Is Sola Scriptura scriptual?

[gordo]

Hi guys. I have gotten into some discussions lately over whether Sola Scriptura is scriptural. I was directed to the case of Scott Hahn who was a Calvinist, anti-Catholic, minister who became Catholic after many years of struggle he found the Bible didn't support Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. Anyways curious to see if the Bible does support it (Sola Scriptura) but just can't seem to find any scripture that actually says that. Is Sola Scriptura an act of faith all in its own? Really struggling right now with this.

Thanks!

PS. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum.

 

[Poimen]

The first thing we need to do is define the doctrine especially when people attack a straw man (something that is a cariacture of what we actually believe). This often happens with the doctrine of sola scriptura. So the best way to define the doctrine is through our confessions which are the faithful representation of our doctrines. So I encourage you to begin with Belgic Confession Article 7 & Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1. Study these documents and make certain you not only understand what they are saying but also look up the scripture proofs that accompany them.

And, in answer to your question, yes sola scriptura is an act of faith as every doctrine requires faith but it is found in scripture which grounds the doctrine in God's objective revelation. In other words, God has declared in His Word that His Word is sufficient for matters of faith and worship, and we respond to that declaration in faith with "Amen".

 

[gordo]

Good reply Rev. Daniel. Much appreciated. I will take a look at your suggested readings from the confessions. Thanks!

 

[Reformedfellow]

And also to the Word of God itself.
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, that the man of God may be COMPLETE, equipped for EVERY good work" (caps mine)
If you have a refernece bible this scripture will carry you on to others.

Keep in mind also that Jesus Himself is called "The Word of God" (Revelation 1:2, 3:14, 19:13) (See also John 1:1 "In the begining was the Word"..)
Hebrews also tells us that in the PAST God spoke through His prophets (both physically, and also in the words that were written down) but in these last days He has spoken to us IN HIS SON (who is the Word of God) Hebrews 1:1-2

Jesus words to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:6 are also an eerie warning to Catholics, who hold their useless traditions above the Word of God, when He says "..for the sake of your tradition you have MADE VOID the word of God" (caps mine) {see our Lord's warning also in Mark 7:6-7, quoting Isaiah He says "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men}

Brother, all we HAVE is the Word of God. Everytime your Pastor stands up to preach, apart from the Word of God he has NOTHING to bring, and NOTHING to say. Everyting must be weighed against scripture, and if it disagrees with scripture it is to be utterly abhored.

I hope you become strengthened dear brother.

---------- Post added at 01:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 AM ----------

...and as for Scott Hahn, do not be discouraged by apostates and defectors. But be warned by their falling away. It would have been better for him to never have been exposed to the words of life and truth than to hear them, embrace them and then reject them.
The apostle John speaks of such when he says; "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, THEY WOULD HAVE CONTINUED with us. But they went out, THAT IT MIGHT BECOME PLAIN that they all are not of us."
1 John 2:19 {caps mine}

 

[forgivenmuch]

I agree with Daniel that it depends on what is implied by "Scripture alone." Of course, Scripture alone is sufficient to guide us into faith and for all practice. It is all we need in that sense. Yet, even Calvin and other reformers revered church councils (and certain traditions) and their contributions.

 

[rbcbob]

Is Sola Scriptura scriptual?

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[Reformedfellow]

Is Sola Scriptura scriptual?

May we also add that: "So FAITH COMES BY HEARING, and HEARING THROUGH THE WORD OF Christ" {Romans 10:17}
It is "scripture alone" that God uses in bringing about saving faith (and it's uses are also listed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17) so scripture alone is the sufficient means, the necessary means, and the God given, and God prescribed means.

There is value in the writings of learned theologians, in the written confessions, and so on. But if all else was taken away, the scriptures ALONE are all that is needed, sufficient, and necessary.
If we were to reverse this and TAKE AWAY God's Word and be left with a "confession" or a theological work, we would be tragically and surely doomed. For the scriptures ALONE are God breathed, and (because they alone are God breathed) they are INFALLIBLE.

 

[gordo]

Thanks guys for your responses. Helped greatly. I will continue to meditate on the scriptures and pray on this. It has been a weird few weeks.

