Is there a Bible verse that affirms Sola Scriptura?

Al Masihi said:

Church tradition is on par with scripture.

Click to expand...

And Infallible, huh? That's the word you have been coming back to again and again and insisting upon.

Albion said:

And Infallible, huh? That's the word you have been coming back to again and again and insisting upon.

Click to expand...

Both scripture and Church tradition are infallible.

Albion said:

what religious beliefs in particular do you hold to, using your approach--such as Who Jesus was, the nature/identity of God, what actions are disapproved by Him, etc.?

Click to expand...

Hi, Albion. I do trust that the Bible is the highest authority for beliefs, but what I mean is God's love in us does more and better than our beliefs alone can do in us. I mean, God's love has His own almighty power to change our nature to be like Jesus and have us pleasing our Father the way Jesus does > 2 Corinthians 14-15, 1 Peter 3:4 < of course, you see I need scripture to talk about this which is more than words alone can do and tell.

Jesus Christ is the Lord of all. Jesus died for our sins and rose again from the dead, on the third day, and now Christ is seated at the right hand of our Heavenly Father. And Jesus is divine, having all things which our Father has. So, God has sent His very own Son, not some lesser being not divine, in order to reach us and get us saved and changed into the image of His own Son Jesus. So, this shows how greatly loving God is, by so sharing His very own with us > His own Son and His own love (Romans 5:5).

So, Albion, this is what I believe and trust. But demons can believe, right?

Al Masihi said:

Both scripture and Church tradition are infallible.

Click to expand...

?? When I you change you mind about that??

Anyway, it is now your turn to show us a single verse in Scripture which says that church traditions are infallible.

Albion said:

?? When I you change you mind about that??

Anyway, it is now your turn to show us a single verse in Scripture which says that church traditions are infallible.

Click to expand...

I believe catholic answers made a strong case for the subject:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/oral-tradition-in-the-new-testament

Al Masihi said:

I believe catholic answers made a strong case for the subject:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/oral-tradition-in-the-new-testament

Click to expand...

Sorry, but after you challenge us to produce a verse in Scripture that testifies to the Scriptures being infallible, I cannot let you simply throw a link at us and say for us to see if we can ferret out something from a long article.

If you want to use that article as a starter or aid, then show us what, specifically, in it proves that church traditions are infallible.

ViaCrucis said:

The concept of Sola Scriptura has become something very different than what it was originally intended. For the early Reformers such as Luther the appeal to Scripture was an essential aspect of reform. Since the central motivation of the Evangelical Reformation was the Gospel, it was right there in the Scriptures that the Reformers saw the pure preaching of the Gospel. When their opponents argued against them by pointing to the words of popes and recent church councils, the Reformers instead argued that instead of arguing from mutable words of modern popes and councils we should root our arguments in the immutable word of God as found in Holy Scripture.

Sola Scriptura, then, arose as a principle, not to deny or reject the historic teaching and tradition of the Church catholic, but instead as a basis by which to argue the primacy of the historic, immutable word of God over and against the prevailing opinions and philosophies of the age.

Sola Scriptura is not, as is often misunderstood by many--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--as "Bible onlyism" or some kind of biblicism; but it's not. Sola Scriptura does not deny the historic witness, teaching, and tradition of the Holy Catholic Church, it does not turn to the ancient Fathers and say "We don't need you". And it certainly does not deny the Creeds which are essential to the life and confession of the Christian Church. Sola Scriptura does not mean that every jot and tittle of Christian faith and practice must be arrived at by biblical proof text; it means to recognize that Scripture exists as an unchanging witness to the ancient and apostolic faith; Scripture therefore is always reliable, it is always trustworthy, it is always abiding. It means that should someone, even if they be a pope, say something that is contrary to the word of Scripture, we ought to go with Scripture. Scripture, therefore, alone is immutable and unfailing in its witness for us.

No, Scripture does not teach that we should use only the Bible; but then that's not what Sola Scriptura says. The point really is nothing other than that Scripture enjoys a primacy of importance that does not compare with anything else in the Church's historic toolset.

