Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[believer112]

When sola scriptura comes up at some family gatherings ,It always takes me back to my past. No one of my Protestant
relations ,has been able to answer one question for me
satisfactorily.

The question is . If the Bible and scripture supports Sola
Scriptura , why is there not one phrase , one word, or a syllable of it in the Bible ( any Bible ) ? There are phrases that say that
the Bible cannot err , but no phrase to support that ones
interpretation of Holy Scripture will lead to ones salvation.

Also one cannot ignore the fact that widespread literacy is a product of the 19th century, when the invention of efficient
printing presses allowed people access to a cheap education.I don’t think God would condenm the vast majority of His people
just because of their inabiliy to read .

May God bless us all

 

[Pwrlftr]

If the Bible and scripture supports SolaScriptura, why is there not one phrase , one word, or a syllable of it in the Bible? There are phrases that say that
the Bible cannot err , but no phrase to support that ones
interpretation of Holy Scripture will lead to ones salvation.

Also one cannot ignore the fact that widespread literacy is a product of the 19th century, when the invention of efficient
printing presses allowed people access to a cheap education.I don’t think God would condenm the vast majority of His people
just because of their inabiliy to read.

We disagree on the issue of whether or not there is scriptural support but sola scriptura certainly is not dependent on the literacy of an individual nor the availability of the printing press. Nor does the doctrine of sola scriptura condemn anyone to hell because they can’t read or haven’t reached an educational level sufficient to allow them to understand what it is they are reading.

The following may be helpful for you, at least you will better understand what sola scriptura is.
James White:

Dr. James White, in his book, “The Roman Catholic Controversy” has provided a very helpful synopsis of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura by outlining both what it is, and what it is not.

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT

1. First and foremost, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.
2. Sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.
3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
4. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.
6. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

continued below…

 

[Pwrlftr]

James White:

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS

1. The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.
2. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source. This is not to say that the necessary beliefs of the faith could not be summarized in a shorter form. However, there is no necessary belief, doctrine, or dogma absolutely required of a person for entrance into the kingdom of heaven that is not found in the pages of Scripture.
3. That which is not found in the Scripture either directly or by necessary implication is not binding upon the Christian.
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-17).
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture (Matt. 15:1-9). There can be no understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture apart from an understanding of the true origin and the resultant nature of Scripture. The Reformers had the highest view of the Bible, and therefore had a solid foundation on which to stand in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, a key statement of the faith fought for in the Reformation, states:

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (1:4)

It goes on to say:
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1:5)

The very heart of the doctrine of sola scriptura is then laid out in the next two paragraphs:

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. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (1:6)

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. (1:7)

 

[Pwrlftr]

Hi, Reformed!

For sola Scriptura to be true would Jesus not have been wrong?

The Gospels place Jesus with some regularity teaching at the Temple and in synagogues… but for the most part Jesus taught without the Scrolls. And when He sent His disciples out into the near towns none of them took any written teachings (Scriptures) with which to study and teach.

Reformed1 has been banned so I will try to answer your post. Sola scriptura does not deny that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.

Once established, sola Scriptura would make no sense unless the disciples made copies of the Torah and the subsequent writings accessible to the Church…

The teachings of the scripture were available to the church were they not? As mentioned above, SS does not deny that the Word of God has been spoken. Sola scriptura does not mean that one must have their own copy of the scriptures it simply states that “The Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.” If there were only one copy of the scriptures left in the entire world, that would not change the above statement would it?

Then there’s the problem of printing (no Kinkos/Staples) and illiteracy was predominant amongst the poor which means that they would not have been able to read the printed Scriptures.

Oral teaching (Oral Tradition) would have given the illiterate access to the Word of God (as it did).

Illiteracy has no bearing on the doctrine as mentioned above.

 

[Janet_S]

JW: WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT
3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
6. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

I am glad to hear this. Then JW does accept the decisions of the Council of Vatican II when the HS guided the Church?