 

[J. Dean]

Three things:

1.) If one does not believe in Scripture alone, then by what standard do you judge something to be in accordance with Biblical doctrine? The Catholic Church condemns itself in that it supercedes plain Biblical doctrine through its own traditions, papal bulls, and doctrinal statements (and whether the charismatic movement means to or not, they open a door to this error as well through "God told me..." statements)

2.) We should not be shaken when we see those who seem stalwart in the faith fall into error like this. If anything, it's a reminder to me that I'm fully capable of being deceived and should never take confidence in my own intellect or abilities.

3.) If you want to have a little fun with Scott Hahn, bring up Luther. It's like holding a crucifix up to a vampire.

 

[Tim]

Can someone more knowledgeable than I please describe the difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. I understand that there is a crucial difference, but I can't remember how to best articulate it.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I believe "solo" is a reference to "me and my bible alone" as in all you need to be a successful christian is scriptures (no church, no teaching, no fellowship etc. are required). "Sola" means scriptures are the only source of authority to define doctrine and practices therefore, as an example, if scriptures tells you to submit to the care of elders and teachers it can be determined that to have a healthy christian walk you require such things.

 

[rbcbob]

the difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and Apostolic Succession: A Response to Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch (by Keith Mathison) [Guest Post]

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Tim:

Keith Mathison, in The Shape of Sola Scriptura speaks about this distinction, Tim.

Picking up from the Medieval/ Reformation scholar Heiko Oberman, Mathison distinguished Tradition I, II, and III. Suffice it to say that what was meant by "tradition" in the ancient church (Tradition I), simply meant the way that the church read the Scriptures, embodied especially in the creeds and the conciliar decisions. Tradition II and III involved placing tradition alongside of Scripture, or reading Scripture through tradition, including the secret teachings of Christ to the Apostles and that which was passed down by, through, and in the Magisterium, which was seen ultimately as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, placing the Church over the Scriptures.

Tradtion 0, or solo scriptura, was something adduced by Mathison to explain the attitude of the Anabaptists, adopted by evangelicalism ultimately, in which the Scriptures are the sole source consulted. Sola scriptura does not mean that we use nothing but the Bible. Rather, it means that we believe the Bible alone to be infallible and the creeds, conciliar decisions, and confessions and catechisms to be subordinate to it, Scripture being the norming norm and confessions the normed norm.

Solo scriptura is the posture of those who proclaim, "No book but the Bible, no creed but Christ." Solo Scriptura means that we regard nothing but the Bible in the formulation of our doctrine, dismissing the creeds and confessions of the church.

Peace,
Alan

 

[CharlieJ]

There isn't. Keith Mathison came up with the term solo scriptura to mean the sheer biblicist position in which everything other than the Bible is rejected. But, it's kind of nonsense Latin. Solo is a masculine ablative, whereas sola is a feminine ablative; so, there's no change in meaning, but you've messed up the gender.

 

[gordo]

Solo scriptura is the posture of those who proclaim, "No book but the Bible, no creed but Christ." Solo Scriptura means that we regard nothing but the Bible in the formulation of our doctrine, dismissing the creeds and confessions of the church.

Sounds dangerous.

 

[Hilasmos]

Going back to the 2 Tim. passage quoted above, I have found condensing a large issue into some solid bits to stand on is helpful. I have known this passage and heard it quoted a million times, but it never struck me as much as when i connected the dots...

1. Scripture teaches that scripture sufficiently equips the man of God for every good work

2. Teaching comprehensive sound doctrine is a good work

3. [Therefore] scripture sufficientily equips the man of God to teach a comprehensively sound doctrine

4. A comprehensively sound doctrine will include all knowledge necessary for holiness and salvation; and, it will lack no doctrine that ought to be confessed or believed.

5. [Therefore] Any theological teaching, if it promotes holiness, slavation, true doctrine, and it ought to be believed, will be found in scripture.

6. Anti-sola scriptura views say scripture alone is not sufficient for all matters of holiness, salvation, and doctrine

7. [Therefore] scripture teaches sola scriptura


Or something like that.

 

[MW]

Is Sola Scriptura an act of faith all in its own?

Others have answered the main issue very well. On this subordinate point, it is important to stress that an unbeliever can believe that holy Scripture is the only rule of faith and life. He can believe it as an article of the Christian faith even when he does not have genuine saving faith. This has sometimes been called "historical faith." The objective truth of the Christian faith is necessary to maintain contrary to those who teach that Scripture "becomes" the word of God through faith-encounter.

