Whence sola scriptura?

[seebs]

Where in the Bible is sola scriptura taught? How is this reconciled with some of the passages which appear to refer to other teachings which may not have been included or written down? What exactly would sola scriptura have meant in 150AD?

 

[II Paradox II]

Where in the Bible is sola scriptura taught? How is this reconciled with some of the passages which appear to refer to other teachings which may not have been included or written down? What exactly would sola scriptura have meant in 150AD?

1) which definition of sola scriptura are you using? I personally find the scriptures as the sole (transcendent too) infallible rule of faith to be the only defensible one. As such, oral teachings are not really an issue. As they can be verified and found not to contradict scripture, they are fine. However, I wouldn't hold anyone's feet to fire over most such "traditions" we know of today.

2) Considering that there was an OT and all of the NT in various forms of completion and acceptance by 150, the people of God would've assented to the teachings of scripture such as they knew them, in addition to the creeds and general mind of the church. Personally, I don't have much respect for Form Criticism when applied to the early church so I don't see as much influence of purely oral tradition then as some do.

3) There are the normal proof texts available, I'm sure you know them. For me, I don't consider the issue so much in a fundamentalist way, such as that one might find a verse glaring at us declaring in modern unequivocal terms the Doctrine Of Sola Scriptura As Declared By Paul. Scriptures are primarily a narrative that we infer truths from. As such, the scriptures as the sole infallible rule of faith seem to me to be a perfectly acceptable and likely inference from the history as we know it.

ken

 

[seebs]

Actually, I guess I don't know the "proof texts". I've seen the Timothy thing that's supposed to get me an infallible text, but I can't find anything that says that the Bible is the only source of true information about God... And if there's other sources, then sola scriptura isn't quite right, so far as I can tell.

Anyway, I'd be very interested in knowing what the "proof texts" are, and how they are interpreted to build the case for sola scriptura. I've never seen this done in detail, and I may have missed something.

 

[InquisitorKind]

Actually, I guess I don't know the "proof texts". I've seen the Timothy thing that's supposed to get me an infallible text, but I can't find anything that says that the Bible is the only source of true information about God... And if there's other sources, then sola scriptura isn't quite right, so far as I can tell.

I don't think II Paradox II means that it's the only rule of faith, but that it's the only infallible rule of faith. He will correct me if I'm wrong.

I think approaching this subject in a different way might help you get a grasp of a key issue. Use a simple process of elimination here. If you accept that the Scriptures are at least one infallible rule of faith binding on the conscience, then test other rules of faith to see if they meet that criteria.

Anyway, I'd be very interested in knowing what the "proof texts" are, and how they are interpreted to build the case for sola scriptura. I've never seen this done in detail, and I may have missed something.

The main proof of Scripture as an infallible and sufficient rule of faith is found in the oft quoted 2 Timothy 3:16-17 text. What in particular would you like to discuss regarding it? A formal exposition might take some time, but I wouldn't mind going through it with you. However, if you'd rather some "professional" opinion on the subject, I have some quotes I could type up on the texts used to support Sola Scriptura.

If you'd like a comprehensive defense of Sola Scriptura, I cannot recommend anything more than the first volume of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, by David King and William Webster. I covers common proof-texts and common misrepresentations and counter-arguments.

~Matt

 

[Katmando]

I've seen the Timothy thing that's supposed to get me an infallible text, but I can't find anything that says that the Bible is the only source of true information about God

Is this the one you are talking about?

2 Timothy 3
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Well I have a couple questions.
What Holy scripture was paul pointing to?
Also what makes Scripture, Scripture?

 

[II Paradox II]

Actually, I guess I don't know the "proof texts".

hmm... ok

1) II timothy 3:14-17
2) 2nd Peter 1:19-21
3) there are others as well that round out the idea...

As I was saying in my previous post though, I am not convinced that finding a proof-text is really the best way to go about it, even though there aome out there. The scripture is primarily a narrative through which we make inferences about correct belief, it is not primarily a list of axioms upon which we build edifices of deduction.

