Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn
How would you guys give a quick defense of, or argument for, sola scriptura? Are there any verses in the Bible that speak to scripture ALONE as opposed to merely talking about the inspiration of scripture?
Thanks!
Shawn
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.(i)
(i) II Pet. 1:19, 21; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13.
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.(k) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.(l)
(k) I Tim. 3:15.
(l) I John 2:20, 27; John 16:13, 14; I Cor. 2:10, 11, 12; Isa. 59:21.
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.(m) Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (n) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.(o)
(m) II Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; Gal. 1:8, 9; II Thess. 2:2.
(n) John 6:45, I Cor. 2:9 to 12.
(o) I Cor. 11:13, 14; I Cor. 14:26, 40.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: (p) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(q)
(p) II Pet. 3:16.
(q) Psalm 119:105, 130.
Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn
How would you guys give a quick defense of, or argument for, sola scriptura? Are there any verses in the Bible that speak to scripture ALONE as opposed to merely talking about the inspiration of scripture?
Thanks!
Shawn
And if eternal life had not been clearly made known in the Old Testament, the Lord would not have said, as He did even to the unbelieving Jews: "œSearch the Scriptures, for in them ye think that ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me." . . . These and many similar declarations of eternal life, in more or less explicit terms, are found in these writings. See Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XIX, §31.
You wrote: As you rightly discerned, my question about Sola Scritpura has grown out of some very interesting debates with my roomate. He just converted to Roman Catholicism this past Easter, and consequently we´ve been having lots of discussion about the various differences between our two faiths. I´ve really enjoyed the conversations we´ve been having because we´ve both been very adamant about pursuing the truth and have been very thorough as far as discerning what kinds of arguments are fallacious, or emotive, rather than conclusive. He is a law student and no slouch when it comes to debating, so its been really useful for me to dispense with the straw-man arguments I often seem to use when debating such topics. So with this background in mind I´ve turned to the Puritanboard for help and inspiration. So in the spirit of discovery let me offer a few thoughts on what you wrote.
You wrote: You cited some verses in support of Sola Scriptura (VirginiaHuguenot quoted some more in a previous post). To put it simply, I think they are by and large beside the point of my question. For example, in connection with 2 Timothy 3:14-17 you wrote:
I replied: "Thus if we had no other such passage in all of the Bible, this instance alone is more than sufficient to establish the maxim that Scripture itself teaches us the explicit doctrine of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture."
You replied: When I read that passage carefully, I can´t in good conscience say that it has anything to do with my original question, for as much as it may support the authority, inspiration and usefulness of Scripture, it by no means proves or even supports Sola Scriptura. In fact, I think a stronger claim could be brought forward to show that it actually disproves it. After all, Paul was referring to the Old Testament, and if the Old Testament had been sufficient in the Sola Scriptura sense of the term, then Paul would never have needed to write 2 Timothy, and God would not have needed to add 26 other books and letters besides to supplement the O.T.
Francis Turretin (1623-1687): The canon of the Old Testament suffices for faith and practice, and those sacred writings in which Timothy was instructed from his childhood (when the New Testament canon was not complete) could make him wise (sophisai) unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15, 16). And if "œthe man of God" (i.e., the minister of the gospel) may be thoroughly furnished by them unto every good work, much more are they useful and necessary to the faith of a private man and the direction of his life. And Paul does not refer here only to the time preceding the writing of the New Testament because he speaks in general of all Scripture given by inspiration (theopneustÅ) of God (v. 16). Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 1, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1997), p. 100 (II.viii.8).
To formulate your response, then (as no doubt your Roman Catholic friend has), that it can be turned on its head to render the NT as superfluous is nothing more than a complaint against the extravagance of God´s inscripturated revelation. It´s like complaining against a full glass of water because a glass of water half full was sufficient to quench one´s thirst. It reminds me of the same case of special pleading that Roman Catholic apologists invoke when they read a text like John 20:30-31, And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. For while missing the Apostle´s point of sufficiency that he has ascribed to what he has written, they immediately latch on to what John says here he has omitted in his gospel for proof of an extra-biblical revelation that they couldn´t manifest to you under the threat of death. But interestingly enough, while the Roman apologist (because of his agenda) wants to see insufficiency in this text, the ancient church Father Augustine see sufficiency taught in it...It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what is: it is stated that Scripture is the word of God consigned to writing. Tradition, however, is described only functionally, in terms of what it does: it hands on the word of God, but is not the word of God. See Joseph Ratzinger´s "œThe Transmission of Divine Revelation" in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vol. 3, p. 194.
