Is there a Bible verse that affirms Sola Scriptura?

[AnticipateHisComing]

If not, is then Sola Scriptura fake?

A twist of truth, your argument is deceptive insisting we have to prove Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is what you get when there is NO other source of God's word, being always incontrovertibly true in completeness. Christians do not argue scripture is true and yet you postulate that we must prove it is the only thing always true. The burden is on you to prove there is another source of incontrovertible truth. Until you prove such, I will stick with just scripture which we all know is God's true word.

BTW, maybe you can answer an open question I have to all Catholics.
What doctrine/teaching is required to be known for salvation, that is not presented in scripture?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

If I am honest, I feel we need Tradition to explain why we believe what we believe.

If you were honest, God's word is not about the messenger, but the message; excepting Jesus the Son of God. So we don't need to know how the Bible got here to be able to read it and be saved. And, people have read the Bible in private and been saved.

Tell me, how old are the RCC's "traditions" on Mary? Some are more recent than Luther. How is it that a pope may create new "traditions"? Is a tradition just another name for papal decree? That sounds like what Jesus chastised the Pharisees for. You do realize that the Pharisees and High Priests were authoritative leaders of the church at Jesus' time and yet they created new traditions that were not true.

 

[Not David]

A twist of truth, your argument is deceptive insisting we have to prove Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is what you get when there is NO other source of God's word, being always incontrovertibly true in completeness. Christians do not argue scripture is true and yet you postulate that we must prove it is the only thing always true. The burden is on you to prove there is another source of incontrovertible truth. Until you prove such, I will stick with just scripture which we all know is God's true word.

BTW, maybe you can answer an open question I have to all Catholics.
What doctrine/teaching is required to be known for salvation, that is not presented in scripture?

I'm not Catholic but why do they have to prove Sola Scriptura when it isn't even in the Bible (even the theologian James White admits it) and wasn't a belief until the Reformation?

 

[Not David]

If you were honest, God's word is not about the messenger, but the message; excepting Jesus the Son of God. So we don't need to know how the Bible got here to be able to read it and be saved. And, people have read the Bible in private and been saved.

Tell me, how old are the RCC's "traditions" on Mary? Some are more recent than Luther. How is it that a pope may create new "traditions"? Is a tradition just another name for papal decree? That sounds like what Jesus chastised the Pharisees for. You do realize that the Pharisees and High Priests were authoritative leaders of the church at Jesus' time and yet they created new traditions that were not true.

Orthodox exist too, you know?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not Catholic but why do they have to prove Sola Scriptura when it isn't even in the Bible (even the theologian James White admits it) and wasn't a belief until the Reformation?

Well, man made History can be true or not true. We really cannot know if it is true or not and even if it was true, we cannot possibly know everything that all believers thought in regards to God's Word back in the day. But lets say we did have an accurate record of all believer's beliefs, it is not outside the realm of possibility that believers can learn and grow about the depths of God's Word through out time. That is not a contradiction.

I believe the Bible itself does teach Sola Scriptura (in a subtle way). Besides, what other book in human history even comes close to the Bible? It has proven itself to be divine in origin many times over. Perhaps you are simply unaware that the Bible has many evidences backing it up that it is the Word of God.

If such is the case, you should check out my blogger article here:

http://lovebranch.blogspot.com/2017/02/evidences-for-word-of-god.html

Now, after looking at these evidences, can you say that you can find another holy book or words from some kind of church tradition that proves that they are also divine in origin? My bet is that you will not be able to find such a thing.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Where did we get the Bible?

Where did we get the OT?
Did those that recorded and preserved the OT continue to add traditions to it?
Are they still in charge?

Scripture records God's words explicitly setting up the leaders of his OT church. They failed to be true to God and rejected Jesus. The Catholics read into scripture to support the office papacy. It is not explicit like the OT is. Further, learn from history. If OT religious leaders didn't always teach what is true, then you can't expect NT religious organizations to also be perfect.

And so you end up with fallible traditions.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Orthodox exist too, you know?

The problem with traditions, is different people have different traditions. Yes there are various traditions, but the RCC is the largest. How do you prove your traditions are true compared to another's traditions? In the end you each say you are true because that is what you were taught by your teacher. Study scripture and you will see God's word and even Jesus himself relied on multiple methods to prove the words divine. Those that give importance to traditions ignore the concept of a proof/things that testify to the traditions.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

If I am honest, I feel we need Tradition to explain why we believe what we believe.