 

[Reformedfellow]

If you want to have a little fun with Scott Hahn, bring up Luther. It's like holding a crucifix up to a vampire.

I don't know anything at all about this man, but this is something I'd like to see.

View attachment 2741

 

[dudley]

the difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and Apostolic Succession: A Response to Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch (by Keith Mathison) [Guest Post]

Thank you for Thoughts of Francis Turretin by Keith Mathison. Excellent thesis. It proves that Christ did not appoint Peter to be the visible head of the whole Church and give him jurisdictional primacy The only Person spoken of in Scripture as the Head of the Church is Jesus (Eph. 1:22; 5:23; Col. 1:18). Peter is never spoken of as the head of the Church, either before or after the resurrection and ascension of Christ. The Church is the body of Christ. It is not the body of Peter; it is not the body of the Pope; and it is not the body of the Pope and Christ. The Church is not polycephalous. It does not have more than one head. Christ, as the one Head of the Church, continues to exercise His headship even after His ascension. the basis for Protestantism, the reason the Reformers were forced to separate from the local church of Rome was due to Rome’s rejection of Jesus Christ and the Apostolic faith and life. The Magisterium of Rome, not the Protestants, rejected the true Catholic Church.

Thank you for sharing this excellent paper.

 

[Wayne]

And just to head this off at the pass, be careful of what may be claimed of Scott Hahn.
He was never an ordained minister in any of the recognized denominations. Not the OPC, not the PCA, not the RPCNA, not the ARP, etc. You get the idea.
Rather, his claimed Presbyterian ordination turns out to have been performed by two ruling elders in a single independent church in Virginia.

 

[louis_jp]

The burden of proof is on those who reject sola scriptura. We all agree that the bible is the word of God. The question then is whether there is *another* word of God out there. If RC's want to assert that there is, then they need to prove it. But once they attempt to do so, it becomes apparent that any objections they have to sola scriptura apply with equal force to their own position. If we need an infallible interpreter to interpret scripture, then we need an infallible interpreter to interpret the infallible interpreter, and so on and so forth. And one cannot believe in an infallible interpreter in the first place, without either looking to some other authority or accepting it up front on faith. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors in RC apologetics.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And just to head this off at the pass, be careful of what may be claimed of Scott Hahn.
He was never an ordained minister in any of the recognized denominations. Not the OPC, not the PCA, not the RPCNA, not the ARP, etc. You get the idea.
Rather, his claimed Presbyterian ordination turns out to have been performed by two ruling elders in a single independent church in Virginia.

More on Mr. Hahn:

Reasonable Christian: The Lost Soul of Scott Hahn: Another Reconstructionist Converted to Rome

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/apologists/Scott_Hahn_by_Miles_McKee.pdf

The Vatican Bank

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'd like to share with you a study of the word WORD that was assigned to me as a Seminary class. It answers the question obliquely. The things we know about God's Revelation are often inferred from what He has revealed and, when you study how God's word is used throughout the Scriptures then a clear picture emerges: God's Words do not fall to the ground! Indeed, any myth that the Jews lived by oral tradition is destroyed by the internal testimony of the Word where Moses, Samuel, and the prophets are loathe to withhold anything from the people of God that the Lord has revealed to them.

Here's the paper:


A study of the word WORD immediately stunned me with the number of verses in the Old and New Testaments that utilize this word. Equally interesting was the number of Greek and Hebrew Words that translate into word revealing the semantic range of our English term. I’m not qualified to study the etymology of the term nor is this the assigned task but I will attempt to group the basic sets of verses into broad categories of use throughout the Scriptures and give explanation to how the Scriptures communicate propositions relating to the use of this word throughout the Scriptures.

2 Sam 11:6 – “So David sent word to Joab, ‘Send me Uriah the Hittite.’ And Joab sent Uriah to David”. Compare with Gen 38:25, Exod 18:6, 2 Sam 14:32, 2 Sam 19:14, 1 Ki 5:2, 1 Ki 21:11, 2 Ki 3:7, 2 Ki 5:7, Matt 2:8, Matt 11:2, Matt 27:19, Acts 13:48. This use of the term word communicates the idea of sending a message or announcing something. It is common for people, even today, to ask “What’s the word about what the Commander decided?” In other words, people use the term word to denote that a message contains some sort of thought or intent.