Isn´t it interesting how the Roman apologist departs from the sentiment of an ancient Father when such a Early Church Father does not serve his agenda?Augustine (354-430): "œFor though the Lord Jesus did many such acts, yet all of them are not recorded; just as this same St. John the evangelist himself testifies, that Christ the Lord both said and did many things that are not recorded; but such were chosen for record as seemed to suffice for the salvation of believers." NPNF1: Volume VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 49, John 11:1-54.
You wrote: In an intersting turn to your argument you wrote:
I replied: "The burden of proof is on the non-Protestant to make good the claim that there actually exists a body of revelation which is accessible outside and independent of Scripture, and which is binding on all believers."
You replied: Though I want to think about that one a bit more, let me offer the following thought. I suspect that this basic position is wrong. It seems to me that nowhere in Biblical history have the people of God ever held to the notion of Sola Scriptura. Rather, from Adam to Moses the people of God entirely depended on other forms of revelation; and from Moses to John they depended upon a mixture of sources of authority, whether on non-canonical writings (Luke 1:1-4), oral tradition (2 Thess 2:15), prophetic utterances (Acts 21:9-11), or dreams (Acts 2:17), etc. Even if all those other kinds of revelations may have been checked against the written Word (and it is not at all clear to me that they were), it does seem clear to me that there was no operating principle of Sola Scriptura in thought of the people of God throughout the ages. It seems, then, that the burden of proof is on us to show that God has radically changed his approach so that now he only speaks authoritively through the Scriptures.
Well, once again, you seem to have bought into your friend´s claim uncritically. He is the one arguing for this vast body of unwritten tradition on the basis of a text like 2 Thess 2:15. You claim, "œAll we know is that an authoritative tradition did exists." Well, where is it today? Because we certainly don´t have it now. Apparently, the silence on identifying these traditions isn´t equally unhelpful for you. This proof text ranks among the favorites that Roman apologists use most often to object to the principle of sola Scriptura. What Roman apologists attempt to prove by this citation, with respect to the principle of sola Scriptura, is that if one holds only to those traditions delivered in Scripture, then one is not receiving the full or complete revelation God has given, leaving the impression that their communion has access to special revelation not contained in Holy Scripture. The oral speaking is that other part of tradition that the Roman Catholic Church claims to possess in her teaching magisterium. So if one fails to hold to the traditions that have been passed down orally in the Church, then one is not obeying the complete revelation of God.I wrote:
"In other words, Scripture never designates "˜oral tradition´ to be a continuing source to make one wise for salvation, or as a norm to be "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness." Scripture reserves this norm for itself alone, and by self-designation unites to itself that explicit function."
You replied: I´m afraid that this is an unhelpful argument from silence more than anything else "“ I mean Scripture also doesn´t say that the oral tradition was going to suddenly end or be completely inscripturated. All we know is that an authoritative tradition did exists - 2 Thess 2:15.
Indeed, when examined in context, the Apostle Paul is writing about the traditioning of the basic teachings of the Gospel itself which, as noted in an earlier section, is affirmed by Roman Catholic Mitchell Pacwa, S.J., Ph.D (Not By Scripture Alone, p. 565). This understanding of 2 Thess. 2:15 is likewise affirmed by Ambrose, namely, that the basic doctrines or tradition of the Gospel (traditione Evangelii standum See In Epistola B Ad Thessalonicenses, Caput II, PL 17:458.) is what the Apostle has in view here. Thus, a careful reading of the passage shows that the apostle is not arguing for two sources of revelation (as Roman apologists insist), but rather their need to "œstand fast and hold the traditions" that he as an apostle has communicated to them, whether by means of oral proclamation or epistle. In the larger context of the chapter they were to "œstand fast (sthkete) and hold (krateite) the traditions" of "œour gospel" (v. 14) in the face of eschatological apostacy and deception that would arise in future days (2 Thess. 2:1-12). In fact, the apostle warns his readers in v. 2, "œnot to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us," which is what Roman apologists claim for Rome when they assert that "˜apostolic tradition´ is the basis for its unbiblical accretions. The apostle warns the Church against the pretentious advance of foreign elements that would be passed off under the mien of apostolic authority with respect to the return of Christ.3But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. 16Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work. 2 Thess. 2:13-17.
