Can Sola Scriptura be proved?

[TommyS]

Hello everyone. May God's peace be with you all.

I was wondering if Sola Scriptura can be proved. I asked this in another thread, but I feel that it should be addressed as a thread all in itself. So, can anyone prove Sola Scriptura?

My answer: No. Since the belief of Sola Scriptura is "Scripture alone", meaning that the believer believes only in what the Bible says, this can not be proven. For nowhere in the Bible does it state "Scripture alone". Therefore, one is only cutting the very limb that they are standing on out from under them.

Something to think about. God bless.

-Tommy

 

[Eucharista]

Scripture comes the closest to providing this proof in 2 tim 3 and even there it only says it is profitable(useful) but it does not say necessary.

What about the 97%of the world that was illiterate in the first 1000 years of Christianity? did they go to hell because they couldn't read, nor afford a copy of scripture which took many months wages, if not years to have hand made for them?

of course not.

The canon of scripture was decided upon by the head bishop of Rome in 382 ad, Damasus was His name and this is the first time there was a book put together called the Bible(biblia, book). Before this time the church was studying, translating, copying and interpreting scripture to decide through prayer and discussion amongst them which letter were inspired and which were not.

The Bible did not come with and infallible table of contents and it took almost 400 years to decide these inspired writings.

To not even know which books belong, nor who wrote them all, how can a person say that this book, ALONE, is our authority, for it doesn't even give us those basic facts?

Especially when you have people like Luther taking books out of scripture and saying he has the authority to do so.

it started with 73 books and the official can will always have 73 letters of scripture within it, no matter how many books individuals take out. They can answer to God for that, thank the lORD I don't have to answer for that today.

but what do I know?

 

[TommyS]

Eucharista,

May God's peace be with you. Thank you for responding. That's exactly my point. Sola Scriptura can not be proved. As you said, many people were illiterate during the first 1000 years after Christ. And so how were these people taught? They were taught orally and through sacred traditions passed down through generations. This is what we (Catholics) call Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is regarded, and should be regarded just as important, significant, sacred, and guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture is/was. God bless.

Your brother in Christ,
-Tom

 

[revybartlett]

Remember the "sacred traditions" of the Jewish people. If my memory serves me correctly, he didn't have much time for "sacred traditions" that he frequently referred to as the "tradition of men."

Tradition is good and has alot of merit, but comes short in comparison to the Holy Spirit inspired autographs.

Mark 7:5-9

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

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. (KJV)

Again I believe that some traditions are good, in particular those that line up with the written word of God know as the scriptures.

 

[TommyS]

Revybartlett,

May Christ's peace be with you. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees at this time, because they saw some of the disciples eating without washed hands and saw fault. When he quoted Isaias, He specifically distinguished that Isaias was speaking of the Pharisees to come. Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for times when they take tradition over God's commandment. But no Tradition that the Church teaches contradicts Sacred Scripture. Actually, all Tradition complements Scripture, and Scripture complements Tradition.

But if we look at what Jesus says about the scribes and the Pharisees in Matthew 23: 1-3

1 THEN Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,


2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.


Jesus does not rebuke the Pharisees' authority. For He said "[they] have sitten on the chair of Moses." Jesus rebukes their hypocrisy.

And so, we look at Matthew 16: 13-19



13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And He said to Peter that he is the rock upon whom He shall build his church. And so, after Peter there were successors of his authority (the popes). And we should respect this authority and what it teaches. For just as the Pharisees "...sitten on the chair of Moses" so too the Pope sits on the chair of Peter.

God bless.

-Tommy

 

[Ruf]

My answer: No. Since the belief of Sola Scriptura is "Scripture alone", meaning that the believer believes only in what the Bible says, this can not be proven. For nowhere in the Bible does it state "Scripture alone". Therefore, one is only cutting the very limb that they are standing on out from under them

- Your problem is that you do not understand Sola Scrptura. Sola Scriptura does not mean to believe in only what the Bible says. Sola Scriptura means that scripture alone is necessary to bring man unto salvation. The scriptures are inspired or "God breathed", and by the power of the Holy spirit, man upon understanding the gospel can recieve eternal life. No other institution, like tradition, is necessary for salvation. And with this understanding of Sola Scriptura, it is easy to see this taught in the bible itself.

What about the 97%of the world that was illiterate in the first 1000 years of Christianity? did they go to hell because they couldn't read, nor afford a copy of scripture which took many months wages, if not years to have hand made for them?

-Here your reasoning is fallacious. Sola Scriptura means that "scripture alone is neccesary unto salvation". It does not mean "reading scripture alone is neccesary unto salvation". Just because of the high illiteracy rate in the first century, does not mean people were not being saved.

