Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[haparker321]

You tell me. I would like to hear from you!

In order to answer that question, we must look to where? The Scriptures!

However, again it begs the question, who decides who is using the scripture falsely and who is using it correctly? How is the church as a whole to know about it?

Begging the question would imply that I’m assuming X to prove X. In what way does my argument beg the question?

That scripture by itself is insufficient to tell us who the Church is or what doctrines are right! There is no objective standard to convince another person.

No, no, no. We do have one objective standard: Scripture. The fact that we have one church claiming the given ability to infallibly interpret (Roman Catholics) and a church that does not claim to be infallible (Traditionally Conservative Protestants). The issues are different.

I have seen many sola scriptura believing Christians debating fiercely with each other on many aspects of doctrine. That itself undermines one of the basic and implicit assumptions in sola scriptura - the perspicuity of scripture.

But you’re assuming that Sola Scriptura promises one “unified” Church that agrees on virtually every aspect of doctrine. No Protestant has ever made those claims; thus it’s a straw man.

But I don’t believe that. Do you have an objective basis to convince me? I don’t think you do.

Scripture is the basis on how we should define tradition. Your problem is that you created a definition of tradition to mean something that is not consistent with either history or scripture. In essence, whatever quote you chose to use to ‘prove’ the need for tradition, you must also show that this verse proves what the Roman Catholic Church claims. So far, you haven’t.

Yes. And what’s my objective basis to convince you - none, because you and I don’t agree on what church is the true church.

Because your problem with the Protestant Churches is we don’t exercise doctrines of faith that cannot be derived from Scriptures. So far, you and I disagree because there is no basis saying that it’s OK for tradition to have no adequate basis in the Scriptures. So even if the canon seems closed, you’re saying it’s OK for tradition to add to the word.

We need an authority outside of scripture to tell us infallibly what the scripture says, but the problem is scripture itself cannot help us identify this authority.

That’s why I’m a Presbyterian; I believe in a court of law.

After Peter spoke, there was no further debate.

This is quite bogus; the book of Acts narrates the council.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

I’m not assuming anything-Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible.

So what you call this–a negative claim?

Moreover, I have already demonstrated that the diversity of doctrine among adherents of Sola Scriptura shows that it is far from allowing “practicality in all circumstances.”

And there’s nothing wrong with having diverse interpretation; even the ECF’s had various views.

Moreover, if Jesus actually believed in Sola Scriptura why didn’t he simply teach it?

His actions implied that he did:

• He used Scripture to rebuke Satan.
• He used Scripture to rebuke the pharisees.
• He used Scripture to teach his role as Messiah.
• He used Scripture to teach the disciples.

Where else did he go to do these things?

Sola Scriptura is not sufficiently taught in the Bible, therefore it cannot be considered valid.

I think I’ve listed quite an adequate amount of information suggesting that the Scriptures can be sufficient to do all these things on their own accord. You need to prove that Scriptures cannot be sufficient. The problem here is that you’re assuming Sola Scriptura promises a perfect church i.e., one that agrees on the right government, sacraments, and discipline. However, no one in any Protestant circle made that claim.

Parker

 

[ZDHayden]

Allow me to step in. The problem I see is that the Catholic and Protestant sides of the debate are speaking two different “languages.” Let’s move the argument to a common language shall we? Logic. Argumentation. If it doesn’t work in a formal debate, it doesn’t work here, ok? This means that the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim, since it is impossible to prove a negative. The duty of the negative side is to refute the positive arguments and not to prove a negative.

This sound fair? Ok! Second round! Ding ding! Fight!

 

[haparker321]

SS is not taught in the Catholic Catechism

We’re talking about history i.e., from the ECFs.

There are conflicting definitions of Sola Scriptura used by adherents of Sola Scriptura.

Prove it. Show me from any official Protestant doctrine that the definition is conflicting. So far, not one single Catholic apologist have proven this claim.

Doesn’t sound like a bunch of adherents to Sola Scriptura, now does it?