As one meditates on the idea of word as a message or announcement, or news, one is drawn to the idea contained in Romans 10:15: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” In the original context (and even in Romans) the notion is of a messenger who bears a message of victory. The Gospel itself is an announcement or message at its most basic level – Christ has died once for all for Sin and has risen to grant eternal life to all who trust in Him!

Joshua 24:27: “Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the Lord that He spoke to us.” (compare with Num 24:4, Job 6:10, Job 23:12, Psalm 138:4, Matt 7:24,26, Mark 8:38) This usage has an extraordinary complement to the use of the term with reference to the words that proceed from men’s mouths. Psalm 19:14: “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.” (See also Prov 19:7, Job 22:22). It is remarkable to consider that the Scriptures speak of consideration of everything that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord. Everything. The idea here, with reference to God and men, is that words communicate something to the world. Without words we cannot know another’s thoughts and intentions. We would be isolated within ourselves unless we could somehow come to know somebody outside of ourselves and words serve that purpose.

With men, and in our fallen condition, we are accustomed to discounting or ignoring certain things. We don’t hang on every word a person says because men prove to be hurtful or selfish or deceitful with their words. Even those we love sometimes wound us with their words. James exhorts us in Chapter 3 of his Epistle to master the tongue because we stain our whole person or destroy others by the things we say. Our very reputation is set by the words we use and how we use them to either build up others in love or selfishly tear down or even carelessly ignore others with our words. It is a penetrating judgment upon us, indeed, when we’re asking God that the words of our mouth be pleasing in His sight because the words of our mouth often reveal wickedness.

In stark contrast, every single word that comes out of the mouth of the Lord is good and holy and just because it reveals the character of a God who is self-same. It is worthy of doxology to consider that, as much as God speaks, He is worthy of us to hang on every single word. None of it is idle. None speculative. None selfish. All glorifies Him and is for the good of His own. His statutes, His ordinances, His precepts, His announcements, and His judgments are all worthy of our study for, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we are increasingly able to understand and know the God who spoke these words. In knowing Him in increasing measure we are transformed and saved by His words because, if we are able to love His words by grace, we will be transformed by them by His grace.

Genesis 15:1 “The word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: ‘Fear not, Abram, I am your shiled; your reward shall be great.” (Compare with Gen 15:4, 1 Sam 15:10, 2 Sam 7:4, 2 Sam 24:11, 1 Ki 6:11, Isa 38:4, Jer 1:4) This is a remarkable phrase in the Scriptures not only for its frequency (found over 100 times) but because every case of its use is to portend prophecy. It is primarily said of those in the Prophetic office but includes Patriarchs, Kings, and even scoundrels. God sent His prophetic Word to both the willing and the unwilling. It is remarkable, in fact, how compelling this prophetic word is where Jeremiah complains of being overcome by the Lord and Jonah flees to escape the truth that God gave Him.

The word of the Lord coming to a person in the Scriptures is always followed by a revelation of what that word was. In other words, it simply was not possible for the word to come to a person and that word be kept hidden from communicating it to all. This fact destroys the foundation of all sects that claim hidden truth for, when God’s word comes to a man, His Church is told. The prophet, even when it will cost him life and limb, is unable to bottle up what the Lord has brought to Him.

This notion of the word coming also signifies a personifying of the word of the Lord. It is not simply the receipt of some mechanical text or propositions but there is something living and active in them. Indeed, as Heb 4:12 reveals, this living and active word penetrates and is sharper than any two-edged sword and when it comes to the prophet it must be wielded.

Finally, these texts are also noteworthy because this coming of the word of the Lord never reveals that those used by the Lord for this purpose are “taken over” by the word but the Lord breathes out His word to them (2 Tim 3:16) and they retain their individual culture and personality and do not become mere channels for a divine speaker but the Spirit superintends their prophetic utterances.

Matt 8:16 “That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.” (See also Dan 2:5, Matt 8:8, Luke 7:7, 2 Pe 3:7) Both in the context of the rulers of this world and with the Lord, this use of the term connotes power and authority. The Centurion in Matthew 8 was a man of authority and, by his word, could order men into battle. Likewise, he has such faith in Christ, that He knows that by the mere speaking of a word, Christ can heal – that He has power over life and death. In a frightening maelstrom, the disciples of Christ were on the Sea of Galilee and were terrified by Christ’s power when He calmed the sea by His uttering of authority over creation. Christ heals men of demons simply by commanding it. God created the world in 6 days, and all very good, by speaking it into existence. His word not only creates reality but it is reality and organizes all of creation and then re-orders creation in His word of curse in Genesis 3.