Another consideration, often ignored by Roman apologists, it is commonly believed by New Testament scholars that the Thessalonian epistles were among the first, not only of the Pauline corpus, but of the entire New Testament to be composed, preceded perhaps only by the epistle to the Galatians. See the chronological table of F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted 1995), p. 475; Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content, 2nd ed., enlarged (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990), pp. 206, 218; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, p. 281; and J. W. Shepard, The Life and Letters of St. Paul (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 1950), p. 164."œNow when contemporary Roman Catholic apologists look at II Thessalonians 2:15 and say, "œWe´re bound to follow the traditions, oral as well as written, my response to that is not only are oral and written two different ways of saying the same thing; but my response to that is simply I´m under obligation to listen to the oral teaching of the Apostles; you´re absolutely right, and they´re not around any more! And you know, catch up with what´s happening in the Church friend; we don´t have Apostles today! Where do you get the idea (even on your misreading of this verse)...Where do you get the idea that the authority of the Apostles in oral instruction has passed on to other people? (Excerpt from a taped lecture, "œIs Sola Scriptura a Protestant Concoction?")
Well, then, I´m baffled too, and I guess folk like Augustine (in his comment above on John) was likewise being unreasonable about what John´s Gospel was sufficient to accomplish. Moreover, when one examines the various examples of patristic exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:15-17, you don´t find what the Roman apologist would lead you to believe they taught. Like Protestants, they saw this passage teaching the sufficiency of Holy Scripture....You wrote: So I´m baffled when you conclude with: "In other words, the Scriptures declare their own sufficiency apart from any other revelatory source." I don´t think that is a reasonable conclusion given the arguments I read in your post. As I wrote before, I will certainly check out your book. I just hope that instead of bringing forth arguments for the Holiness and authority of Scripture, which my Catholic friend and I would agree with, it will deal more with the reasons for justifying adding that little word "alone" to the end of Scripture, because those are the arguments which are going to help me defend Sola Scriptura.
Clement of Alexandria (150-c. 215): "œThou, O Timothy," he says, "œfrom a child hast known the holy letters, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus." For truly holy are those letters that sanctify and deify; and the writings or volumes that consist of those holy letters and syllables, the same apostle consequently calls "œinspired of God, being profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work." No one will be so impressed by the exhortations of any of the saints, as he is by the words of the Lord Himself, the lover of man. ANF: Vol. II, Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 9.
Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444): "œSufficient, sufficient for this [i.e. for obtaining a knowledge of the faith] are the Scriptures of the holy Fathers, [i.e., as the words following show, the inspired writers] which if any one would diligently study and vigilantly attend to, he would immediately have his mind filled with divine light. For, they did not speak of themselves, but "˜all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable.´" De SS. Trinitate, Dialogus I, PG 75:665.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466), commentary on 2 Timothy 3:15-4:2: And the fact that from a child you have known the sacred writings, which are capable of instructing you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (v. 15). And since he had borne further witness to the extent of the power in the sacred writings, he emphasizes as well the benefit stemming from them. All Scripture is divinely-inspired and of benefit (v.16). Making a distinction, he sets the writings apart from the works of human wisdom, referring to the spiritual Scripture as divinely-inspired: the grace of the divine Spirit spoke through the inspired authors of Old and New Testaments. It follows that the Holy Spirit is God if the Spirit´s Scripture is, as the apostle says, divinely-inspired. He brings out the kinds of benefit. For teaching: what we did not know we learned from there. For censure: it censures our lawless life. For correction: it urges the backsliders to return to the straight and narrow. For training in righteousness: it drills us in the forms of virtue. So that whoever belongs to God may be well prepared, equipped for every good work (v.17). All these virtues bring about perfection and relate us to the God of all.