But Christ did condemn them for maintaining teachings that nullified the Scriptures. I think the Catholic Church does the same.

If it did appear in the Bible (one way or another) you obviously would have cited the passages by now.

I did, but you don’t agree with it.

The Scriptures do not tell us what books belong in the Bible.

That doesn’t prove insufficiency; SS says we look to Scriptures for faith and practice. If we wanted to determine what is and what’s not part of the canon, we often let the Scriptures authenticate itself. It’s known to do that.

Parker

 

[wmscott]

And you have to prove (by scripture or history) that oral tradition has been meant to include the definition as put forth by the church that some of these ‘traditions’ that are spoken orally cannot be, should not be, and does not necessarily have to be traced back to the Scriptures. In many ways, some of these teachings fall into one or more of the categorical problems as mentioned above.

Parker

So tell me, where in Scripture does it address Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning??? without Sacred Tradition and the Magistirium of the Catholic Church most Christians would be silent on this and lean towards to wrong side of the issue. this is the issue with the error of SS. Using Scripture alone, these two very important issues are not addressed.

 

[WFS5801]

But Christ did condemn them for maintaining teachings that nullified the Scriptures. I think the Catholic Church does the same.

So do you agree that Christian teaching came from both what the Apostles wrote and taught?

[14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

– 2 Thess.

So now you claim that the Church, which existed from the time of Christ, got it wrong (even though they had the teachings handed down from the Apostles), whereas the Protestants (who didn’t exist until 1,500 years later) somehow “got it right,” – even though their teachings came from the Bible the Catholics provided them?

So, it’s not necessarily traditions you oppose, but the (supposed) “wrong traditions?”

And by whose authority do you assert the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is Biblical when, as you’ve admitted, the Bible doesn’t teach that?

 

[HickmanJosh]

His actions implied that he did:

* He used Scripture to rebuke Satan.
* He used Scripture to rebuke the pharisees.
* He used Scripture to teach his role as Messiah.
* He used Scripture to teach the disciples.

Where else did he go to do these things?

if i may jump in, Jesus also gave peter the authority to “Bind and Lose”(Matthew 18:19), and this authority has passed down for nearly two thousand years with the rest of the magnesium. If scripture was to be the sloe basis for authority and teaching why give peter such authority?

as stated before how do we know if the 27 books of the new testament are scriptural if not for the Magisterium saying so infallibly in the first few centuries after Christ’s Life?

Christ was God and he knew what would come about because of his teaching, he then obviously would know that for two thousand years the Church (or at least the majority of it) would believe in sources of teaching authority outside of scripture so why did he not state clearly(or at least more clearly) that scripture was to be the single source of teaching authority in order to prevent so many of his disciples from believing something other than what he wanted?

can you provide any other scriptures that clearly show that scripture is the sole source of authority etc?

thanks

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think I’ve listed quite an adequate amount of information suggesting that the Scriptures can be sufficient to do all these things on their own accord. You need to prove that Scriptures cannot be sufficient.

Parker-

If you are speaking of material sufficiency, then okay…a Catholic can agree with you. But the scriptures are not formally sufficient, and the Protestant experiment demonstrates this in spades.

If material sufficiency is unfamiliar to you, the following may help:

**MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY **
By JAMES AKIN
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (*Tradition and Traditions *[New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. 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. In the debate [between Patrick Madrid and James White on *sola scriptura] James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

 

[Farsight001]

I did, but you don’t agree with it.

You most certainly did no such thing. You cited verses that say that the bible is good and great and useful and all sorts of other things, but nothing that even remotely suggested that it was all we are allowed to use. The verses you provided are complimentary, not restrictive. You NEED a restrictive verse for this. It is the only thing that could possible provide any defense of your position.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

But here’s the problem: you’re taking the negative. I’ve said on OP that SS does not negate the need for tradition. The problem here is that you have yet to prove your case for the RC definition of Oral Tradition.