"So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matthew 15:6-9)

"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void." (Luke 16:17)

 

[Barney2.0]

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the only authority, no verse affirms this position in the Bible.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the only authority

Not true.

no verse affirms this position in the Bible.

No verse of scripture affirms another to be always incontrovertibly true.
So there is only one source of incontrovertible truth.
I challenge you to prove another.

 

[Barney2.0]

Not true.

No verse of scripture affirms another to be always incontrovertibly true.
So there is only one source of incontrovertible truth.
I challenge you to prove another.

Sola Scriptura literally means by scripture alone and is the belief that scripture alone is infallible, no verse in the Bible affirms this doctrine.

 

[JoeP222w]

If not, is then Sola Scriptura fake?

Recommended reading:
Scripture Alone by James R. White.
Canon Revisited by Michael Krueger

https://carm.org/dictionary-sola-scriptura

 

[JoeP222w]

Add to that the fact that most people were illiterate until around 100 years ago, the scriptura was all but meaningless.

An amazingly false statement.

Most people did not become literate until 1918? What is your source of history? Clearly you are not looking at the right resources.

 

[JoeP222w]

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the only authority, no verse affirms this position in the Bible.

No, this is a false statement, but unfortunately a very common one. Sola Scriptura is the understanding the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and authority for the Christian. It does not mean that the Christian does not have other authorities such as the local church, however, the local church comes under the authority of the Bible.

And yes, no verse affirms this because it is a false representation of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Barney2.0]

No, this is a false statement, but unfortunately a very common one. Sola Scriptura is the understanding the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and authority for the Christian. It does not mean that the Christian does not have other authorities such as the local church, however, the local church comes under the authority of the Bible.

And yes, no verse affirms this because it is a false representation of Sola Scriptura.

No verse points to scripture being the sole infallible rule of faith either.

 

[HTacianas]

An amazingly false statement.

Most people did not become literate until 1918? What is your source of history? Clearly you are not looking at the right resources.

https://academicpartnerships.uta.edu/articles/education/brief-history-of-literacy.aspx

Literacy rates in parts of the United States reached 70% in 1920.

 

[JoeP222w]

No verse points to scripture being the sole infallible rule of faith either.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Key phrase: "equipped for every good work"

If scripture was fallible it could not be said for "every" good work, but for only "some" good works, leaving us to wonder what "some" good works are. But it does not say that, it says "every" good work.

The word of God and is true, though every man be a liar.

 

[JoeP222w]

https://academicpartnerships.uta.edu/articles/education/brief-history-of-literacy.aspx

Literacy rates in parts of the United States reached 70% in 1920.

Does not really defend your assertion, since the statistics only began (according to that study) to be measured in the 1940s and only in the US. Moreover, statistics can be made to claim anything, depending on survey sample size and scope and intention of the one providing the survey.

Even if there was a low literacy rate, that in no way invalidates the infallibility of scripture. The infallibility of scripture is not based upon the understanding of the those who read it (or do not read it). Scripture's infallibility comes from the it's perfect source: God, not the reader.

 

[HTacianas]

Does not really defend your assertion, since the statistics only began (according to that study) to be measured in the 1940s and only in the US. Moreover, statistics can be made to claim anything, depending on survey sample size and scope and intention of the one providing the survey.

Even if there was a low literacy rate, that in no way invalidates the infallibility of scripture. The infallibility of scripture is not based upon the understanding of the those who read it (or do not read it). Scripture's infallibility comes from the it's perfect source: God, not the reader.

We are not talking about the infallibility of scripture.

 

[Barney2.0]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Key phrase: "equipped for every good work"

If scripture was fallible it could not be said for "every" good work, but for only "some" good works, leaving us to wonder what "some" good works are. But it does not say that, it says "every" good work.

The word of God and is true, though every man be a liar.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Key phrase: "equipped for every good work"

If scripture was fallible it could not be said for "every" good work, but for only "some" good works, leaving us to wonder what "some" good works are. But it does not say that, it says "every" good work.

The word of God and is true, though every man be a liar.

Equipped for every good work when it is interpreted with Church tradition, equipped with by every great work doesn’t mean scripture alone is sufficient. Keep in mind the key words scripture alone is sufficient is missing from this passage. The context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you haveheard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/whats-your-authority