Click to expand...

Good start, but the importance of Sola Scriptura is this, it is the ONLY source of incontrovertible truth. It is the foundation of the Church. If it can not be trusted as always being true, it will be a weak foundation. This is the standard that we follow, truth will and must always be true. It is easy for something to sometimes be true. But what confidence would we have to follow something or someone that was sometimes true? It is for this reason that the Protestants have less books in the Bible. The other books contain some truths, but are not reliable because everything in them is not taken as truth.

Pastors/priests often say what is true, but not every word from them is true or claimed to be unquestionably true. Now when the Catholics play games with speaking the truth with the pope sitting in some special chair and then he has the power to be true, they deceive themselves. One can only be unquestionably true if every word they say is unquestionably true. They believe a lie. Imagine if Jesus said just one thing that was not true. Of course Catholics don't ponder this truism.

ViaCrucis said:

By the same token, however, the Reformers would never have accepted the use of Scripture to topple the historic structures and confession of the Christian Church. This is a misuse and abuse of Scripture, and the lone wolf who decides to take the Bible into their own hands to dismantle centuries of Christian confession, teaching, and conviction does so to their own spiritual destruction.

Click to expand...

As an ex Lutheran, I say Luther did do this. Certainly Catholics believe he did it. But Luther did continue some old traditions that are lacking in scriptural support. He was focused on the means of grace, which was the most important deficiency in the Church of his day.

Albion said:

Sorry, but after you challenge us to produce a verse in Scripture that testifies to the Scriptures being infallible, I cannot let you simply throw a link at us and say for us to see if we can ferret out something from a long article.

If you want to use that article as a starter or aid, then show us what, specifically, in it proves that church traditions are infallible.

Click to expand...

Never challenged anyone, I just stated that no verse rules out scripture as the sole infallible authority. Here’s a few examples from the link:

1 Corinthians 10:4

Paul shows how Christian sacraments--baptism and the Eucharist --were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: "Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea&qu ot; (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (v.3; cf. John6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: "All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ" (1Cor. 10:4).

The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness. [See Tosefta Sukkah 3:11f., Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities 10:7.] In a further development, another Tradition even equates this rock with preexistent Wisdom: "For the flinty rock is the Wisdom of God, which he marked off highest and chiefest from his powers, and from which he satisfies the thirsty souls that love God." [Philo Leg. all. 2.86. Cited by H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 167.]

It seems that Paul is drawing on this Tradition, but he elevates it to even a higher level. Christ himself was the Rock who provided for the people of Israel, which in turn makes their rebellion all the more heinous (1Cor. 10:5ff.). Paul does not hesitate to draw on stock oral Tradition to illustrate and enhance his presentation of the gospel. The details provided in these Traditions preserved under the Old Covenant shed fresh light on the preparation that God made through Israel for the building of his Church and on the characteristics of the Christian sacraments.


Matthew 2:23

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, "that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" (Matt.2:23). All commentators admit that the phrase "He shall be called a Nazarene" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on "by the prophets."

The proposed solutions to explain this verse are legion. They range from trying to find some word-play on "Nazarene" in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, R. T. France, Matthew (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1985), 88. to viewing this text as loosely "fulfilling" a conglomeration of Old Testament passages that refer to a despised Messiah. D. A. Carson, "Matthew," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. F.E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 97. The serious grappling by scholars with the text is admirable, but in the end their solutions seem farfetched.

It may be that we should seek resolution in simplicity. When read in Greek, the introduction to this prophecy differs from all the other "fulfillment" sayings in Matthew (for example Matt. 1:22, 2:15, 3:15, and others).[ R.T. France, Matthew, 88.] Thus, the failed attempts to locate the Old Testament background to this prophecy, coupled with this unique introduction, suggest to me that the simplest solution is probably the correct one: Matthew is drawing on oral Tradition for this saying. If this is the case, it is significant that he places this prophecy on the same level as ones he attributes to specific authors of the Old Testament. This then would be an example of God's own Word being passed on via oral Tradition and not through written Scripture.

