy for his body of beliefs that were rejected by the Church because they had no roots in the Deposit of Faith.

I recently wrote a book on this subject that you might be helpful to you.

God Bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

A good post Randy. Just one thing I want to point out to some out there because I have seen confusion regarding the 3-legged stool. There are only TWO sources of revelation (Scripture & Tradition) which flow from the single deposit of faith. The Magisterium is the “3rd leg” but is not a source of revelation, but rather its caretaker and interpreter via the movement of the Holy Spirit. I have seen confusion in response to the 3-legged stool from some Protestants who mistakenly think the Magisterium is a “3rd source” of revelation.

Well said.

 

[EricFilmer]

2 Tim 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (RSV). It’s clear that the Scriptures are a dependable and infallible rule of faith (as God Himself has inspired it). Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else is equal to Scripture? If nothing else is equal to or greater than Scripture, then Sola Scriptura must be true!

1. Also in 2Timothy (this time from 2:21-26) Paul states that purifying oneself from “what is ignoble” makes one “ready for any good work.” So, like in 2Timothy 3:16, Paul is telling Timothy how a person is equipped, or ready, for good works. But when Paul describes (in 2Timothy 2:21-26) how a person is purified from being ignoble, he does not mention the use of Scripture. Instead he talks about shunning youthful passions, aiming at righteousness, faith, love and peace, avoiding senseless controversies, not being quarrelsome, being kind and gentle, etc.
2. In 2Corinthians 9:8, Paul states, “And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.” So, like in 2Timothy 3:16, Paul writes about what provides for “every good work.” But in this passage from 2Corinthians, Paul does not mention Scripture, but instead points out that the blessings of God are what provide for every good work. Obviously God can bestow his blessings on us independent from Scripture.

In light of all this, what Paul must be saying in 2Timothy 3:16 is that what “equips us for every good work” is teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, for which all Scripture is profitable. And, in the context of everything Paul wrote, many other things aside from Scripture are profitable for this as well, such as refraining from what is ignoble and blessings from God. By considering all this biblical evidence, Paul cannot truly be teaching people that the Bible is the only source of authoritative Christian teaching, and therefore Paul does not teach Sola Scriptura in 2Timothy 3:16.