Sola Scriptura! Do the Scriptures teach it?

Craig and anyone interested might want to check out this article that responds to the Sola Scriptura topic as raised by the Roman Catholics. BTW, James Akin is a Roman Catholic apologist. Craig, if you are going to read Catholic apologists, I hope you will read the refutations to their accusations as well. This article about halfway through responds to some of his contentions about Sola Scriptura:

See article for the rest.

Sola Scriptura: A Response to a Catholic Writer

I think this article is rather brief and may not be satisfactory, therefore I highly recommend the following book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman Geisler, Baker Books, 1995, for further responses on this. Chapter 10 in this book specifically responds to the Sola Scriptura issue and arguments. Dr. Geisler gives a 17-page response (and the print is small) to the RC argument for tradition. This book even got recommendations from some Roman Catholics, including James Akin, because they believed Dr. Geisler had presented their views fairly, so it is not a Catholic bashing book.

 

In the years following the Reformation (of Luther particularly), the statement sola scriptura was questioned by the children of the Reformation on the grounds that Craig has outlined. The bible itself cannot be the "only" source of theology; thus, Martin Chemnitz (often called the second Martin), a Lutheran of the second generation, spoke of the scriptures as the norming norm (norma normans) and tradition as the normed norm (norma normata)--in other words both provide a measure of "authority" in theology, but the scriptures are still above tradition.

Logically speaking, sola scriptura understood as nuda scriptura cannot function. We always use tradition, experience, and reason in theological reflection (including development of the doctrine of sola scriptura).

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Craig, Norman Geisler uses scripture to make his points in the second book I recommended. I think you should give it a chance.

I think someone already pointed out that the doctine of the Trinity is not stated explicitly in the Bible but it is based on the Bible. I think the same goes for sola scriptura.

If God's word is just an authority, and not the authority, then on what basis are other teachings to be accepted? What do we compare them to decide if they are true or not? What do we compare them to decide if they come from God?

This is the problem I see in the RC church as far as their rejection of the Bible as the sole authority. That is why they can teach things like Mary ascended into heaven, they bless some of the Mary appearances (like Lourdes, Fatima and others), and can revere mystics like Julian of Norwich who taught some unbiblical things. Accepting teachings outside the Bible opens the door for all kinds of unbiblical teachings if one is to reject the Bible as the final word on doctrine and the standard by which we measure teachings.

Asked and answered already.

 

I think the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is derived from the Bible the say way the doctrine of the Trinity is. There is nothing wrong with logically inferring a doctrine based on scripture.

But let's for a moment pretend that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura, either explicity or implicitly. Okay, so now what do we do?

From where should we draw our doctrine aside from the Bible? On what basis will we decide this?

To answer those 2 questions, it seems we will have to come up with a way to justify or find a new basis for authority outside the Bible. And by what standard will we measure this authority? We can't use the Bible because it is not the only standard or authority in this scenario.

 

I do not think the A-N Fathers formulated the canon. That is where you and I differ. I think that the basis for the NT canon was already there from the teachings of Christ through the apostles and apostolic authority.

What newer doctrines are you talking about?

Do you think the Pope or the Magisterium speak with the authority of God?

 

Craigbythesea said

There are other doctrines to which orthodox believers hold which are not supported by a single, clear statement in the scriptures. The trinity is an example of this as has been cited several times. The nature of Christ, that he is fully man and fully God, is derived by this method as well. Such doctrines are the result of taking several statements of scripture and deducing a truth from them that is not necessarily stated in a single place, if at all. Since the Bible is not a theological treatise, per se, this is the way theology is done. Two primary passages upon which the doctine of sola scriptura is based have been cited on this thread. What is your issue at this point? Is it that you don't think these verses lead to the conclusion or do you think that the method we are using is illigitimate?

 

There are many. But I will give you one that should suffice.

Acts 17:11-12 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

When Paul came to Berea, he preached the gospel--a New Testament message. Before the Bereans would accept this message the account clearly says that they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. They were not taking Paul at his word. They themselves were checking, verifying the words of Paul. Think of this carefully. What Scriptures did these people have. If they were Jews they had the Old Testament, if Greeks they had to rely on whatever the Jews would allow them to read. The Jews knew what Scriptures (the Old Testament) that they did have, well. They searched the Old Testament, and verified a New Testament message using the Old Testament as their authority. The Old Testament Scriptures was their authority. They did this daily. Every day they verified Paul's New Testament message using their Old Testament Scriptures. Certainly they were students of the Word of God. Their standard every day was the Word of God. That, my friend, is sola scriptura in action.

