Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

  • Thread starter Thread starter haparker321
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

haparker321

Guest
As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:
  • Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
  • Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
  • Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
  • Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.
I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

    • Proverbs 30:5
    • Hebrews 4:12
    • Matthew 4:4
    • 2 Timothy 3:16
    • Deuteronomy 8:3
    • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
    • Acts 13:44
    Tell me what you think.

    Parker
 
Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice.
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura is an idea promulgated by Protestants. Guess who decided what comprised the Scriptura part?

Now, your title suggests that someplace in Scripture, it advocates Sola Scriptura. But it doesn’t. All you have is “well, it doesn’t say we can’t…”

(By the way, it should read: " is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carry ")
 
haparker321 said:
You just don’t like the idea because you can’t prove the idea is unbiblical.

Parker
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is not on us to prove it is unbiblical. When in a debate/discussion/argument, logic dictates that the person making the positive assertion be the one to back it up with evidence. You are making the positive assertion, and therefore you need the evidence that dictates sola scriptura.
 
haparker321 said:
You just don’t like the idea because you can’t prove the idea is unbiblical.

Parker
Click to expand...
That was no where near as reasoned as your first post, which was one of the best defenses (albeit an indirect one) of Sola Scriptura I’ve yet read. The above comment ruins your previously well-formed reasoning. I may come back to answer your questions. I have obligations elsewhere now though.
 
You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get around the explicit teaching in Scripture for us to hold to the traditions we received, whether written (Scripture) or oral (Tradition).

Up is down, left is right, and SS is Biblical.

I guess when you are determined enough to push your personal theology into the Bible, I guess you can force it through.
 
First, we got a nice little essay introduction, albeit with more than a few spelling and grammatical errors, and a relatively weak case for the position, and then we get nyah-nyah-nayh? Did the kids get to the computer before you came back? I was looking for something I could sink my teeth into. Oh well. I’ll check back.
 
Hmmmm…

The Bible is all we need - BUT The Bible came from / through the Church 🤷🤷

Hmmm…what do we, as Christians, do about Church Teachings before the Bible?
 
haparker321 said:
You just don’t like the idea because you can’t prove the idea is unbiblical.

Parker
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the burden is on you to “prove” that SS is biblical in the first place.

Seriously, what you are alleging is that our Lord Jesus was a failure as a teacher, a failure as a prophet, and a failure as eternal Priest, since He left His followers stumbling in the dark with no bible when He ascended. He neither wrote a bible, nor commanded the writing of a bible, and left no bible behind. By the very standards of SS, Jesus is a failure.

What He did do was teach and send Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit.

I suppose the Reformed Tradition has a better solution than that?
 
=kimmielittle;7839843]Hmmmm…
Click to expand...
The Bible is all we need - BUT The Bible came from / through the Church 🤷🤷
Click to expand...
But the Bible isn’t all we need. That’s not the purpose of SS, to exclude, reject as meaningless, everything else. We need the early councils and creeds, the teachings of the ECF’s, and the Church itself. As a Lutheran I need the Lutheran Confessions.
I am the least capable of anyone to decide for myself (personal interpretation) what scripture says. I rely on the things I mentioned above to guide my faith and understanding.
Hmmm…what do we, as Christians, do about Church Teachings before the Bible?
Click to expand...
The early councils are a good place to start.

Jon
 
In reading the Original Post I see no proof for the assertion that Sola Scriptura is biblical.

SPECIFICALLY - please prove to me, using only scripture, in an easily discernible way, the statement “Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures.”

I have yet to see that proved from Scripture - which, incidentally, is one of the major reasons I ultimately converted to the Catholic Church.
 
JonNC said:
But the Bible isn’t all we need. That’s not the purpose of SS, to exclude, reject as meaningless, everything else. We need the early councils and creeds, the teachings of the ECF’s, and the Church itself. As a Lutheran I need the Lutheran Confessions.
I am the least capable of anyone to decide for myself (personal interpretation) what scripture says. I rely on the things I mentioned above to guide my faith and understanding.