Indeed, it is impossible to separate God from His word in all ways. It is not possible to abstract the word of God into mere sentences and paragraphs in some ancient text. The words pulse with life. They pulse with authority. The word so personifies who God is that in the first chapter of John the Word is identified with the second person of the Trinity.

Thus, even as God Himself is indivisible, so His word cannot be separated from Him. The word announced is not merely an interesting bit of news but it represents Who it is that is being announced when the Gospel goes forth. Because it is the word of God it speaks truth about His holy character and demands everything of us as His penetrating gaze sees to the very core of our being, which He created by His word. Because it is His word it compels us and, under His sovereign gaze, we are either regenerated and renewed by it or we are confirmed in our rebellion when we ignore or disobey it.

Indeed, I know Him, am commanded by Him, am transformed by Him, am compelled by Him, and come into fellowship with Him by His word. Glory be to God!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Here are some Q&A's based on The Infallible Word

The Attestation of Scripture

How does the Scripture claim inerrancy for itself?

We should let the Scriptures speak for themselves and not presuppose at the outset that human agency necessitates errancy and fallibility.[1] If we state this then even those theories that state that spiritual truth exists inside the husks of myth and error have to abandon their theories for if human agency is incapable of transmitting truth inerrantly then it is no less true for the spiritual kernels than it is for the other truths in the Scriptures.

We must admit that the fact that the reader may be unable to resolve apparent discrepancies. To be inerrant or infallible does not imply that the Scriptures testify that everything within them is likewise plain to all. Faith is not inconsistent with unresolved questions.[2] In fact, Christ is pleased to heal the epileptic even after his father admits to a less than perfect understanding of who Christ is (Mark 9:24)

Thus, the question is whether the Scriptures claim inerrancy for themselves and, if so, we have no higher testimony to appeal to in order to contradict or affirm the truth of the very Word of God.

First, there is negative evidence. That is to say that the Scriptures are not seen to be casting doubt on themselves throughout. [3] There are no examples where a later prophet comes on the scene to state that previous portions of the Scripture are in error but the previous is received as authoritative. Even as the Scriptures expose the sinfulness of some of its historical characters (patriarchs, judges, kings, priests, and prophets) it is a testimony to its honesty and authenticity and not to its fallibility.

The Scriptures recognize that certain ceremonies and regulations had a temporary nature and their abrogation in the New Testament is part of the progressive intent and character of the Word of God and never represented as a correction to former misunderstandings. Paul, in Galatians 3, labors to demonstrate that the Judaizing heresy is as much a corruption of Moses and Abraham as it is a corruption of Christianity that represented the mature flower of the former.

Positively, the first evidence of inerrancy is the unequivocal expression throughout the Old Testament of divine origin. The expression “Thus saith the Lord” appears throughout. The Prophets of the Old Testament repeatedly look back at the Pentateuch and appeal to their divine origin as the basis of their authority as well as the divine origin of their own office as explanation to the authority of their own words.

Next, we have the testimony of the authors and speakers of the New Testament as to the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures. First among these is Jesus himself. Christ, in Matthew 5:17, speaks of the “Law and the Prophets” as an authoritative and God-breathed unit that He (the Son of God) did not come to destroy but to fulfill. If Christ is the Son of God then He surely has knowledge of errors of the corpus of the Old Testament Scriptures and could have redacted the portions that He knew to be in error. As it is, He accepts the entire Canon and states that He comes to fulfill them. Christ even underlines the point by noting that not even a “jot” of Scripture will be overthrown by Him.[4]

Elsewhere, throughout the Gospels, we read of Christ appealing to the Scriptures in His disputations with the Scribes and Pharisees in contra-distinction to their appeal to human authorities. In fact, it is their appeal to other authorities over the Scriptures that He condemns most strongly. “It is written” pervades the speech of our Lord.

Throughout the New Testament, we find the same confidence in the Word of God to establish the truth of Christ’s ministry. It is what the apostle Peter appeals to when he announces Christ at Pentecost. It is what Stephen condemns the Sanhedrin with at his martyrdom, and throughout the Epistles we find Paul and the other Apostles appealing to the inerrant authoritative Word of God in all its parts culminating in the unequivocal statement of 2 Tim 3:16 that all scripture is breathed out by God.