Sola Scriptural does not mean that the Bible is our only authority. It means that the Bible is all sufficient, or that it is our FINAL authority in matters of faith and practice. Obviously it is not my authority in Chemistry, calculus, geometry, physics, endocrinology, and a host of other subjects. We have many authorities or sources. But the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, and I believe you will find that true of church fathers and all the great saints of God througout history. No true believer puts tradition above the Word of God. The Word of God is our final authority.

The problem with the Catholic Church is that Oral Tradition has become just as inspired as the Bible. Thus the Bible no longer is the final authority for there is now another source that is inspired of God.
The same is true of Mormonism. The Book of Mormon has (to them) become another source of authority--inspired of God.
As far as inspiration is concerned, only one Book is inspired, and therefore only one Book is authoritative--the Scriptures as we have them preserved for us today. That is our authority--inspired of God.
DHK

 

2 Timothy 3:15-17 should be enough to convince a Spirit-filled Christian of the absolute sole and final authority of the Bible.

Anyone who refutes the orthodox doctrine of Sola Scriptura is either confused and doesn't know better and needs to be taught; or else they are ravening wolves in sheep's clothing, deceitful workers, heretics, false teachers, who need to be separated from.

2 Timothy 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

 

That's right, Craig! Key phrase: ARE BASED. The trinity is not explicitly stated in scripture. The term "trinity" is not used. It is a doctrine that we derive based upon the biblical material. You do not call that a man-made doctrine, yet when we use the same process to arrive at sola scriptura, you say that is man-made. If you'll be consistent in your theological method, you'll arrive at our conclusion. Otherwise, some fair and penetrating questions have been asked of you as to your own view of authority. We're all waiting to hear your superior alternative.

 

Craigbythesea, perhaps you ought to be restricted to post in the other religions forum because you certainly are not Baptist in the historical sense.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

The passage in Acts gives us a pattern to go by. It is not needful that every writer of every book give us detail of how they studied out what Paul taught. You don't know that they didn't follow the same example, and are presumptuous to say that they didn't.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--What did Timothy study? The Scriptures, and the things that Paul had taught him through the Scriptures. I am sure that he searched the Scriptures to make sure that Paul was rightly dividing the word of truth. That was the command that Paul had given him.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
--Timothy had to make absolutely sure that what he was teaching was the absolute truth if he was passing this truth on to others, who in turn would pass it on to others. How did he do this? The Bible was his final authority.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter refers his "beloved brother Paul," and the epistles written by him, as Scriptures, though some of them be hard to understand.
They were authoritative. Because they were authoritative, they were being attacked by unlearned men who habitually attaced other Scriptures as well--to their own destruction. Nothing can destroy the soul but the inspired Scriptures, God's divine authority which none dare speak against. To speak against the Scripture is to speak against God.

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--An interesting two verses. In verse one Paul emphasizes the importance of the truth he is about to set before them by telling them to Remember it.
Remeber the words spoken to you by:
1. the prophets,
2. the commandments of the Apostles of the Lord,
3, and of the Saviour.

Peter was putting the words of the Apostles (all of the epistles) on the same level and importance as all of the prophets (or the Old Testament). They were just as important or just as authoritative. Thus the entire Bible was the authority of the New Testament believers.

How authoritative was the Old Testament alone?
430 times the Prophets used the exact expression "thus saith the Lord." That is authoritative. There were many other expressions just as authoritative, but that exact expression is used 430 times--thus saith the Lord. The Jews used the Bible as their authority. What other authority did they have. It was their only authority that they had in faith and doctrine. In matters of faith and doctrine it is the only authority that we also have. It is all sufficient for us.
DHK

 

First of all "sola scriptura" is not a Baptist term, it is Lutheran.
The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice is the Baptist Distinctive.

This is illustrated in the following Scripture (unless someone has already quoted it):

Acts 17:10-11
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Being a former Catholic this passage works/worked for me. The Bereans challenged the authority of both the synagogue and the Apostles of Christ against the Scriptures.

HankD