DZoolander said:

There are no verses that affirm it (at least as the Bible is concerned) - because none of the books of the Bible were written with the Bible in mind. The book of Mark wasn't written to be viewed in context of/or with an awareness of Revelations, Matthew wasn't written with an awareness of Acts of the Apostles, etc. So, really, the Bible is never really self referential as a whole, and arguably cannot be. So you aren't going to come across anything saying "This thing here, it's all you need".

Click to expand...

Sorry you are wrong about none of the books of the Bible written with other books of the Bible in mind. Jesus and others in the NT quoted the OT extensively. The many times scripture says prophecy has been fulfilled helps to prove authority and truth. Scripture even says to read it all and use it all to understand all of it.

Isaiah 28:9
“To whom will he teach knowledge,
and to whom will he explain the message?
Those who are weaned from the milk,
those taken from the breast?
10 For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept,
line upon line, line upon line,
here a little, there a little.”

Lets recap, then.

Scripture is infallible (by mutual agreement); there is no known verse that says church traditions are also.

David Cabrera said:

Why do you trust the Bible when it was the Church that decided the Canon of the Bible?

Click to expand...

If Scripture, as we know it, was good enough for that church why should we not trust it also?

David Cabrera said:

If not, is then Sola Scriptura fake?

Click to expand...

The words "sola scriptura" don't appear in the Bible. Neither is there any biblical texts which would indicate the Bible is the only source for theological knowledge.

David Cabrera said:

If not, is then Sola Scriptura fake?

Click to expand...

There is not only one verse but many.
The Apostles and Christ fully preached the doctrine and traditions of Christ. If a change was to be made to the doctrine or if it were only for a time then it would have been stated in the word that was written down and given to us in the bible, but no change was spoken of neither was there a time limit given. Instead we are told that if any man or any angel preach anything other than what we have been given he is to be accursed, and that we are to continue in the things we have learned and have been assured of knowing of whom we have learned them.
Declared all the counsel of God(Acts 20:26-28)
Continued in Doctrine of the Apostles(Acts 2:42)
Hold Fast to the Doctrine(Titus 1:9)
Paul has Planted the word(2 Thess 3:6)
Hold Fast to the word and Tradtions we have been taught(2 Thess 2:14-17)
Doctrine of Christ(2 John 9-10)
Oberserve these things(2 Tim 5:21)
Be mindful of the words spoken by the prophets and the commandments of the Apostles and Christ(2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-18)
Keep the sound words given by Paul(1 Timohty 1:13-14)
Fully known the Doctrine, continue in things learned(2 Tim 3:10, 14-15)
Laws of God (Rom 13:2,9-10)
Stablish according to the Gospel and preaching of Christ(Romans 16:25-27)
Fully preached the Gospel of Christ(Romans 15:19,29)
Acknowledge things spoken as commandments of the Lord(1 Cor 14:37)
Gospel received by Revelation of Christ(Gal 1:6-12)
Christ the same today yesterday and tomorrow, so to is the word of God the same. (Hebrews 13:8-9)
Keep the Commandments given by Christ(John 14:21,23, Matt 28:20)
Holy word of God is of no private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20-21)

1 Thess 5:21
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
2 timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 timothy 4:1-2, 5
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
Acts 17:11
11 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.
2 Timiothy 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

We might want to consider the Shema, Duet. 8:4 and Mark 12;29, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." I am guessing we agree that Jesus is the Word and the Word (Scriptures) is God. His Scriptures are perfect and we should not add nor subtract from them. The question is: What are the Scriptures Jesus walked and made perfect?

Catholic Values Voter said:

The words "sola scriptura" don't appear in the Bible..

Click to expand...

Neither do the words Trinity or Papal.

David Cabrera said:

So the man who made the Reformation was wrong?

Click to expand...

About what??

That was a rather long post you were answering.