To not even know which books belong, nor who wrote them all, how can a person say that this book, ALONE, is our authority, for it doesn't even give us those basic facts?

-It's not as if God gave us myriads of ancient documents, some being inspired and some not, and leaves it up to us to put together and hope we're right. Don't you believe God maintains human history? Don't you believe God forordained these writings to be canonized? Also, scripture does instruct believers to exclusivley submit to the scriptures as our sole authority. In fact, Scripture condemns addition to the scriptures as our only authority. So not only is tradition non-biblical, it is anti-biblical!

See- 2 Peter 1:19-21, 1Jo 5-9, 1 Tim 2:13, 2 Tim 3:15-17, Moses declaration to avoid adding to the scriputures!

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Allow me to explain what capital-T Tradition is, because it's not the same as traditions of men, and probably deserves a different word.

Apostolic Tradition is the INTERPRETATION of the Bible that was passed down orally by the Apostles. Whether you like it or not, no Christian is completely free from Tradition. For example, the Trinity is not explicit in the Bible, but Tradition tells us that's what the Bible means. The Incarnation is not explicit in the Bible, but Tradition tells us that's what the Bible means. The fact that polygamy is bad is not in the bible, either (in fact, Martin Luther admitted that polygamy was okay because the Bible did not say otherwise.) It just depends on how much of the Apostolic Tradition you accept. The Papacy is referenced in the Bible, but not explained. Mary's immaculate conception is referenced in the Bible, but not explained.

So, Catholics read the Scripture through the lens of Tradition.

Similarly, a Baptist reads the Scripture through the lens of a Baptist tradition.

The difference is that Catholics admit it.

The canon of scripture was decided upon by the head bishop of Rome in 382 ad, Damasus was His name and this is the first time there was a book put together called the Bible(biblia, book).

I posted this in OBOB but I'll post it here again. This is the ultimate Tradition that Protestants unfortunately adhere to.

"COUNCIL OF ROME, 382 A.D., Pope Damasus I presiding.

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

"The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave [Joshua] one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books [I, II Kings, I, II Samuel], Paralipomenon two books [I, II Chronicles], Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book [Song of Songs], likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book [Sirach].

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book. Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book (Hosea), Micheas [Micah] one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book [Obadiah], Jonas one book [Jonah], Nahum one book, Habacue one book [Habakkuk], Sophonias one book [Zephaniah], Zacharias one book [Zechariah], Malachias one book [Malachi].

[Baruch isn't mentioned because it was originally included in Jeremiah.]

Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book [Tobit], Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book.

Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle, two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostles one epistle.

The canon of the New Testament ends here."

 

[TommyS]

Thanks Archbishop 10-K. I was just about to reply today, but I saw that you did it for me. And a much better job than I would have done, I must say. Thanks again. And God bless.

-Tommy

 

[hugoguttman]

The Word Written of God has only one purpose. To let us know the Verb and the Salvation Plan of God for the entire world. It is useful...for teaching, but maybe, it was missing the prior points wich say the Word is inspired by God, useful for TEACHING, FOR DISTINGUISH, TO CORRECT, AND FOR INSTRUCTING IN JUSTICE. For the man of God to be perfect, and be prepared for every good action.

The Word of God is more than letters. There is something deep inside that only the Holy Spirit can show us. There is wisdom, there is ethics there is a lot of teaching in the Bible. But, for those who does not understand it, it´s just a book for crazy and fanatic people. Some others says: Because there is no reference in Bible about any point, which could be good or wrong...I can freely make what my prudence tells me. But let me tell you that there is as much information in Bible as you can need.
Pax
Hugo

 

[Dexx]

I believe in Sola Scripture in as much as biblical doctrine cant be contradicted by something external (eg a papal decree). I also believe that the Bible is inspired by God and describes everything we need to know for a relationship with God. But i dont think the Bible is the be-all and end-all for a relationship with God. At the very least, the Holy Spirit should minister to a Christian through scripture. Even better is where God communicates in a tangible manner whilst in prayer.

 

[JVAC]

Hello everyone. May God's peace be with you all.

I was wondering if Sola Scriptura can be proved. I asked this in another thread, but I feel that it should be addressed as a thread all in itself. So, can anyone prove Sola Scriptura?

My answer: No. Since the belief of Sola Scriptura is "Scripture alone", meaning that the believer believes only in what the Bible says, this can not be proven. For nowhere in the Bible does it state "Scripture alone". Therefore, one is only cutting the very limb that they are standing on out from under them.

Something to think about. God bless.

-Tommy

I can prove the Lutheran understanding and true understanding of the original "Sola Scriptura".

