Where Does Scripture State That It Is the *Sole* Rule of Faith?

[Randy_Carson]

I guess i dont quite understand why you refuse to accept our definition of Sola Scriptura and you keep insisting that its not workable according to Your definition.

What exactly is your definition, Kaycee? Would you be comfortable with the following:

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church, being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally**, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church**.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

**Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God. **

Do you agree with this or not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ani Ibi
Its our defenition to describe what we believe the Scriptures teach. I have respect for those Reformers but I don’t believe what I believe just because they do. I see Sola Scriptura in the Scriptures. My church uses the principles of Sola Scriptura as many other do. You can say we don’t and it doesn’t work all you want, that doesn’t change the fact that many of us use it.

Ralph

Given this statement, I would like to ask if your church accepts any extra-biblical traditions as binding upon the consciences of all believers.

Thanks in advance.

 

[DJim]

In skimming some of today’s posts, I think it’s healthy to remind everybody that Catholic Tradition is NOT simply “oral”.

Let’s not get caught in straw-man arguments that reduce Catholic Tradition merely to “oral vs. written”. It’s not

Apostolic Preaching is both oral and written.

Catholic Living Tradition is also both oral and written–and does not require word-for-word capturing of oral Apostolic Preaching.

Scripture itself is a product of the Living Tradition of the Catholic Church. And that Living Tradition is found many many written documents–Fathers of the Church, magisterial teaching, etc.

This is not a question of Catholics having to find evidence of what the Apostles “spoke” (oral preaching)–that’s not what Catholic Tradition really is…

DJim

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ani Ibi its post #138. How do you put your quotes in the box?

Ralph

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

You don’t even need two brain cells to see how idiotic the teaching of the eucharist really is. It was so important that Peter, who wrote two epistles, overwhelms the reader with the topic of the eucharist.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text.

{quote}You don’t even need two brain cells to see how idiotic the teaching of the eucharist really is.{/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote}It was so important that Peter, who wrote two epistles, overwhelms the reader with the topic of the eucharist.{/quote}Hope this helps.

Now, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ]. So the paragraph above comes out like this:

You don’t even need two brain cells to see how idiotic the teaching of the eucharist really is.

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

It was so important that Peter, who wrote two epistles, overwhelms the reader with the topic of the eucharist.

Hope this helps.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[DJim]

Oops–I just offered two posts here that properly should be in the “Tradition” thread I’m following. Sorry for confusion, though I’d like responses about my Acts 8 point here as well, now that it’s posted.

DJim

 

[Philthy]

Please, can you stop trying to dismiss my arguement out of hand and actually respond to it for once???

Just for the record, here is your “argument”

cmancone:

sigh As I have already made great lengths to demonstrate… the Bible doesn’t have to state Sola Scriptura for Sola Scriptura to be true.

I didnt dismiss it out of hand, I refuted it directly. Here I will do it again for you. **How could you possibly know SS to be true if you dont know it from reading it in the bible ???**Do you know it scientifically, philosophically, or divinely? I think not. I think it is a tradition made up by men. That claim, made apart from an explicit endorsement in the Bible, simply has to come from a man made tradition. The rule of faith being derived from a man made tradition directly contradicts the heart of SS. That is my direct response to your attempt at formulating an argument for SS. You then ramble on and assume that I accept Tradition merely because the argument for SS is so pathetically weak…
mcmancone:

The Bible doesn’t state sola scriptura explicitely, therefore you assume it to be false, and therefore you assume Tradition to be true! That’s a lot of unjustified assumptions

That is not the argument for Tradition. The argument for tradition comes from Scripture and the early Church and history. That argument, however, is OT. This thread is on the biblical proof of SS.
mcmancone:

This is my point in a nutshell. There is no tradition required. It is a matter of common sense. If someone claims to speak for God, they must PROVE they speak for God. It is not the BIble’s job to say who doesn’t speak for God. It is only the Bible’s job to demonstrate that it does speak for God.

Really? How, exactly, does the Bible “demonstrate” that it speaks for God when it doesnt even reveal its contents? I’m not even sure what it means to place a verb modifying the bible. The bible cannot act. I thought that it was the Church’s job as the pillar and foundation of Truth to reveal the what the Bible is and to pronounce it’s Truth to the world. You know, receive the holy spirit, whoever hears you hears me, go make disciples…teaching them etc etc etc.

cmancone:

It speaks only for itself, and only about itself. To expect the Bible to rule out every other option is ridiculous and silly.

I certainly didnt do that - you are arguing against something that no one has put forth. It’s probably your best argument though, along with claiming that I havent listened to and have failed to address your points, so I dont blame you for issuing it.

​

 

[DJim]

The Bible does tell us who speaks for God–when Jesus gives the apostles the authority to speak for Him and the promise that God will give them the right words to speak at the right time.

I would assume everyone agrees on this point.

The disagreement is over whether that authority still exists in the Church today, or not.

So, it’s not really relevant whether the Bible says it speaks for God–we all agree that it is the Word of God even if it can’t literally “speak” for God.

What is relevant is whether the people that the Bible tells us spoke for God in the early Church are still speaking for Him today…

Oh, and btw, since I started this thread, last time I checked there are still NO Scripture passages stating that it’s the Sole Rule of Faith.

Kaycee–are you now comfortable in retracting the claim you made that started this all, which is that the Bible claimed it really was the sole rule of faith?

After all, other posters seem clear that the Bible doesn’t really need to say it is…

DJim

 

[YADA]

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

I actually do not believe this to be true at least in practice.