In relation to the question of sola scriptura, as with an issue like the trinity, I think it is better to try to discern the overall direction scripture is headed instead of looking for a perfect proof-text. When you look at the scriptures you see traditions mentioned, sometimes in a bad light sometimes in a good light. You see the scriptures exalted in many places as the standard of faith. You see Jesus rebuking false traditions. You see the Jews recovering true worship when they recover the law. All this being put together, one sees patterns in the biblical record which point out to us how we should interact. That combined with some of the various proof-texts and historical arguments is how the doctrine of sola scriptura is developed.

One other thing, as IK pointed out, we defend the scriptures as the sole infallible rule of faith, not the sole rule of faith.

I've seen the Timothy thing that's supposed to get me an infallible text, but I can't find anything that says that the Bible is the only source of true information about God... And if there's other sources, then sola scriptura isn't quite right, so far as I can tell.

Unless you are being sloppy in your use of language - in which case I'm just going down a rabbit trail - the issue isn't the existence of true information about God in other places, which is not a problem. The issue is over whether those sources are infallible in either their transmission of past revelation, infallible in their pronouncements about faith and morals or infallible in their reception and pronouncement of new public revelation.

Confessional protestants have never had a problem with fallible rules of faith outside the scripture, we have our primary beef with those who claim infallible authority outside of it.

Anyway, I'd be very interested in knowing what the "proof texts" are, and how they are interpreted to build the case for sola scriptura. I've never seen this done in detail, and I may have missed something.

I'd get the books IK mentioned (at least the first book in the series as it deals with this question). As they are written for lay-people, they aren't too hard to read. At the very least, it'll get you a general overview of the issues at hand. I'd do it myself, but I don't have that much time, nor is biblical exegesis my specialty.

 

[seebs]

The main proof of Scripture as an infallible and sufficient rule of faith is found in the oft quoted 2 Timothy 3:16-17 text. What in particular would you like to discuss regarding it?

I see nothing at all in it that says it's sufficient; that would be my big problem with interpreting it that way.

If you'd like a comprehensive defense of Sola Scriptura, I cannot recommend anything more than the first volume of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, by David King and William Webster. I covers common proof-texts and common misrepresentations and counter-arguments.

I might have to track it down.

 

[orthedoxy]

Would you say your statement "it's the only infallible source for truth” is scriptural?

 

[jbarcher]

Is it not a logical extention of the supposedly God-inspired text? That is, if the Bible is indeed God-inspired; infallable, then what is the problem [if one is raised] in saying that it is 'scriptural'?

 

[II Paradox II]

Would you say your statement "it's the only infallible source for truth” is scriptural?

I think you are addressing me, so if you're not, disregard these comments:

1) No, I don't think it is formally "scriptural" in the same way a statement like "God hardens some people's hearts" is. I think it is a valid inference from scripture, built from various strands of data we have. That being said, though, it's not just a restatement of biblical language, a tautology.

To adopt something an aquaintence of mine has said, the phrases "the scriptures teach sola scriptura" and "no scripture teaches sola scriptura" are not contradictory. One says that you will find no one verse that teaches sola scriptura as we know it, while the other that the totality of scriptural teaching does infer the doctrine.

2) Why is this is a problem from your point of view?

ken

 

[BBAS 64]

I don't think II Paradox II means that it's the only rule of faith, but that it's the only infallible rule of faith. He will correct me if I'm wrong.

I think approaching this subject in a different way might help you get a grasp of a key issue. Use a simple process of elimination here. If you accept that the Scriptures are at least one infallible rule of faith binding on the conscience, then test other rules of faith to see if they meet that criteria.


The main proof of Scripture as an infallible and sufficient rule of faith is found in the oft quoted 2 Timothy 3:16-17 text. What in particular would you like to discuss regarding it? A formal exposition might take some time, but I wouldn't mind going through it with you. However, if you'd rather some "professional" opinion on the subject, I have some quotes I could type up on the texts used to support Sola Scriptura.