The Evangelical orthodox catholic Church (Lutheran for short ) Has always believed that Scripture is the supreme authority and that Tradition serves to support it. For example, the Church fathers always refferred to the Holy Scriptures when proving themselves, and the Holy Synods always refferred to the Sacred Scriptures before they passed judgements. It also follows that Traditions that were contrary to Scripture were always rejected, Gnosticism, Arianism etc. So here, in tradition, we have the basis for the true Sola Scriptura, that is, Word as prime authority, and no tradition may contradict it.

-James

 

[TommyS]

James,

May God's peace be with you. I and the (Catholic) Church completely agrees with you in that "Tradition should never contradict Scripture". And the Church's Tradition does not do this. Both Scripture and Tradition are so intimately connected, that they cannot be torn apart. Tradition is supported by Scripture. And Scripture is supported by Tradition. We could not have one without the other. Both are equally inspired by God and are therefore equally important. Thank you for responding James. God bless.

-Tommy

 

[JVAC]

James,

May God's peace be with you. I and the (Catholic) Church completely agrees with you in that "Tradition should never contradict Scripture". And the Church's Tradition does not do this. Both Scripture and Tradition are so intimately connected, that they cannot be torn apart. Tradition is supported by Scripture. And Scripture is supported by Tradition. We could not have one without the other. Both are equally inspired by God and are therefore equally important. Thank you for responding James. God bless.

-Tommy

I agree, but where we would diverge is that we also believe that if Scripture is silent on an issue, that a certain issue cannot be made a necessary article of faith. Example, one does not have to believe in Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the Asumption, etc. because it is not proven in Scripture.

Also, Tradition is not and cannot be Sola, because all the church father's justified their teachings by refferring to the Scriptures. The Holy Synods reviewed the works of heretics and compared it to Scripture. While the Bishops obtained their authority to pronounce these things from Tradition, they didn't rely on the authority alone, but also on the Scriptures.

-James

 

[Ainesis]

Hello everyone. May God's peace be with you all.

I was wondering if Sola Scriptura can be proved.

I recently participated in a conversation that I think proves this, if in fact we are defining sola Scripture in the same way. I have reposted below my comments in this areas from the other thread.

God Bless!

*************************

Although this thread has yielded some great conversations about the merits and value of tradition, I have been reflecting on the OP. Namely, is "sola Scripture" Scriptural?

I have been told that Scripture never makes any claim of self-sufficiency. Well, before we can evaluate this objectively, we need to ask "self-sufficiency for what?"

Is Scripture self-sufficient in documenting the history of the church? No.

Is Scripture self-sufficient in documenting the fellowship of early believers? No.

Is Scripture self-sufficient in documenting all beliefs of the early church? No.

Yet we see in Scripture what the purpose of it is, and in that, it IS sufficient.

I contend that Scripture does in fact claim it is sufficient in providing to men what they need to know to be saved. I offer two verses that we see commonly referred to in support of this view.

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31

Here, John gives the purpose of the why the Apostles wrote what they did. He says that what has been written is done so that men may believe and receive eternal life. IOW, all that is necessary to believe that Jesus is the Christ and to receive eternal life is contained in the Scriptures.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." II Timothy 3:16-17

While, the above verse was not a reference to what we know as the NT specifically, if we agree that the NT is in fact a part of Scripture, this verse still applies. IS all Scripture proftibale to perfect the man of God and throroughly furnish him unto all good works? This text says yes.

Did God ensure what was written in the Scriptures would be sufficient for man to believe that Jesus is the Christ and receive eternal life? Is all Scripture protibale for man's perfection before God? The Biblical answer to both of these questions seems to be "Yes!"

Do these truths take away from the values of tradition? No. But for the foundation of our salvation, we are not directed to these things, either primarily, exclusively, or even at all necessarily. We are assured that these Truths are found in Scripture.

After much discussion (and much learning), I can only conclude that what the Scripture says is true. While it is accurate that the Scripture does not claim self-sufficiency in all things pertaining to the Church, it does in fact make this claim for self-sufficiency in terms of salvation.

So, while I may look to the traditions of the church as an example of how God's life is demonstrated and lived out in the world, it is not those things which save or are even pertinent to salvation.

Even in writing this, I completely respect the views of others who believe differently. However, I have written this as a reflection of where I am on this because the conversation has seemed to degrade into quibbles about religious doctrine and I am not interested in such squabbles. I did however, want to really and thoughtfully consider the OP.

Thanks to all who have offered me assistance and insight during this discussion.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

In my view, Sola Scripura is no less a Holy Tradition than is accepting the Apocrypha.

 

[Lotar]

Sola Scriptura in the original meaning is that all that is required for salvation is in Scripture. Sola Scriptura isn't required for salvation, so it follows that it doesn't need to be found in Scripture.

 

[Pilgrim Simon]

Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone.