2 Peter 1:20,21 deals decisively with the issue that human authorship would destroy the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures due to the fallibility of the authors. Negatively, he denies that the Scriptures come about by human initiation, volition, or determination. Positively, he affirms human instrumentality (“Men spake from God”).[5] Both human and divine agency are seen to be complementary. The Spirit took up human agents in such a way that they spoke God’s words and not their own.[6]

Due to the fact that the New Testament testifies regularly of the authority and inspired character of the Old Testament Scriptures, it is natural that there would be much more data to corroborate the inerrancy of the Old Testament on the basis of the New Testament’s witness. There is obviously less direct evidence to corroborate the New Testament but the organic unity of the whole can be seen to be an evidence of the New Testament’s authority.[7] That is to say that the New Testament bears witness to itself that it is the fulfillment of the Old and fulfills perfectly the expectations and theology of the Old Testament as they foretold of Christ and the New Covenant.

We also see the express exercise of Apostolic authority throughout as the Apostles are given authoritative office by Christ Himself to speak for Him. Thus, we see Paul in Galatians 1 establishing His apostolic credentials as coming from Christ Himself and the Church being under obligation to heed His instruction as being a matter of eternal life or damnation if they do not heed His instruction (Gal 1:8,9). Paul, and the other Apostles, speak frequently of their Spirit-taught words as a plenary body that the disciples after them must keep fast and teach to others.[8]

How are the Scriptures self-authenticating?

This is in reference to the issue of authority. It is common for men to erroneously assume there is an “objective” standard that stands apart from men and God and can be used to arbitrate between the two. Thus, men arrogantly ascribe to themselves the ability to “scientifically” evaluate the authenticity of Scripture on the basis of any authority as long as it is not Scripture itself.

The Scriptures, however, contain God-breathed Words. Scripture is not judged by man but, rather, judges and exposes man in his innermost parts (Heb 4:12). There is, therefore, no outside standard, either in man or in nature apart from God, that can be brought forward as an authority that can stand above the Scriptures and authenticate the Scriptures for to admit such would be to admit that God is in need of His creatures and turns the universe on its head.

What is the internal testimony?

First, it must be understood that the Scriptures are of divine origin and authority as previously ascribed. The truth of that matter is established outside of us because God is and has acted in human history. The inspired and God-breathed nature of the Scriptures make them authoritative without our help.

The issue, however, is that the Scriptures have to be received by us if we are to believe that they are the Word of God. The Word provides many excellent testimonies of itself that can be measured historically and rationally as the Westminster Standards note: the majesty of the style, the consent of its parts, and the very statements within the Scriptures that God has breathed it out.

All of these external evidences notwithstanding, our reason cannot lift us up to the kind of faith that we need to receive and rest upon the Word of God – that kind of evidence upon which faith will rest must have a divine origin. Only evidence that has the quality of divinity is sufficient to ground faith in divinity.[9]
In spite of all the excellencies and divine evidences of Scripture, man’s fallen mind is unable to have fruition in these evidences. 1 Cor 2:14 testifies that natural man cannot receive spiritual things and, just as we need the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, to see the Kingdom of God, we need the Spirit to testify to us of the Truth of the Scriptures.

In summary, the truth of the Scriptures is manifest from the evidence that abounds to us but, in our fallen state, we are blind and suppress this evidence. The Holy Spirit overcomes us and renews our minds and testifies to us that the Word is true and to be trusted in with an evangelical faith.

How is illumination different from inspiration?

Inspiration speaks to the God-breathed nature of the Scriptures as discussed above. The Spirit, working with human agency, directed the minds of the writers of Scripture so that they are infallible and inerrant and speak forth the very Word of God.

Illumination is the work of the Holy Spirit upon the minds of believers as they read and hear the Scriptures to give them spiritual understanding of them.
In the temptation of Christ, Satan could parrot the Word of God but could not understand them or give appropriate spiritual explanation to them. Heretics do the same.

We do not come to the Scriptures with unassisted reason, even as believers, but the Holy Spirit works with the Word to illumine our hearts and minds that we might be properly trained, reproved, disciplined, and taught by the Scriptures and built up to the perfect man in Christ Jesus.