Perhaps argumentation is a new thing for you. My job here in this specific thread is to object your points to which I disagree, namely Sola Scriptura, not to provide you with explanations for Oral Tradition.

SS may not negate traditions but it does negate the infallibility of Oral Traditions. Your have to prove from Scripture that Oral Tradition is not on the same level as Scripture as far as Truth goes. What we consider as the Word of God are both Scripture and Oral Tradition. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not SS. SS says that Scripture and Scripture only is the Word of God and Scripture is the final authority.

Again, it is not my job on this thread to prove my case of Sacred Tradition, which includes Tradition. My job is to object to your points. So, that is not a problem. You really need to understand that. If the thread title said “Is Oral Tradition Biblical?” or anything of the sort, THEN it would be my job. The case here is “Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?”. We must discuss whether Sola Scriptura is or is not biblical, not whether Oral Tradition is biblical. Therefore, I do not need to prove my case, only to object to yours.

And I affirm Sacred Tradition which in and of itself negates Sola Scriptura for two reasons: the Word of God is both Tradition and Scripture and it has an infallible Church authority. So, I am not taking the negative; I am affirming something which negates anything contrary. To take a similar analogy, you are not necessarily taking the negative to believing in Zeus; you affirm monotheism which negates anything contrary. Otherwise, you would be an atheist AND a theist, but this is nonsensical. Some atheists would disagree, but they are wrong.

I will say this again: I do not need to prove my case here, I only need to object to your case.

You are just going to have to trust me on this one. I am a nerd. Argumentation and debate is my thing. Please trust me on this one.

Start another thread if you want me to prove my case.

We can take this via email, I don’t mind.

Parker

This sounds like “Wanna take this outside?” Haha…

That would be fine, perhaps even preferrable. There will be no thread titles, so the discussions will not be so strict.

I may not be responding in a timely fashion, but I will respond. May 14th is the date my service gets cut.

 

[EricFilmer]

So what you call this–a negative claim?

So what do you call this - another dodge? Over and over I have challenged you to show me exactly where in the Bible the definition for SS is cited in the Bible in any form or fashion. So far you have yet to do that. Basically what you presented in the OP is a list of passages that basically say the “Word of God” is important. To claim that “Word of God” exclusively means Scripture and then to furthermore mold it into your definition of SS takes one of those logical leaps of faith that you criticize so much.

And there’s nothing wrong with having diverse interpretation; even the ECF’s had various views.

Well there is certainly something wrong with having diverse interpretations in essential matters of faith. For example, does the sixth chapter of John teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or does worshiping the Eucharist amount to idolatry? It all depends on whose interpretation you examine, but in the eyes of God the Eucharist either is or is not the Real Presence. So one interpretation is correct and the other is not. And seeing as the consequences range from “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you” to idolatry, this is by no means a small matter. The same could be said of that debate I linked you concerning the necessity of Baptism and many other topics as well.

His actions implied that he did:

• He used Scripture to rebuke Satan.
• He used Scripture to rebuke the pharisees.
• He used Scripture to teach his role as Messiah.
• He used Scripture to teach the disciples.

Where else did he go to do these things?

And sometimes Jesus did not use Scripture to rebuke Satan: Matthew 16:23; Matthew 17:18; Luke 4:33-36,
…or to rebuke the Pharisees: Luke 6:6-11; Luke 13:10-17,
…or to teach his role as Messiah: Luke 5:17-26; Luke 9:18-22; John 5:19-29
…or to teach his disciples: Luke 8:4-15; Luke 12:35-48

Also consider a passage like Luke 11:14-23. Herein Jesus cast out a demon and rebuked the Pharisees. Moreover, he did this in the context of performing one the Messianic Miracles (i.e., a miracle the Jews considered impossible for anyone but the Messiah to perform). So this also fits your category of Jesus teaching his role as the Messiah. And yet Jesus made no references to Scripture.

(Continued)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued from my last post…)

I think I’ve listed quite an adequate amount of information suggesting that the Scriptures can be sufficient to do all these things on their own accord.