JW: 4. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.

And this can be found where in Scripture? How does this square with 2 Thess 2:15 “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” or with 1 Timothy 3:15 “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

JW: 2. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source. This is not to say that the necessary beliefs of the faith could not be summarized in a shorter form. However, there is no necessary belief, doctrine, or dogma absolutely required of a person for entrance into the kingdom of heaven that is not found in the pages of Scripture

.
Where can I find this in the Scriptures? It’s sure not in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that much is sure.
“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” No, can’t find that here.

JW: The Westminster Confession of Faith, a key statement of the faith fought for in the Reformation, states: . . .

This is not Scripture is it? Not all Christians accept this as as authoritative do they? How is JW any better than the Catholics he criticizes if he depends on this statement of “infallible men” to define the doctrine of SS that cannot be found in the Bible?

 

[Janet_S]

Illiteracy has no bearing on the doctrine as mentioned above.

Suppose I am illiterate. I want to know whether Baptism is necessary for salvation. Catholics, Orthodox, and the Church of Christ say it is. The non-denominational church down the road says it isn’t. This is an important issue–my salvation is at stake. They all have the same NT, they all make good arguments using Bible verses. How do I determine which one is teaching the truth?

 

[Janet_S]

Here’s a good series on sola Scriptura by Ken Hensley:

saintjoe.com/more-info.php?product=656&Title=Sola-Scriptura

Sola Scriptura is unscriptural, unhistorical, unworkable, and illogical.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Wow someone is using James White argument for Sola Scriptura.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I am glad to hear this. Then JW does accept the decisions of the Council of Vatican II when the HS guided the Church?

Is this a real question?

And this can be found where in Scripture? How does this square with 2 Thess 2:15 “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” or with 1 Timothy 3:15 “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

Exactly what are the traditions that Paul was talking about? If you provide any, please provide documentation that this is what the Thessalonian church was taught by Paul.
.

Where can I find this in the Scriptures? It’s sure not in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that much is sure.
“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” No, can’t find that here.

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

This is not Scripture is it? Not all Christians accept this as as authoritative do they? How is JW any better than the Catholics he criticizes if he depends on this statement of “infallible men” to define the doctrine of SS that cannot be found in the Bible?

No it’s not scripture, no one said it was did they?

As far as him being any better than Catholics, I’m not sure what you mean.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Wow someone is using James White argument for Sola Scriptura.

Go back and read what was posted. It was an explanation, not an argument…context is important.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Suppose I am illiterate. I want to know whether Baptism is necessary for salvation. Catholics, Orthodox, and the Church of Christ say it is. The non-denominational church down the road says it isn’t. This is an important issue–my salvation is at stake. They all have the same NT, they all make good arguments using Bible verses. How do I determine which one is teaching the truth?

Whether or not you are literate has no bearing on the question and even your church doesn’t teach that one must be baptized to be saved so I don’t know what the point of your question is.

 

[Janet_S]

JW: WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT
3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
6. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

Janet: I am glad to hear this. Then JW does accept the decisions of the Council of Vatican II when the HS guided the Church?

Is this a real question?

Yes, it is a real question. The Council was convoked by the Church and led by the HS. Since JW believes the Church has authority to teach God’s truth, and the Holy Spirit guides and enlightens the Church, JW must accept the decisions of the Council of Vatican II. Why wouldn’t he?

Exactly what are the traditions that Paul was talking about? If you provide any, please provide documentation that this is what the Thessalonian church was taught by Paul.

Obviously there were both oral and written traditions. That is what Paul says, and he is very clear about it. JW claims: “Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation” and “any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.”

I am simply pointing out that you cannot find JW’s claim taught in the Bible and that it actually contradicts what Paul says in 2 Thess…

JW: The Westminster Confession of Faith, a key statement of the faith fought for in the Reformation, states: . . .