The Authority of the Old Testament

What is meant by the term canonical?
Canonical refers to those Books which are inspired by God and together form the Holy Sciptures. They are those writings which constitute the inspired rule for faith and life to be distinguished simply from the writings of men. If a book has been inspired by God, it is canonical in itself, and not because a Church court granted it canonical status.[10] The Church receives the Canon but does not create it. God alone determines and identifies what it is that proceeds from His mouth.

Why did some scholars believe the books of Moses were canonized in the time of King Josiah?

The vain imaginations of unstable men have inferred from the loss of the Scriptures and the re-discovery of them during the reign of Josiah actually records a new discovery of the Law, recognized it as the word of Jehovah and canonized it at that time. This book, as the theory goes, is Deuteronomy. [11]

How is this view in error?

First, Christ attested to Mosaic authorship of these books. Second, it appears from the account itself, that much more than merely the Book of Deuteronomy was found. Third, the theorist has a low view of Scripture assuming that previous accounts were merely accepted as human writings and then later adopted as canonical by the fiat of men. It assumes men would accept the insertion of non-Canonical legislation into a Book they considered canonical and presents a monstrous view of devout men. Finally, it would make the unknown authors of the work “discovered” a fraud passing itself off as an ancient work when, in fact, it was contemporary and manufactured to be “discovered” and received as a historical record of God’s inspiration.


The Authority of the New Testament

How did the New Testament recognize the authority of the Old Testament?

There is one authority that speaks forth form the New Testament and that is the Lord, Jesus Christ. [12] Our Lord spoke with authority, not as the Scribes and testified of His authority by the miracles He wrought – especially establishing His status by raising from the dead. He repeatedly testified to the Old Testament as the Word of God.
Very briefly, how did the church attest to the authority of the New Testament?

First, Christianity began and continued as a religion of a divine Book, as a religion of authority which definitely acknowledged the Bible as an objective expression of God Himself.[4] Modern scholarship starts with the assumption that Christianity began as a religion and then collected writings to justify its religious experience but, from the beginning, the Church worshipped Divine Persons that it believed had inspired not only the Old Testament but the New Testament no less.

Next, the Church affirmed the Deity of Christ and, as such, His Words were “God breathed” and, by definition, Scripture. This authority extends no less to those that the Lord Himself endowed with authority to be His Apostles in the establishment of the Church of the New Covenant. An Apostle is one who spoke for Christ on the basis of His commission.

Undergirding this is the fact that Christ “fit” within redemptive history as the expected Messiah that the Old Testament Scriptures testify to. He was not a timeless principle or idea but the historical, long-awaited Messiah and His story and the Church He established find a place along the line of God’s revelation of the salvation of mankind.

Indeed, without the Lord and Messiah Jesus Christ coming into divine history, Revelation of God would remain obscured and hidden in shadows. It was necessary that Christ come in History to make known the Godhead and to provide for a means for our union with the Godhead in Jesus Christ.

Returning to apostleship, the early Church considered apostolic authority to be the very foundation of the Church as the Scriptures testify. The Church’s major creeds testify that the doctrine of the Church is either apostolic or it is not Christian. The Church recognized that, in Apostolic teaching was contained the authority to speak on behalf of Christ and that the Holy Spirit moved these men even as He had moved Prophets in the Old Testament to testify of Divine Truth. The Apostles, themselves, in the transmission of Divine Authority repeatedly appealed to their authority as coming from Christ Himself.

Within the early Church, I Clement displays a reverence for the New Testament. There is recognition of the Lord’s authority and that it was mediated by the Apostles. The understanding of the authority of the Apostles was bound to make their explication of the Old Testament Scriptures themselves and inevitable part of Revelation. Later, Ignatius letters display a great reliance upon the New Testament in his letters. At one point, Ignatius refers to the Gospels as the “…perfection of incorruption (Philadephians 9:2), demonstrating their fulfillment of the Old Testament. He testifies that the New Testament can stand apart from the Old as inherently authoritative in themselves. Next, Papias Hierapolis called the New Testament the oracles of God in the early to mid second century. Next, Justin Martyr in the sixth decade of the second century recognized the new era of divine revelation. He notes that the memoirs of the apostles are read during Christian worship along with the Old Testament Scriptures. Later struggles against Gnosticism and heretical groups helped the Church more clearly recognizes the nature of the New Testament Scriptures by the end of the second century.