I have issued a rebuttal to every attempt you have presented to demonstrate SS from Scripture. Moreover, you have yet to directly refute, in an effective way, the material of my critiques of SS from Post #21. The first time around you basically tried to dodge them by saying they are irrelevant (without making an actual case explaining why). The second time around you tried to dodge them by saying that they are “logical leaps of faith” (and so I clearly explained why they aren’t). Now, the third time around, you are simply choosing to ignore them.

You need to prove that Scriptures cannot be sufficient.

I’ve already done that. Just as a reminder, Scripture cannot tell me exactly what Scripture is, and is not. Scripture cannot tell me how to determine whether or not something is truly divinely inspired. Therefore, before someone can follow the practice of SS, one must first ask, “What are the Scriptures I must use in order to examine the validity of Christian doctrine?” To answer that question, one must appeal to an authority outside of Scripture, which is exactly what King Josiah had to do in 2Kings 22:8-20 when trying to determine whether or not the newly discovered Book of Deuteronomy was authentic Scripture (as I pointed out back in Post #36). So Scripture is not sufficient to answer the question, “How does one determine the authenticity of Scripture?” After all, if we use the “Bible Alone” to answer that question, all we get is 2Kings 22:8-20 which basically says, “The answer is not in Scripture so you’ll have to ask a prophet.”

Scripture does not tell us what books belong in the Bible, but rather this has to be determined by an outside authority.

The problem here is that you’re assuming Sola Scriptura promises a perfect church i.e., one that agrees on the right government, sacraments, and discipline. However, no one in any Protestant circle made that claim.

Parker

No, that is not what I am assuming. But I have been quite clear about what I have been assuming. So, once more for the record:

I assume that IF Sola Scriptura is what it claims to be…

1. …it would be explicitly taught in the Bible, giving a teaching of this magnitude the clarity it deserves. It would be presented in an explicit way like the Ten Commandments were, and would not have to be based upon implications drawn out of vague Bible passages like some hidden riddle.
2. …the Jews would have discerned SS from the Old Testament and taught it.
3. …in the course of their 2000-year old histories, the Catholic Church and all the various Orthodox Churches would have discerned SS from the Bible and taught it.
4. …it would be sufficient to resolve doctrinal disputes.
5. …adherents would have the same definition of Sola Scriptura.

 

[EricFilmer]

We’re talking about history i.e., from the ECFs.

The Catholic Catechism is history. Moreover, I fail to see where you have actually proven that the ECFs taught SS in your other thread.

Prove it. Show me from any official Protestant doctrine that the definition is conflicting. So far, not one single Catholic apologist have proven this claim.

Well, from my own personal experiences, the proof comes from just about every time I debate SS. An adherent of it will jump in and say, “That’s not what SS is!” and then I get one of several floating definitions of SS that people pick and choose from. Some say it is explicitly taught, some say implicitly, some call it a doctrine, some call it a proposition, some say all Christian teachings have to be explicitly in the Bible and some say only Christian doctrines need to be, etc. Someone once told me that I shouldn’t pray the rosary. When I asked him why not, he said, “Show me in the Bible where it says to pray the rosary!” In other words, if it’s not in the Bible then it is not permissible to do it. Now let me ask you, does his interpretation of Sola Scriptura match yours? I’m guessing it doesn’t. Now, was this guy’s definition of Sola Scriptura written down as an official doctrine of a particular Protestant denomination? I have no idea, but not every denomination records their beliefs in such a manner. But I have been told by some former Protestants that this sort of thing is exactly what was taught in their churches, and this is exactly how it was applied. My point is that there is no universal agreement among Protestants on how SS is defined and applied, regardless of whether or not they officially claim the same basic definition formulated by the Reformers.

But Christ did condemn them for maintaining teachings that nullified the Scriptures. I think the Catholic Church does the same.