As fundamentalists we argued that the Bible is God-breathed, inspired, and also a revelation of spiritual, and therefore invisible matters. The Bible is inspired revelation and though written by fallen, sinful man, it was argued that God the Holy Spirit witheld the corrupting effects of sin when it was written.

Can Sola Scriptura be proved?

You are asking....what is the evidence for inspired revelation? What are its distinguishing marks?

A pertinent question for some aspects of the charismatic movement....

 

[Ainesis]

I happened to be reading the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I which was offered and approved at the The Council Of Chalcedon.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/4ecumen1.htm

I have to say that I was struck by the opening statements, some of which I post here:

The people who fall into this folly are those in whom knowledge of the truth is blocked by a kind of dimness. They do not refer to

• the sayings of the prophets, nor to
• the letters of the apostles, nor even to
• the authoritative words of the gospels,

but to themselves. By not being pupils of the truth, they turn out to be masters of error.

Leo I acknowledges that the truth of God is found in three areas: the sayings of the prophets, the letters of the apostles, and the Gospels. This seems to me to be a clear reference to Scripture.

While the words sola Scripture surely are not used, I would say that the principle of what I have understood sola Scripture ot mean sure seems consistent with this view.

 

[vanshan]

The Holy Scriptures do tell the gospel message that Christ died so that we may be reunited to God through Him (since nothing we do can justify us, or in other words remove the results of our own sinfulness). The Bible contains enough to persuade men to believe in Christ, but does it contain everything that can aid us in our salvation?

The ark Noah built is something of a prototype for the Church God would later establish among us through Christ. We often refer to the Church as the Ark of our Salvation. We are called to board this Ark so that we may be aided in our journey through the torrents of life here in this fallen world. The Church as the Ark provides God's sacraments to His people which do aid us in overcoming sin; therefore, overcoming the result of sin which is spiritual death. Because most of us here agree that once saved always saved is heretical, we know that we still have a race to run in this life to win the prize of Heaven. The Church as God's Ark helps to carry us to that goal.

To answer the OP, no where in scripture or in the testamony of the early Church do we see this idea of sola scriptura, even as it has been defined above. It does contain enough to inspire faith, but to be left there without the further unity and help of God's Church leaves us poorly equiped to fight the good fight of faith. The Bible alone is not sufficient for this ongoing battle, we must unite ourselves to Christ's Body.

Basil

 

[Ainesis]

Hi Basil,

The Holy Scriptures do tell the gospel message that Christ died so that we may be reunited to God through Him (since nothing we do can justify us, or in other words remove the results of our own sinfulness). The Bible contains enough to persuade men to believe in Christ, but does it contain everything that can aid us in our salvation?

Honestly, I have received much push back about statements just like the one above. I would also say that Scripture contains enough for men to believe in Christ and receive eternal life through that belief. I would not say however, that Scripture contains everything that "can aid us" in our salvation. One prime example of this is the fellowship we experience in the church.

Let me ask you something. I often wonder if my understanding of sola Scripture is the same as what others mean when they rfer to it. IMO, what you described above is entirely consistent with a sola Scripture perspective.

Can you explain to me how you think your understanding differs from that of a sola Scripture? Or, if my understanding of sola Scripture needs correcting, if you can please offer insights there?

The ark Noah built is something of a prototype for the Church God would later establish among us through Christ. We often refer to the Church as the Ark of our Salvation. We are called to board this Ark so that we may be aided in our journey through the torrents of life here in this fallen world. The Church as the Ark provides God's sacraments to His people which do aid us in overcoming sin; therefore, overcoming the result of sin which is spiritual death. Because most of us here agree that once saved always saved is heretical, we know that we still have a race to run in this life to win the prize of Heaven. The Church as God's Ark helps to carry us to that goal.

I can understand that analogy. I agree that the church serves as an ark or a refuge for those who are saved. I would add that IMO all who believe in Christ and have received eternal life in Him through that faith is a member of His Church.

To answer the OP, no where in scripture or in the testamony of the early Church do we see this idea of sola scriptura, even as it has been defined above. It does contain enough to inspire faith, but to be left there without the further unity and help of God's Church leaves us poorly equiped to fight the good fight of faith. The Bible alone is not sufficient for this ongoing battle, we must unite ourselves to Christ's Body.


Basil

Up above, you indicate that Scripture is sufficient for inspiring individuals to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Not only does Scripture say this, but it also says that it is this belief that gives us eternal life. Lastly, we are engrafted into Christ's Body and Church (according to Scripture) by that same faith. So how can one believe in Jesus, inherit eternal life based on that belief, and not be a member of His church?

I would also say that the writing by Leo I certainly seems to consistent with this position of sola Scripture as I understand it and as you seem to portray above. IOW, the primary source of God's truth is the Scriptures.