Sola Scriptura Principle As The Source of Doctrinal Authority
In one of the blogs that I have been following, there was a question raised; “Where exactly in the Bible that Sola Scriptura appear?”, well I would like to answer this question in a non-debatable way.
Here it is, as far as my study is concern, I haven’t seen that the Bible says, “sola scriptura”. However, you can find lots of passages against “Tradition” and you can see lots of passages in the Bible that tells us to read and study the word of the Lord.
Ok, to clarify and for more enlightenment, here are the passages that tells us about reading the word of God.
1.Deuteronomy 6 – Does not refer to the whole Bible since the New Testament has not been written yet. This is during the time of Moses. Please notice the mode of learning that they do since printing press has not yet been invented. And that the 10 commandments was written by God himself in the tablets of stones.
2.2 Timothy 3:15-17 – A very clear passage that tells “Timothy” (to which is also applicable to all of us) to study the Holy Scriptures. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” – just a simple question, does it include tradition in it???
3.Ephesians 6:17 – The sword of the Spirit is the word of God. Take note the whole context is all about spiritual armor. And you will never find tradition as a part of it.
4.Hebrews 4:12 – “12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” -Please do note the whole context, it is all about unbelief to the gospel that was preached by the apostles and early Christians.
What are those gospels??? This will require more discussions and more topics. But one of the things that I can point out is Ephesians 2:8-10. You will have to read this by yourself and compare it to the Catholic doctrine of salvation which is “by grace through faith + works”. This does not come from me, but from a Catholic Priest.
Against Tradition
1.Matthew 15:1-21 – This is a long passage. But please read it. Please note that the context and the arguments between Jesus and the Pharisees is all about “tradition”, “religious traditions” to be exact. The traditions that Moses ordered. But notice how Jesus answered them and how Jesus invalidated tradition over obedience? And in verse 7, Jesus called the Pharisees… HYPOCRITES…
2.Mark 7:3-13 – Basically, this is the same story as above. If you would like to read it, better. Perhaps, you’ll see other things here that are not in Matthew 15.
3.Colossians 2:8 – “ 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Please do note the phrase “philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men…” Anybody would like to make an appeal to Paul about this??? A very clear passage where many people want to twist truths in it.
4.2 Thessalonians 3:6 – “6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” Please do note that the tradition that was mentioned here, should be coming from the Apostles (from Paul and the disciples of Christ, and not from “NEW” apostles whose traditions are perverted, adulterated, unscriptural, and full of assumptions of things that were not clear.)
Sola Scriptura is not “per se” Biblical as to biblical terms. It is like the doctrine of “Holy Trinity” to which the words “Holy Trinity” is unbiblical. But rest assured, its essence exists in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is only a term for conservative doctrinal source of authority. Our tradition evidently has no place for doctrinal authority. Not only that it was affirmed by the Bible itself, but of history.
The only tradition allowed are the traditions that were taught by Paul and other apostles. And those traditions can also be found in the Bible.
Now tell me, will you still base your doctrines through traditions which has been discouraged from the Bible or just believe in the Bible and to what it says.
In many Catholic blogs that I’ve checked, most of the quotations came from other authors with different views. Some came from the works of early church fathers and only a few came from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles themselves, the Bible. Scholarly work as it may sound, but the fact is, only few people can understand them. On the otherhand, the Bible presented the truths in a non-technical way, in simple terms where everybody can understand.
As for me, I will stick with the truths of the Bible, not basing my stand to what other “scholars” and authors have said. Thanks to them though, for their labor and their studies have helped a few to understand things. But I do hope that we will make their study meaningful and not to debate on what they have said. Instead, discover more truths from their source, the Bible. In the end, the Bible is still the BEST source of Doctrinal authority and NOT tradition.
Accepting tradition as a valid source of doctrinal authority only leads to false teachings, idolatry and heresy. This is the reason why now, we have thousands of different cultic movements whose basis for their doctrinal authority are traditions, myths, assumptions, and partial truths of the Bible (by claiming things in the Bible, yet neglected others).
Finally, just for clarification. I do not intend to force anybody to believe to the truths from the Bible. The freedom is yours whether or not you believe in it. Again, I am not a scholar, sorry to disappoint you. I am just a very ordinary man who just read my Bible.