No Catholic doctrine nullifies Scriptures. Moreover, my point was that Judaism is 4000-years old (if one uses the Covenant of Abraham as the starting point) and that if SS is a valid teaching then one would imagine that over the course of four millennia the Jews would have eventually caught on.

I did, but you don’t agree with it.

That’s right. You cited a list of passages in your OP. With the exception of the one from Joshua, you made absolutely no elaboration on any of these passages (and the one from Joshua only merited a brief comment from you). I demonstrated in Post #29 & Post #30 that these Bible passages do not sufficiently teach SS. You have not yet attempted to defend this list against my rebuttal.

That doesn’t prove insufficiency; SS says we look to Scriptures for faith and practice. If we wanted to determine what is and what’s not part of the canon, we often let the Scriptures authenticate itself. It’s known to do that.

Parker

I have already addressed the topic of how it proves insufficiency in my last post.
Before I comment on the rest of this I would like to see an example of the Scriptures authenticating itself. I’m not denying this (nor confirming it), I just want a clearer understanding of what you are describing here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You need to prove that Scriptures cannot be sufficient.

That is incorrect, Parker. The Burden of Proof is on you.

In the parlance of debating, you have taken the affirmative position; it is your responsibility to prove your case. We have no obligation to prove anything. We only have to sit back and shoot holes in your argument.

Let’s make this really simple: Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?

You say it does. Fine. Show us a single verse that teaches this.

 

[The_Scott]

Parker, you have failed to give one verse within the Bible that has supported your view of Sola Scriptura. You have shown several verses that support an emphasis on the Bible, but none say that the Bible is all there is.

 

[WesleyF]

In order to answer that question, we must look to where? The Scriptures!

Begging the question would imply that I’m assuming X to prove X. In what way does my argument beg the question?

No, no, no. We do have one objective standard: Scripture. The fact that we have one church claiming the given ability to infallibly interpret (Roman Catholics) and a church that does not claim to be infallible (Traditionally Conservative Protestants). The issues are different.

But you’re assuming that Sola Scriptura promises one “unified” Church that agrees on virtually every aspect of doctrine. No Protestant has ever made those claims; thus it’s a straw man.

Scripture is the basis on how we should define tradition. Your problem is that you created a definition of tradition to mean something that is not consistent with either history or scripture. In essence, whatever quote you chose to use to ‘prove’ the need for tradition, you must also show that this verse proves what the Roman Catholic Church claims. So far, you haven’t.

Because your problem with the Protestant Churches is we don’t exercise doctrines of faith that cannot be derived from Scriptures. So far, you and I disagree because there is no basis saying that it’s OK for tradition to have no adequate basis in the Scriptures. So even if the canon seems closed, you’re saying it’s OK for tradition to add to the word.

That’s why I’m a Presbyterian; I believe in a court of law.

This is quite bogus; the book of Acts narrates the council.

Parker

I would spare my words for someone else. Church Militant was right. Good luck with Sola Scriptura.

 

[SyCarl]

I have not read this whole thread and apologize if I repeat what has already been said.

I will use a statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith as my definition of Sola Scriptura.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men… All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

This does not deny a place for tradition but it is subordinate to Scripture and it is not necessary for salvation. Neither does it say that all Scripture is clear, but that what is necessary is clear. It is not necessary for everyone to read the Scripture. People can hear Scripture and be taught orally from it.

What does Scripture have to say about itself?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
(2Ti 3:16-17 NASB)

All Scripture is inspired by God. No other source of revelation is similarly described.

Several writers of Scripture give their reason for writing.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
(Luk 1:1-4 NASB)

Theophilus had already been taught orally but was that enough? This gospel was written so that he could know the exact true of what he had been taught. By implication it would seem that some of the oral teaching was not exactly true.

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
(Joh 20:30-31 NASB)

The writer is direct; all of Christ’s deeds are not recorded in his gospel. However, the reason for writing was so that we could believe and have life. What is written in this one gospel is enough to allow us to believe in Jesus and be saved. If this is true of this one gospel, how much more true is it for the whole Bible?