Having thus brought out the benefit of the divinely-inspired Scripture, he bids him make it available to everyone, and instills dread by his adjuration. I adjure you, therefore, in the presence of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is due to judge living and dead: in view of his coming and kingdom, preach the word (4:1-2). Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), pp. 245-246.
Chrysostom (349-407): HOMILY IX 2 Timothy iii. 16, 17."”"œAll 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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Having offered much exhortation and consolation from other sources, he adds that which is more perfect, derived from the Scriptures; and he is reasonably full in offering consolation, because he has a great and sad thing to say. For if Elisha, ho was with his master to his last breath, when he saw him departing as it were in death, rent his garments for grief, what think you must this disciple suffer, so loving and so beloved, upon hearing that his master was about to die, and that he could not enjoy his company when he was near his death, which is above all things apt to be distressing? For we are less grateful for the past time, when we have been deprived of the more recent intercourse of those who are departed. For this reason when he had previously offered much consolation, he then discourses concerning his own death: and this in no ordinary way, but in words adapted to comfort him and fill him with joy; so as to have it considered as a sacrifice rather than a death; a migration, as in fact it was, and a removal to a better state. "œFor I am now ready to be offered up" (2 Tim. iv. 6), he says. For this reason he writes: "œAll Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, "œFrom a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures." All such, then, "œis given by inspiration of God"; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is "œprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
"œFor doctrine." For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.
"œThat the man of God may be perfect." For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!
"œThoroughly furnished unto all good works"; not merely taking part in them, he means, but "œthoroughly furnished." NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Homily 9.
John of Damascus (652-750) was quite clear in this respect when, while urging his readers to "œsearch the Scriptures," he commented on 2 Timothy 3:16: All Scripture, then, is given by inspiration of God and is also assuredly profitable. Wherefore to search the Scriptures is a work most fair and most profitable for souls. For just as the tree planted by the channels of waters, so also the soul watered by the divine Scripture is enriched and gives fruit in its season, viz. orthodox belief, and is adorned with evergreen leafage, I mean, actions pleasing to God. For through the Holy Scriptures we are trained to action that is pleasing to God, and untroubled contemplation. For in these we find both exhortation to every virtue and dissuasion from every vice. If, therefore, we are lovers of learning, we shall also be learned in many things. For by care and toil and the grace of God the Giver, all things are accomplished. For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Wherefore let us knock at that very fair garden of the Scriptures . . . NPNF2: Vol. IX, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 17.
Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn
V.Huguenot used (or misused?) several other verses to support Sola Scriptura (I am not picking on you V.H., because we´ve all used those verses too), but any honest exegetical reading of those passages would show that they are not at all pertinent to the question at hand.
Matthew 15.9 prohibits adding uninspired human laws to the Word (please read the Babylonian Talmud to understand what Jesus is countering here). But since Mat 15.9 does not say or imply that God only works through the written Word, and since no one is arguing for a uninspired source besides Scripture I don´t see how this verse is relevant. The same could be said of Deut 4.2 and 12.32. Strictly speaking, neither of those verse deal with Sola Scriptura, and its hard to see how they apply to the argument, except to say that we should not add uninspired commands to God´s command "“ but that isn´t the issue. The issue is whether or not God authoritatively speaks through means other than the Canon of the Bible. And finally, Rev. 22.18-19 is completely irrelevant because it is a warning against tampering with the text of the Apocalypse, and does not speak to the exclusive authority of Holy Scripture.
He that adds to the word of God draws down upon himself all the plagues written in this book; and he who takes any thing away from it cuts himself off from all the promises and privileges of it. This sanction is like a flaming sword, to guard the canon of the scripture from profane hands. Such a fence as this God set about the law (Deut. iv. 2), and the whole Old Testament (Mal. iv. 4), and now in the most solemn manner about the whole Bible, assuring us that it is a book of the most sacred nature, divine authority, and of the last importance, and therefore the peculiar care of the great God.