God bless to you all!!!
we can nevertheless briefly consider a few words by Jesus and Paul about the divine authority of the written word of God. First Jesus: “…until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law…” (Mt 5:18). “The Scripture shall not be broken…” (Jn 10:35). “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures…” (Mt 22:29. “How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?” (Mt 26:54). We could add the at least sixteen times Jesus appealed to the authority of the written Scriptures by saying “…it is written…” and the at least six times he said “Have you not read?” Now for Paul: “and how from infancy you [Timothy] have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed…”
Concerning the 7 Councils, I think I have made my self clear about apostolicity, or should I re-iterate it to you? You can answer that question already with my statement. In addition however, if you are indeed following the apostolic practices, meaning as what the Apostles did in their ways, let say baptism, gathering together, singing hymns, then it is apostolic tradition. But if you have modified it the way you want it, it is no longer apostolic.
I would say thanks to the Councils who worked hard for the identification of what is authoritative scripture and which are not. And that I value the most. Now tell me, do you value their work? Because it seems like you are even questioning the credibility of their work.
Concerning Sola Scriptura as a doctrine. Again, as I have said, Sola Scriptura is what we only call to the practice of following the Bible as the guide for our spiritual lives. And again, as I have said, you will not see “SOLA SCRIPTURA” in the Bible, this is what the article is telling you. Now, isn’t it Trinity not in the Bible? Why do you practice it then? Is there a word “Holy Trinity” in the Bible? You will never find it in the Bible Geekborj, because that’s what you only call to the essence of God in three persona, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.
This is the same thing as “Sola Scriptura”. You cannot see that word in the Bible. But the essence of telling us to meditate the Scriptures day and night is there. If you only want the OT, then read Deuteronomy 5 and 6, and practice what is being said there so that you can significantly transfer the “apostolic” practices to which I doubt you are practicing.
Yes, you are correct in quoting the Jewish culture. But isn’t Jesus a Jew??? Isn’t the apostles a Jew? Isn’t apostle Paul a pharisee himself??? Maybe you should wonder why Islam has that kind of dress… because they are following the ways the quoran and their tradition is telling and is being applied to all Muslim world wide. Now that is what you call keeping the tradition.
Well, thank you for giving more notes about what you are pertaining to be the “Sacred Tradition”.
“The arguments above missed the argument against Sacred Traditions such as the Sacraments, Laws and Beatitudes, Lord’s Prayer, and Sacred Scriptures.”
I believe we could not debate whether or not we practice this “sacred traditions”, because Protestants also do this. Except to what you meant by “sacraments” and the “Lord’s Prayer” (which of course would be another topic). Furthermore, these are Biblical practices. What only the protestant did is to practice what was said in the Bible and not the “traditions” that has been modified and evolved through ages to which we believe have been perverted and has gone beyond and directly contradicts to what the Bible says.
Example (Just an Example) Baptism. I believe this is one of your sacraments. And this is definitely one of your practices which is also a practice of a protestant. Where would “Sola Scriptura” enters?
In your baptism, you baptized infants through sprinkling. Is this practice Biblical and following the “sacred tradition”????
No way in the Bible that you will see baptism of the infants. Jesus Christ himself was baptized 30 years old. People in his time and in the apostles time where baptized old enough to understand the apostles and Jesus’ teachings. Furthermore, baptism is from the greek word “baptizo” which means “emmersed”.
People were baptized because they believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and not to wash “Original Sin” to which RCC teaches.
And this practice, is what the protestants are doing. Baptizing those people who accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, immersing them on water, baptizing people who understand God’s word. And all those are both Biblical and “sacred tradition/practice”. Now tell me, which do you think follows the sacred tradition? Was it the Protestant or the RCC?
(You don’t have to answer the example above. It will be another topic. I am just demonstrating you how “Sola Scriptura” works in the practice of Protestants.)
As far as your argument is concern, I am only seeing a legalistic argument of whether or not “Sola Scriptura” an apostolic practice.
I forgot: The Apostle’s Creed (or the more detailed Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) is part of that Sacred Tradition.
.-= geekborj´s last blog ..Sola Scriptura is not an Apostolic idea =-.
12. What is Apostolic Tradition?
75-79,
83,
96, 98
Apostolic Tradition is the transmission of the message of Christ, brought about from the very beginnings of Christianity by means of preaching, bearing witness, institutions, worship, and inspired writings. The apostles transmitted all they received from Christ and learned from the Holy Spirit to their successors, the bishops, and through them to all generations until the end of the world.
13. In what ways does Apostolic Tradition occur?
76
Apostolic Tradition occurs in two ways: through the living transmission of the word of God (also simply called Tradition) and through Sacred Scripture which is the same proclamation of salvation in written form.
The word “Tradition” came from the Latin word “traditio” which means “to pass on.” Wikipedia entry on “Tradition” writes: “The word tradition comes from the Latin traditionem, acc. of traditio which means “handing over, passing on”” which is broadly defined in English translations.