I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
(1Ti 3:14-15 NASB)

Timothy had been taught directly by Paul. Was this enough? Paul wrote to him so he would know how to conduct himself in the church. As an aside, Paul calls the church the pillar and support of the truth. It does not say the truth comes from the church.

What does Scripture tell us about how we know things?

"Then the LORD your God will prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your cattle and in the produce of your ground, for the LORD will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.
(Deuteronomy 30:9-10 NASB)

Israel was to keep what was written. It says nothing about keeping any oral commandments.

"Keep the charge of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn, so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’
(1 Kings 2:3-4 NASB)

Israel was to walk in God’s ways, keep His statutes, His Commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies. How did they know what these were? They knew because they had been written. It says nothing about oral teachings that might have been passed down by the Levitical priesthood.

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”
(Luke 10:25-28 NASB)

Does Jesus ask what the lawyer had been taught orally? No, He asks him what was written; it is this that tells what must be done.

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
(Luke 24:44-47 NASB)

Jesus taught to show how what was written must be fulfilled, not how oral teachings were to be fulfilled.

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Romans 1:1-7 NASB)

The gospel of God was promised in Scripture, not by any oral teachings passed down.

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
(Romans 15:4 NASB)

It was what was written in Scripture that would instruct us that we might be encouraged, persevere and have hope.

On only one occasion does Jesus actually refer to tradition and that is to condemn it.

Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? "For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ "But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’”
(Matthew 15:1-9 NASB)

In the epistles Paul refers to tradition several times. Paul basically treats tradition as synonymous with teaching. There is only one place where he speaks of oral tradition.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 NASB)

This must be read in its proper context. We have only two short letters that Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. It is clear from reading them that they do not include all the teaching contained in the rest of Scripture or even in Paul’s letters to others. There is nothing to show that what Paul taught orally to the Thessalonians he or another did not write to elsewhere. There is nothing that requires that this oral teaching be something other than what has been recorded elsewhere.

Paul’s references to tradition are mixed. He refers to it positively in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians but also negatively in Colossians.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
(Colossians 2:8 NASB)

We have both Jesus and Paul warning about traditions of men. We are told that Scripture is inspired. We are not told what oral traditions, if any, might be inspired. The Catholic Church claims to have Apostolic Tradition. However to accept this Tradition as inspired and infallible we must first accept the Catholic Church’s claims about itself. To do so we must agree with the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Scriptures that deal with the Church. This requires our private interpretation of the passages involved, if only to determine that we agree with the Church.

We are told to examine everything carefully. We are not to accept uncritically everything we are told or taught.

Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.
(1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 NASB)

Examining everything involves applying our judgement to what is taught. How can we examine oral traditions without some standard independent of the source providing that tradition? That standard is Scripture.

 

[haparker321]

That would be fine, perhaps even preferrable. There will be no thread titles, so the discussions will not be so strict.

Ok, you know my email. Send me an email with the title ‘Sola Scriptura Rnd. 1’ in your subject heading.

Parker

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

I believe the above was the premise put forth in and by the OP. So what does Catholic Tradition have to do with with it? Even if it were conceded that Catholic Tradition was false it would be a leap to conclude that Sola Scriptura was, by default, true. Would you not agree? Would you not question a Catholic who said, “Catholic Tradition is true because SS is False”? It’s an irrelevant conclusion. You’re trying to draw attention away from the topic (your definition of SS and it being Biblical) by bringing up Catholic Tradition instead of addressing your premise. Don’t cloud the discussion with your views on Catholic Tradition.You put forth the premise now prove it.

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:
Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority

I don’t think some definitions of SS does.

Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline

I don’t think some definitions of SS does.

Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition

I don’t think some definitions of SS does.

Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

I don’t know what you are trying to say here.

None of the concessions above prove SS. You are, again, suggesting an irrelevant conclusion which has nothing to do with your premise.

God bless