---

[1] Stonehouse and Woolley, The Infallible Word, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1967, p. 3.
[2] Ibid, p. 8
[3] Ibid, p. 11
[4] Ibid, p.22
[5] Ibid, p. 32
[6] Ibid, p. 32
[7] Ibid, p. 34
[8] Ibid, p. 40.
[9] Ibid, p. 47
[10] Ibid, p. 62.

[11] Ibid, p. 78.

[12] Ibid, p 108.

[13] Ibid, p 107.

 

[Reformedfellow]

All of that in short:

"But he {Jesus} answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
-Matthew 4:4 & Luke 4:4-

Jesus (who is called the Word of God), quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, giving self authenticating proof for you brother for Sola Scriptura. Anything that contradicts this is to be rejected, and anything that goes beyond this is not needed.

 

[Mathetes]

It's always amusing to cite Mark 7:5-13 and Matthew 15:1-9 to Catholics to show them that tradition is subject to Scripture, then they respond that these only apply to pharasaic traditions. Yes, it's bad for Pharisees to do it but A-OK for Catholics to do the same thing. Way to miss the point!

 

[Reformedfellow]

I was directed to the case of Scott Hahn who was a Calvinist, anti-Catholic, minister who became Catholic after many years of struggle he found the Bible didn't support Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. Anyways curious to see if the Bible does support it (Sola Scriptura) but just can't seem to find any scripture that actually says that.

Gord,
I think also, as far as your personal struggle goes with the doubts your roman catholic friends have influenced in you, that you have inadvertently answered your own question in the very way you asked it. Is Sola Scriptura scriptural? You seem to be in the position already to reject something if it cannot be found in scripture, and so acknowledging the very premise that scripture alone is all that is needed, and necessary. (something Hahn tragically, and ironically, failed to see about himself it seems)

Scripture, as was shown by many answers to your post is self-authenticating. Jesus quoted scripture. Peter akined the writings of Paul to be scripture {2Peter 3:16} and Paul, admonishing Timothy, declared the "sacred writings" able to make you wise for salvation, and equipped for every good work. {2Tim3:15-17}
The book of Acts tells us that the Jews in Berea were notably NOBLE for "examining the scriptures daily" as their test of truth for the apostles' teachings.

"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers."
{1 Thessalonians 2:13}

"..since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God" {1 Peter 1:23}

Be encouraged and strengthened brother! Abide in Christ, and Him in you!

 

[Apologist4Him]

Hi guys. I have gotten into some discussions lately over whether Sola Scriptura is scriptural. I was directed to the case of Scott Hahn who was a Calvinist, anti-Catholic, minister who became Catholic after many years of struggle he found the Bible didn't support Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. Anyways curious to see if the Bible does support it (Sola Scriptura) but just can't seem to find any scripture that actually says that. Is Sola Scriptura an act of faith all in its own? Really struggling right now with this.

The question is really smoke and mirrors. Is the generally accepted canon Scriptural? Are the laws of logic Scriptural? When most Catholics ask the question, they're doing so on the basis of ___________ not being explicitly laid out in Scripture (or a word like "Trinity" not being in Scripture). But we shouldn't get excited because very few doctrines are laid out explicitly, in fact many if not most doctrines are the collective result of Scriptural implications or necessary consequences. Catholics will bring up "oral tradition" in a Sola Scriptura discussion/debate and try to suggest that Protestants reject all tradition outright, but that is a common misunderstanding a mischaracterization of our position, because it's not that we reject tradition, it's just that we do not hold traditions on the same level of authority as Scripture, in other words, Sola Scriptura shouldn't be confused with Solo Scriptura. Here are a couple of links to help you study further:

Monergism ::

Sermon by Manton

Is the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Biblical

A disputation on Holy Scripture : against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton : Whitaker, William, 1548-1595 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[gordo]

Thanks guys. I appreciate all the responses. I fell into a bit of a funk last month and started to question some things based on what I 'felt', etc. (which was humbling as I would tell people to not go by what you felt, yet I ended up falling into that trap). This turned into a slippery slope but by the grace of God I have found my way back and I believe I am stronger for it. All your posts helped. I spoke to another forum member who encouraged me. If anything, God was teaching me something. I feel stronger in in my faith then before and have a new hunger for God's Word.