If this is what Sola Scriptura means then, If a person picked up the “Bible” and read it, never meeting a Christian believer, they would be fully informed and abe to accept Jesus as the Savior of the world.

How would this person know that the Bible was not a work of fiction?

How would they know that God is found in the Trinity - [One God - Three Persons]?

What is the Chrstian faith without the witness of believers throuh the centuries from the times of the the first disciples to today?

In fact the definition seems to depend upon the ‘existence’ of the Church…

 

[DJim]

Yada–great points.

I would also go so far as to assert that Scripture actually makes clear that it is NOT the “sole rule of faith”–at least by example:

“So Philip ran to him [the Ethiopian eunuch], and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, 'How can I, unless someone instructs me?” (Acts 8:30-31)

DJim

 

[RalphP]

Ani lbi

Thanks for the tip on the quote window.

Your many, many questions will take way to much time for me to answer. Besides I am getting the feeling we are going to be running around each other forever. I am amazed you don’t understand how Sola Scriptura works along side Teaching authority. When as a Catholic you would claim it works for you.

Peace
Ralph

 

[RalphP]

Randy Carson

“Here is the flaw in your reasoning. The Bible is materially sufficient: it can give you everything you need, but that does not mean that you will know how to use the Bible correctly or that you will interpret what you read properly. You may be furnished, you may be thoroughly equipped, but you have not yet been TRAINED.”

It is not a flaw, training or making disciples is an entirely different subject.

Ralph

 

[RalphP]

Randy Carson

Given this statement, I would like to ask if your church accepts any extra-biblical traditions as binding upon the consciences of all believers.

Without any examples and not able to think of any at this time I would say no.

Ralph

 

[BobCatholic]

Originally Posted by kaycee
I guess i dont quite understand why you refuse to accept our definition of Sola Scriptura and you keep insisting that its not workable according to Your definition.

Because your definition of sola scriptura is not found word for word in the Bible, and we don’t accept your magisterial authority to promulgate this doctrine.

Simple as that.

 

[Returnee]

This does not deny a role for the Church and tradition but they are subject to scripture.

1 Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

How can the Church be subject to scripture, if the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth? Is the ground subject to that which is above it, or that which rests on ground subject to the ground?

I’d say the latter; if you say the former, how do you explain damage caused by earthquakes?

The testament of the many denominations (note I didn’t use the oft repeated but difficult to substaintiate “30,000”) of the Protestant “invisible church” is testament to the confusion generated when one ignores 2 Peter 3:16. (and yes, contrary to those who think “The Trail of Blood” is gospel, Baptists are Protestants too)

The Catholic church is not divided in doctrine; the Protestant “invisible church” is. This is evidence that sola scriptura just doesn’t work.

Besides, in the classic sense, there’s no reason a sola scripturist should have any issue with the Doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. It doesn’t violate Scripture in any way, thus, under the classic definition of sola scriptura that you gave, there’s no reason anyone should say we can’t believe in it.

But it’s another favorite attack point of many Protestants. Why? Because it’s “not in the Bible”. So even those who trumpet the classical definition of sola scriptura aren’t even faithful to that.

Forget that noise; I’ll stick with the idea that Jesus did indeed intend to set up a visible, unified Church on earth, rather than be worried about which definition of sola scriptura is right.

 

[YADA]

This does not deny a role for the Church and tradition but they are subject to scripture.

How can something [the Bible - Scripture] that came forth from the Church and the tradition and teaching of the church then become the Authority over that same Church?

The Church is foundational to the scripture…there would be no NT without the Church.

For example: Sola Mission Statement:

I start a company.
Then after some years, I write a company mission statement.

Now the comapny becomes subject to the mission statement.

I can no longer interpret the mission statement for the company.

In fact, the owner of new similar company who adopts my mission statement can now tell me what my mission statement means and how my mission statement is to be understood…

 

[BobCatholic]

Given this statement, I would like to ask if your church accepts any extra-biblical traditions as binding upon the consciences of all believers.

Thanks in advance.

He does.

His church accepts the answers to my infamous 4 questions as 100% infallible truth.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

YADA:

In fact, the owner of new similar company who adopts my mission statement can now tell me what my mission statement means and how my mission statement is to be understood…

Only if you abrogate your leadership of that company.

 

[YADA]

Only if you abrogate your leadership of that company.

But I don’t abrogate…new owners of the new company assert…that is the point.

At no time would the company that wrote the mission statement become controled by or restricted to only what was written in that mission statement. And if any part of the mission statement needed clarification or was misunderstood…it would be the company and myself who would be the final arbiter…My company, my mission statement, my interpretation…

In fact in the world of business [not Christian charity] I might tell those interlopers and impersonators to “buzz off”

 

[Teflon93]

But I don’t abrogate…new owners of the new company assert…that is the point.

At no time would the company that wrote the mission statement become controled by or restricted to only what was written in that mission statement. And if any part of the mission statement needed clarification or was misunderstood…it would be the company and myself who would be the final arbiter…My company, my mission statement, my interpretation…

In fact in the world of business [not Christian charity] I might tell those interlopers and impersonators to “buzz off”

As a corporate weasel myself, I can definitely note that mission statements change all the time and we are not considered bound by them.

 

[Philthy]

How can the Church be subject to scripture, if the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth? Is the ground subject to that which is above it, or that which rests on ground subject to the ground?

These are very good questions and IMHO when you start to truly understand how Jesus, who is God, could be “subject to” His Father, who is God, you will see that the relationship between Scripture, the Church and the Magisterium is similar to the relationship within the Trinity. Humanly it does not make sense, but divinely it is so.