If you'd like a comprehensive defense of Sola Scriptura, I cannot recommend anything more than the first volume of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, by David King and William Webster. I covers common proof-texts and common misrepresentations and counter-arguments.

~Matt

Good Day, Matt

Have you read all 3 volumes of that set? I understand that it is a response to a work done some 3 yrs ago, Did you read that first?


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[HiredGoon]

Read The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison.

 

[BBAS 64]

Read The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison.

Good Day, HG

The reviews were some what mixed on this book, what was your take?

BBAS

 

[InquisitorKind]

Have you read all 3 volumes of that set? I understand that it is a response to a work done some 3 yrs ago, Did you read that first?

Hi Bill,

I've read some of the first, more of the third, and only a chapter of the second. My reading has been sporadic because the volumes, at least in my opinion, allow for that type of reading. I don't know to which work this was specifically in response, but a number of Roman Catholic apologetic works were cited throughout it. I suspect that Not by Scripture Alone was a main target, although you could ask the people at NTRMin.org yourself at their ez-board.

I've read at least one of the Roman Catholic works quoted in the first volume of the King/Webster set, but given it's insignificance in the volume and in the apologetic world, I doubt King and Webster were directing their work at it.

~Matt

 

[orthedoxy]

Ken
2tim 3:16-17 doesn't say anything about being the only source of infallibility it only says that the bible is infallible and it equips for good work nowhere does it say it’s the only source for our teachings would you agree? How do you get “it's the only infallible source for truth” from this verse?
If Sola Scriptura is not taught in the bible it’s like teaching purgatory with no Bible support.
How do you explain this verse? It seems like it’s teaching sola church 1 Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth

 

[II Paradox II]

2tim 3:16-17 doesn't say anything about being the only source of infallibility it only says that the bible is infallible and it equips for good work nowhere does it say it’s the only source for our teachings would you agree? How do you get “it's the only infallible source for truth” from this verse?

simple answer - I don't get that idea solely from this verse. As I was saying to others, I don't treat the bible as a set of axioms from which I can deduce incontrovertible proofs for my pet doctrines (this is not to say there anen't' such axioms there, but they don't comprise the whole of scripture). It is primarily a narrative from which we infer doctrines over the course of the entire scripture. That being said, the passage in 2nd Timothy is one piece of evidence that is used to develop the idea, but it is not sufficient in itself to do so.

If Sola Scriptura is not taught in the bible it’s like teaching purgatory with no Bible support.

I do think it's taught in the bible, just not the way you are thinking it's taught in the bible. There clearly is a place for tradition in the church, we just disagree on *what* it's role is as compared to scripture.

How do you explain this verse? It seems like it’s teaching sola church 1 Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth

Let me ask you this, what is the immediate preceding context of 1st Timothy 3:15? The entire letter is focused around the purity of the church, making sure ATimothy understands how the church is to be run in discipline, teaching, order and so forth. In this context he states offhand, "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." The point of this aside is to illustrate the necessity of these things to the authentic witness of the church such that it can be, as Jesus says, the city on the hill. His point is that the things he lays out in the rest of the epistle are necessary for the correct function of the church, which is God's mouthpiece to a lost world. It's not teaching a form of church-onlyism as that wuold go against the very words of 4:13, "Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching." Words which emplore Timothy to keep up with the public reading of the word, teaching and exhorting from it (as was the tradition of the Jews before him).

ken

 

[theseed]

Is there a difference between "pillar of truth" and "the truth"?

 

[A. believer]

What exactly would sola scriptura have meant in 150AD?

Here's what it meant to Irenaeus in the mid to late second century.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1)
​

 

[Godzman]

Where in the Bible is sola scriptura taught? How is this reconciled with some of the passages which appear to refer to other teachings which may not have been included or written down? What exactly would sola scriptura have meant in 150AD?

sola God's word

 

[racer]

Is there a difference between "pillar of truth" and "the truth"?

theseed,

Good question, and I believe the answer is "yes."

To be the pillar of truth (to me) means that the Church supports the truth and adheres to it. This does not mean that the Church has the power or authority to define exactly what the "truth" is.