Evidence from Sola Scriptura - right from the Bible itself

[BobRyan]

Plenty of evidence in the Bible for the saints using the "sola scriptura" method to test all doctrine and tradition to "see IF those things are true"


Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.


Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 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.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

In Isaiah 8:19 we find this "to the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them".

There again we have sola scriptura - being taught.


And Paul insists that he and everyone else be tested that same way -

Gal 1:6-9
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

We can know what had been preached by Paul as of Gal 1... by reading the texts themselves.

 

[BobRyan]

Some might say that - by ignoring those texts entirely - Sola Scriptura might possibly be avoided. I am not so sure.

In any case - the bible proves that the texts were already being read - accepted as "scripture" as of the NT writer's age. And the practice of testing all doctrine was also - in place.

Others might suppose that the Hebrew Bible was handed to us by the Christian church.

However - Josephus states that the Hebrew Bible was canonized 400 years before Christ and had not been added to one iota since then. Kept in the Temple as the same as we have today in our 39 books.

Hence the Bible support for Sola Scriptura cannot be dismissed by "The RCC gave us the OT, or canonized the OT, or ...".

 

[topcare]

None of those verses hit at Scripture alone.

 

[patricius79]

Plenty of evidence in the Bible for the saints using the "sola scriptura" method to test all doctrine and tradition to "see IF those things are true"


Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.

I don't see anything about Sola Scriptura there. This passage testifies to both Scripture and the oral Word. I think it supports the Catholic Tradition. The Bereans were--like the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8--apparently reading Scripture not as if it stood alone, but in light of the oral Word (Sacred Tradition) which they heard from the Apostles of the Catholic Church.

 

[BobRyan]

None of those verses hit at Scripture alone.

Let's do a simple test - lets pick just one of the examples to see if that suggestion survives it... Mark 7:6-13. Your suggestion appears not to survive Mark 7:6-13

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.

In this example Paul is teaching - (Probably reading from the Bible and teaching - no doubt) but that teaching is being compared to "Scriptures" to "SEE IF" those things spoken "are SO"

I don't see anything about Sola Scriptura there. This passage testifies to both Scripture and the oral Word. I think it supports the Catholic Tradition.

If the details don't matter to you -- then fine... you have free will you can choose as you wish.

The Bereans were--like the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8--apparently reading Scripture not as if it stood alone, but in light of the oral Word (Sacred Tradition) which they heard from the Apostles of the Catholic Church.

Again that ignores every detail in the context and in the text. These are not Christians listening to Paul to see if they "still want to be Christians" - these are Jews and God-fearing gentiles who have access to the OT text - THEIR "magisterium" and sacred non-Christian "tradition" is telling them to throw Paul under a bus.

At some point -- Bible details matter.

 

[patricius79]

Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.

In this example Paul is teaching - (Probably reading from the Bible and teaching - no doubt) but that teaching is being compared to "Scriptures" to "SEE IF" those things spoken "are SO"


If the details don't matter to you -- then fine... you have free will you can choose as you wish.

Again that ignores every detail in the context and in the text. These are not Christians listening to Paul to see if they "still want to be Christians" - these are Jews and God-fearing gentiles who have access to the OT text - THEIR "magisterium" and sacred non-Christian "tradition" is telling them to throw Paul under a bus.

At some point -- Bible details matter.

I see what you mean about how the outmoded Jewish Magisterium would have told them to reject the oral Word. But since the Bereans were Jews considering whether or not to be Christians, why do you think this passage applies to Christians?

Also, the Bereans didn't come to faith in Christ through reading the Scriptures alone, but rather in reading them under the light of the oral Word preached by Paul and Silas. Paul teaches that we should hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter. Moreover, isn't it true that neither the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches that the Bible alone is the word of God, or tells us which books are in the Bible?

 

[topcare]

Let's do a simple test - lets pick just one of the examples to see if that suggestion survives it... Mark 7:6-13. Your suggestion appears not to survive Mark 7:6-13

I can tell you for a fact no part of Scripture says to use the Bible alone, your man made doctrine fails

 

[BobRyan]

I see what you mean about how the outmoded Jewish Magisterium would have told them to reject the oral Word. But since the Bereans were Jews considering whether or not to be Christians, why do you think this passage applies to Christians?

Well - if the idea is that non-Christians should be the one's reading the Bible to determine if a given doctrine is really correct - but Christians should not have that high regard for it - ... that is a tough argument to make from scripture.

Surely it is the "Christian" author Luke - that is praising these guys for using the SS method rather than saying "well that was a bad idea - but it just so happened to work".

Also in Gal 1:6-9 the only way we have of actually applying the test Paul gives - of judging every doctrine against what had already been given as of the writing of the letter to the Galatians - - is "Sola Scriptura".

Also, the Bereans didn't come to faith in Christ through reading the Scriptures alone, but rather in reading them under the light of the oral Word preached by Paul and Silas.

But they "tested" what they were hearing by SS alone. The text says that explicitly.

Paul teaches that we should hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter.