The early councils are a good place to start.

Jon
Click to expand...
I know 🙂 😉
 
Why can’t you take the time to write down an argument that knocks down the obvious criticisms.

For instance

*Proverbs 30:5

You are simply making the assumption that when it says “Every word of God” it refers only to scripture, yet there is no reason to do this since even the chapter itself claims to have been a recording of a previously spoken instruction. In addition many more things were written down after that.

Hebrews 4:12, Matthew 4:4, Acts 13:44
Again referring to the word of God, there is nothing to indicate that this word is exclusive to scripture, in fact the original greek “Logos” would suggest that it was referring to something far beyond simple written word.

2 Timothy 3:16

I KNOW someone has already told you how this is read

Deuteronomy 8:3

Again, this is not exclusively linked to scripture. In fact taken in context of what had been happening to the Israelites it was God himself who sustained them. They barely had ANY written scripture at that time, and most couldn’t have read it anyway. The Israelites survived by the active presence of God sustaining them as well as the guidance and instruction of their leader.

Joshua 8:8

Getting oral instructions seems like evidence against Sola Scripture. He should have read them off a page.*

If you want to debate then start trying to understand the viewpoint of the other side. You are wasting everyones time by simply making bland arguments that have been seen 1000 times. Obviously the Catholic position isn’t that those verses don’t count or that the Word of the Lord isn’t enough. If you want to debate take the Catholic side seriously and form arguments against what the Church actually teaches. If you don’t know what the Church teaches then take the time to find out first, make a thread asking about it rather than asserting your views over those of the Church.
 
“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book” – John 20:30

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written”. – John 21:25

These things that Jesus did aren’t mentioned in the Bible…so did they not happen? According to Sola Scriptura advocates, these things didn’t happen! Because they aren’t in the Bible! Explain, please?

Furthermore,

“Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.” - Romans 10:17
 
Let me ask a quick question…

If you are to live by Sola Scriptura, then please explain why the bible is really inspired by God? If you are going to try to make this statement by only using scripture then that is an illogical circular argument. Example: “The bible is real because the bible says it is real.” That does not make sense.

God bless and thank you for posing these questions! It is important for growth in faith and knowledge of the God to ask these.
 
The opposite case is made in Scriptures, that the words of Scripture are not sufficient and we must rely on the authority of the Church. See Luke’s account of the Council at Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles … Chapter 15. This is an irrefutable argument that the authority of a Church council trumps the Scriptural account of the requirement for circumcising the Gentiles in order to be fully accepted as Christians…
 
Hello friends.

Ironically enough, ‘sola sciptura’ is simply not scriptural. Christ founded a Church, not a book; the Church came first. Protestants wouldn’t even HAVE a Bible if not for the authority of the Catholic Church. Ultimately Protestants must admit that they believe the books of the Bible are divinely inspired for the same reason Catholics do – because the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, determined that they were inspired (most of the books of the Bible do not even claim to BE inspired). It’s simply historical fact that the Bible is a product of the Catholic Church… and that ‘sola scriptura’ is a product of Martin Luther’s errant theology. You won’t find adherents to ‘sola scriptura’ in the early centuries of the Church… because the New Testament hadn’t been compiled yet. I highly recommend Catholic Answers’ tract on Scripture and Tradition, as well as the tract “What’s Your Authority?”. Allow me to post a key excerpt from the former…
 
If ‘sola scriptura’ were true, then the Bible would have to say so, right? Nowhere does it. From ‘Scripture and Tradition’ here on the Catholic Answers site:

"Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: ‘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). The other is this: ‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work’ (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the “Bible only” theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing “has its uses” is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else.
 
Finally, from the same tract, here is some scriptural proof for the Catholic Church’s understanding of the importance of oral Tradition (passages abound in its support!):

"The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. “’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you” (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been “preached”—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top