Biblical Proofs for Sola Scriptura?

August 7, 2014 by  
Filed under Dialogues

 

Sola Scriptura? what are the Biblical proofs for that claim? can we consider the Divine Oral Tradition as also a basis of faith? how about the apostolic tradition since some of the apostles did not write anything?

LikeLike ·  · Share
  • 3 people like this.
  • New Apologetics There is no biblical basis for Sola Scriptura. Furthermore, the idea is directly contrary to scripture:

    “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (2 Thes 2:15)
  • Abet Layug Yes I know that verse and some translations used the term teachings instead of traditions but the Greek paradoseis (παραδόσεις) means traditions. Here St. Paul taught the church at Thessalonica that there are two traditions, the oral tradition and written tradition.
  • Matt Tillman The Catholic Church has an advantage over EVERY other Christian church, simply because ONLY the RCC has claim to Apostolic Succession. Every time a group broke away from the RCC, that splinter group itself also splintered. It’s why there are so many types of denominations while there is still only one RCC.
  • Abet Layug It is now very clear that the Bible alone principle is not Biblical. Even Apostle John stated in his letter “As for you, see that WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father”. (1 John 2:24)
  • Michael Zimmerman Matt: that, in a nutshell, is the reason I became a Catholic. They were the only Church that could claim to be “it”, the guardians and keepers of the ancient faith, not some splinter group acting on its own authority. There is absolutely no Bible verse…See More
  • New Apologetics Michael Zimmerman Are you discerning a vocation to the priesthood?
  • New Apologetics Michael Zimmerman We will be getting to your question on human suffering later today, hopefully.
  • New Apologetics Gareth Northam 
    But what about the fact that scripture teaches the opposite of Sola Scriptura? How is it possible that scripture is the only authority when scripture directly denies this in 2 Thes 2:15 as well as in other places?
  • Linda Boyce 2 Timothy 3:16 that is all
  • Michael Zimmerman Linda: Um… no, that is NOT all. It is true that all of Scripture is useful for the uses and reasons outlined in the verse you provided. But by no means does the verse say – or even imply – that Scripture is the ONLY source of authority. Indeed, what is said two verses beforehand would heavily imply that the Church is also a crucial part of correctly teaching the faith: 2 Tim 3:14 “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it”. Here, Paul is implicitly stating that what is being taught to Timothy is known to be true, not simply because it follows Scripture, but because it proceeds from a known authority. What authority is this? The Church’s, the authority of which proceeds from Christ himself.

    Admins: I’ll take that as a compliment; thank you. At the moment I’m still in the midst of earning my bachelor’s degree, which I would still be doing even if I were called to religious life. It’s a distinct possibility that I will attend seminary at some point afterwards. I guess my current position is that I’m keeping my mind open and haven’t rejected it, but I’d like to hold off before deciding in order to learn more about what God has in mind for my future and my identity. Which, I suppose, is the whole point of discernment in the first place. So in a passive sort of way, I guess you could say I am, or will be soon.
  • New Apologetics Michael Zimmerman Would you mind reposting your unanswered questions about God and human suffering to the timeline? We think the answers to the questions will be helpful to others, and therefore should be put forth in an easily visible way. The post won’t appear immediately, but will appear as soon as an admin is available to approve it.
  • Abet Layug You need to study the context of 2 tim 3:16, which Scripture Paul was referring to.. Is it the whole bible, both the old and new testament or just the old testament (TaNaKh)…. Remember during that time the new testament is not yet in existence. And Pau did not even know that this letter will be included in the 27 books of the new testament.
  • Joseph P Mullins In the study of Bible Theology 2Tim 3:16 , correctivness and training people in all scripture is usefull for the man of God. Remember Jesus taught from the Old Testament, ( which talked about Himself).
  • Abet Layug I have no questions about the usefulness of the scriptures… But I am just dealing with the context of the text…. I think you agree that Paul in his thinking referred to TaNaKh… Therefore it is illogical and out of context to interpret that particular verse that the term scripture referred to the whole Bible including the new testament …
  • Ciel Diaz agree, bible only is not mandatory in 2tim 3:16..
  • New Apologetics Paul Tobin You wrote: “St Paul, when referring to Scripture was pointing to the Old Testament – the only Bible they had in his day. He reminds the faithful to pay close attention to oral instruction and the traditions the Apostles are teaching.”

    We reply: This is true. And let’s not forget that the New Testament records the early Church having the *authority* to declare which aspects of the Old Testament Law were to apply to the Gentiles. It is the first Church Council (Galatians 2, Acts 15) 

    From Wikipedia: “Both the account in Acts and the one in Galatians suggest that the reason the meeting was called was to debate whether or not male Gentiles who were converting to become followers of Jesus were required to become circumcised, presumably in accord with Genesis 17:14, a law from God which according to Genesis 17:13-19 God said would be eternal, and therefore always applicable, see also the Jewish background to the 1st century circumcision controversy and Biblical law in Christianity. However, Circumcision was considered repulsive during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean.”

    The New Testament account of the Council of Jerusalem scripturally proves that God imbued the *Church* with the authority to interpret the scriptures, and to bind and loose. 

    Sola Scriptura is not only not provable scripturally, it is definitively proven false scripturally.
  • Michael Zimmerman I LOVE it when someone tries to use 2 Timothy 3:16 as evidence for Sola Scriptura: on the very same page, I can then show them 2 Timothy 3:14 “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THOSE FROM WHOM YOU LEARNED IT.” In other words, Timothy can rest assured that what he is doing is right, NOT merely because it matches Scripture, but because he knows the authority of those who handed it down to him. Scripture is certainly useful for all the reasons Paul described, but the real authority that Paul makes reference to in this chapter is NOT the Scriptures, but Timothy’s teachers, the Church.
  • Joseph P Mullins There is Written Law and Oral LAW, and of that era , even for thousands of years before, but these laws have been fullfiled . A new concious of righteousness and liberty is here. 1 Corinth 1:5 -1:31
  • Joseph P Mullins 1 Corinth chap.2 This will shed some light.
  • Scott Maddox Biblical “proofs” are not actual proofs.
  • New Apologetics Scott Maddox The people who are discussing whether or not certain truths are provable from scripture are doing so within the model of already taking scripture to be authoritative. Their statements are not directed towards those who do not already share that common ground.