**This is what i think of when thinking of Sola Scriptura:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible **rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.
Interesting thought JA4 - where did you get this thought - is it published in the bible or in Protestant study aids?
Can you show us in scripture where it mentions anything like “sola scriptura” and where it literally says scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith in those so few words? Please compare and contrast that in light of the following scripture verse that directly contradicts that and explain how its is infallible.
various scriptures supporting a combo of scriture:
The Bible actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (John 21:25), and 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 fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2 15).
We are told that the first Christians “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2 42)
Also noteworthy is that doctrine of Trent and Vatican I, had resolved that tradition was more extensive than Scripture.
Pope John XXIII commissioned an in depth study of this topic in 1963 and went far back into early church history to resolve it definitely. The Pope published
Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Second Vatican Council)
. Vatican II explained the relationship between Tradition and Scripture this way:
Die Verbum - extract:
"**Hence there exist a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. **For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
“Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely know. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.”
Do you know of a single protestant study conducted that is anywhere near the scope of Dei Verbum that has even a fraction of the pedigree or scholarship as was conducted in VII? For that matter where is “protestant” scholarship headquartered and who checks their qualifications. Do they operate out of their home offices and personal libraries or network ecumenically at conferences over coffee and donuts? Do you have any idea how HUGE the Catholic reference libraries are and how extensive The Catholic Church’s educational and archives are? Do you know how many Catholic colleges, high schools, convents, libraries, and other facilities The Church has at her disposal world wide? Do you think any self taught person is qualified to interpret scripture and ECF teaching to even the same order of magnitude as the Catholic Church?
Consider that the earliest Christians had no New Testament to appeal to; they learned from oral, not written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because printing had not yet been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church. When did the concept of sola scripture even come along - in the 1500s? Did Christ fail in his mission for those who believed in the Catholic Church till then?
Much can be said about 2 Timothy 3:15. To say that all inspired writing “has its uses” is one thing; to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of “Bible Christians.” It is the contradiction that arises out of their own interpretation of this verse. John Henry Newman explained it in an essay, written in 1884, titled Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation. You might want to read it here:
Defending The Faith
Please try to answer all these questions since a lot of us have been patiently answering all yours.
God Bless,
James