Paul says "though WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should come to you with a different doctrine let him be accursed" -- how in the world are you going to toss Paul or an Angel out the window (figuratively) if the rule you use is -- "well the angel said it -- so no need to check that out -- it is oral tradition"???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[patricius79]

Well - if the idea is that non-Christians should be the one's reading the Bible to determine if a given doctrine is really correct - but Christians should not have that high regard for it - ... that is a tough argument to make from scripture.

Surely it is the "Christian" author Luke - that is praising these guys for using the SS method rather than saying "well that was a bad idea - but it just so happened to work".

Also in Gal 1:6-9 the only way we have of actually applying the test Paul gives - of judging every doctrine against what had already been given as of the writing of the letter to the Galatians - - is "Sola Scriptura".

But they "tested" what they were hearing by SS alone. The text says that explicitly.

Paul says "though WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should come to you with a different doctrine let him be accursed" -- how in the world are you going to toss Paul or an Angel out the window (figuratively) if the rule you use is -- "well the angel said it -- so no need to check that out -- it is oral tradition"???

in Christ,

Bob

From my perspective, it sounds like people can try to read the idea of Sola Scriptura into the Bible, which actually says to hold fast to the traditions as they were given, whether orally or by letter. The Bible doesn't say that the Bereans believed in Scripture Alone. If they did, then how could they have been open to the oral Word preached by Paul and Silas? Or if Scripture were formally sufficient, then why didn't they figure out the truth before Paul and Silas arrived? As far as Galatians 1:8 (I hope that is the right verse), is Paul talking about holding fast to what was preached in writing, or orally?

 

[BobRyan]

From my perspective, it sounds like people can try to read the idea of Sola Scriptura into the Bible, which actually says to hold fast to the traditions as they were given, whether orally or by letter. The Bible doesn't say that the Bereans believed in Scripture Alone. If they did, then how could they have been open to the oral Word preached by Paul and Silas? Or if Scripture were formally sufficient, then why didn't they figure out the truth before Paul and Silas arrived? As far as Galatians 1:8 (I hope that is the right verse), is Paul talking about holding fast to what was preached in writing, or orally?

Does not matter because 2000 years later - we can only know what Paul had already stated as of Gal 1 - by reading the actual Bible. For us it is nothing but "sola scriptura" testing that can enable us to comply with the Gal 1:6 command.

Remember that sola scriptura testing makes scripture the test -- it does not say that everything tested must fail the test.

 

[Hieronymus]

Sola Scriptura is obvious, because there is no other trustworthy source other than the Bible.

 

[patricius79]

Does not matter because 2000 years later - we can only know what Paul had already stated as of Gal 1 - by reading the actual Bible.

For us it is nothing but "sola scriptura" testing that can enable us to comply with the Gal 1:6 command.

Remember that sola scriptura testing makes scripture the test -- it does not say that everything tested must fail the test.

Again, I don't see these ideas in Scripture, which says to hold fast to the oral traditions, and listen to those sent by Christ. The Bible itself derives from Catholic Tradition, which is the source of the N.T. Canon. If Sola Scriptura were true, it would have to be in Scripture. But the early Church relied on the oral Word. In fact, the Bible doesn't even tell us that Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel. Such information comes from Catholic sources (in this case, the Papist St. Irenaeus if I remember right).

 

[mark46]

None of those verses hit at Scripture alone.

Agreed.

There is much about the important of Scripture, and perhaps even about the primacy of Scripture.

 

[Erose]

Sola Scriptura is obvious, because there is no other trustworthy source other than the Bible.

How do you know it is trustworthy?

 

[Erose]

Does not matter because 2000 years later - we can only know what Paul had already stated as of Gal 1 - by reading the actual Bible. For us it is nothing but "sola scriptura" testing that can enable us to comply with the Gal 1:6 command.

Remember that sola scriptura testing makes scripture the test -- it does not say that everything tested must fail the test.

There is a reason why after 2000 years, you still have access to the Bible. It is because the Church has preserved it for the last 2000 years, and the Jews with the books of the OT before then.

Anyway until someone shows me two groups of people, who read the Bible in isolation, and gets the exact same theology your model of authority has no legs.

 

[Jipsah]

Hence the Bible support for Sola Scriptura cannot be dismissed by "The RCC gave us the OT, or canonized the OT, or ...".

So it's the OT or nothing for you, eh? That explains a lot, I guess.

 

[Jipsah]

Let's do a simple test - lets pick just one of the examples to see if that suggestion survives it... Mark 7:6-13. Your suggestion appears not to survive Mark 7:6-13

Wait, you're appealing to Scriptures from the hand-picked-by-the-RCC-and-accepted-as-canon-based-on-tradition-only-New-Testament? How is that gonna work?

 

[Hieronymus]

How do you know it is trustworthy?

It says the same for 2000 years now.
It has proven itself to be accurate and inspired / directed by God.

 

[Erose]

It says the same for 2000 years now.
It has proven itself to be accurate and inspired / directed by God.

How has it proven itself? You do realize that it was the evil Catholic church, who hand copied the Bible all those generations. You wouldn't even know of the existence of a Bible if it wasn't preserved by the Apostolic churches. So the question is, if you trusted the Church in preserving the Bible for 2000 years (or at least 1500 until the Rebellion), why don't you trust her now?