Janet: This is not Scripture is it? Not all Christians accept this as as authoritative do they? How is JW any better than the Catholics he criticizes if he depends on this statement of “infallible men” to define the doctrine of SS that cannot be found in the Bible?

No it’s not scripture, no one said it was did they? As far as him being any better than Catholics, I’m not sure what you mean.

The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot be defined from the Bible, since it is not taught or mentioned in the Bible, so JW must go to an extra-Biblical text to define and defend it. If a Catholic pointed to a document like the Westminster Confession to support a core Catholic doctrine, he would be accused by a sola Scripturist of following “traditions of men.” But here JW is doing the same thing he criticizes Catholics for doing. This is just an example of how illogical and self-refuting the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot be defined from the Bible, since it is not taught or mentioned in the Bible, so JW must go to an extra-Biblical text to define and defend it. If a Catholic pointed to a document like the Westminster Confession to support a core Catholic doctrine, he would be accused by a sola Scripturist of following “traditions of men.” But here JW is doing the same thing he criticizes Catholics for doing. This is just an example of how illogical and self-refuting the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is.

We disagree about whether or not SS is supported scripturally and you are probably aware that the WCF is not where the doctrine originated from since the reformers saw evidence of SS in the scriptures themselves. I already stated, perhaps you missed it, “5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.”

 

[Pwrlftr]

Yes, it is a real question. The Council was convoked by the Church and led by the HS. Since JW believes the Church has authority to teach God’s truth, and the Holy Spirit guides and enlightens the Church, JW must accept the decisions of the Council of Vatican II. Why wouldn’t he?

That’s a bit of a stretch don’t you think? It’s true a group of men gathered together at V2 but the rest of it is conjecture. You of course believe it to be true but that doesn’t make it so.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Obviously there were both oral and written traditions. That is what Paul says, and he is very clear about it. JW claims: “Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation” and “any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.”

The problem is you can’t define what exactly Paul mean by “traditions”. Perhaps they were enscripturated? You can’t accept that though, not because of the text, but because your church tells you so.

 

[Janet_S]

Whether or not you are literate has no bearing on the question and even your church doesn’t teach that one must be baptized to be saved so I don’t know what the point of your question is.

We teach that Baptism for the remission of sins is the ordinary means of salvation.

My point is that many sincere people who claim to be sola Scripturists come to different conclusions about important church doctrines. It all depends on which Protestant tradition they come from.

Even for people who can read the Bible, this is a problem. But what would you do if you couldn’t read?

 

[Janet_S]

The problem is you can’t define what exactly Paul mean by “traditions”. Perhaps they were enscripturated? You can’t accept that though, not because of the text, but because your church tells you so.

I’m not aware of my Church making a definitive statement on this verse. It says what it says. You’re the one reading you beliefs into it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Whether or not you are literate has no bearing on the question and even your church doesn’t teach that one must be baptized to be saved so I don’t know what the point of your question is.

The Church does teach in accordance with Scripture and Sacred Tradition baptism does save and it is necessary. For in baptism, we received our first resurrection. Our life is made anew.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The problem is you can’t define what exactly Paul mean by “traditions”. Perhaps they were enscripturated? You can’t accept that though, not because of the text, but because your church tells you so.

Not just the Church but Scripture itself told us to hold fast the tradition, they have taught us. I’m sure your Bible translation has that verse too. Right?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Whether or not you are literate has no bearing on the question and even your church doesn’t teach that one must be baptized to be saved so I don’t know what the point of your question is.

The majority of Christians in the beginning could not read. It the Gospel was preached orally. In due time, after 20-30 yrs after the Ascension of Our Lord into heaven, only then we have the Gospels written down by the Apostles, and their disciples. Yet still Early Christians could not read. Many of them. The Catacombs shows this. There are images depicting the Messiah as a shepard, and other Biblical themes.

In Ethiopia, some of the Bible show images instead of letter or alphabet.