.-= geekborj´s last blog ..Sola Scriptura is not an Apostolic idea =-.
I don’t disagree with this presentation. This is really true, and I believe in many ways, protestants do the same thing.
Just a question and inquiry to you geekborj, how sure you are that the practices and the sacred traditions that you are referring are the “real and original apostolic tradition”.
Second question, how do you measure whether or not RCC tradition is inclined with the “original apostolic tradition”???
These questions puzzles me a lot since you are holding on steadfastly that Sola Scriptura is “NOT” an apostolic idea. And furthermore, you haven’t presented a good argument that proves that “Sola Scriptura” is a wrong practice. The article does not convinced you as you have said, but you haven’t convinced me either not to practice Sola Scriptura. Don’t leave me hanging in limbo bro.:) Blessings!!!
Reading or hearing the word of God is not Sola Scriptura. Point per point comment on the Scriptural passages quoted is below.
1. Hearing the word of God through the Bible is not against the Catholic teaching. But this does not defend the idea of Scripture Alone. Moreover, since the Bible only came into writing and was collected after the Apostolic Age (viz. after St. John’s death), then how can we say that “Sola Scriptura” is apostolic?
2. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 tells that the Scripture (which does not include 2 Tim, therefore I would say that it is the OT in this context) is: (a) inspired by God, and that (b) it can be used to produce a perfect man of God doing good works. This does not support Sola Scriptura but that Scriptures can be used to produce good works.
3. Eph 6:17 is part of several paraphernalia of a Roman soldier: (a) v.13 armor of God to resist evil and hold ground; (b) v.14 loins girded with truth and breastplate of righteousness; (c) v.15 feet shod with readiness in spreading peace; (d) v.16 faith as a shield; and (e) v.17 the word of God as the helmet of salvation and sword of the Spirit. Therefore, the Scripture is not the only one needed by every Christian! We also need faith and truth. Holding ground can also indicate to “hold on” to the apostolic faith.
4. This verse is just like above: They highlight the word of God but does not claim Sola Scriptura. While about sticking to the gospel taught by the apostles, the verse does not deal with how the “true gospel” is transmitted. Eph 2:8-9 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith but v.10 tells us that we are made for good works that God has prepared for us through his Commandments.
The verses against traditions are basically against the traditions but not against the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. Note that the Sacred Tradition includes the Catholic Faith, Sacraments, Prayers, and the Sacred Scriptures (OT, 4 Gospels, Epistles, and the Acts).
I agree that the Sacred Scriptures is one good source of Christian doctrine, i still argue that it is not the best because there is always a problem of translation which is not part of the Sola Scriptura essence.
I still do not find this article convincing when it comes to defending the idea that “the Bible should be the sole/only source for doctrines.” Even Lk 24:27 states that sticking to the Scriptures alone does not reveal everything about what is being said in the Scriptures.
Since not everyone can read, it is not by reading but from hearing: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17)
.-= geekborj´s last blog ..The Ark of the Covenant =-.
“Moreover, since the Bible only came into writing and was collected after the Apostolic Age (viz. after St. John’s death), then how can we say that “Sola Scriptura” is apostolic?”
Ans. I am not really sure if you understand the word “apostolic”. When you say apostolic, it came from the apostles. The teachings in the NT is apostolic because it came directly from the apostles of Jesus Christ and apostle Paul, so as to their contemporary servants of Christ such as James. Meaning, first hand information, as to evidence, they were the direct witnesses. NT is their testimony about Christ and teachings.
“2 Timothy 3:15-17 tells that the Scripture (which does not include 2 Tim, therefore I would say that it is the OT in this context) is: (a) inspired by God, and that (b) it can be used to produce a perfect man of God doing good works. This does not support Sola Scriptura but that Scriptures can be used to produce good works.
Ans. You are indeed right again in your “exegesis”. Yes that’s true, it does not include 2 Timothy. And indeed you are right in saying that Scriptures can be used to produce good works. However, your exegesis is “incomplete” again, you are reading the passage as it is without seeing deeper things in it. You are there just to prove that “Sola Scriptura” is NOT authoritative. Let us say then that it refers to the OT, this still have the same question that you did not refute; where is the tradition in the passage? Or at least you will see that the Scriptures encourage us to follow the “Traditions” that you believe? You are not answering the question geekborj.
“Therefore, the Scripture is not the only one needed by every Christian! We also need faith and truth. Holding ground can also indicate to “hold on” to the apostolic faith.”
Ans. The teaching here is spiritual battle. As you have quoted previously the book of James, “faith without action is dead”. This just mean that if we claim to have faith (which all of us do), yet without action, which means we do not apply what it teaches, then it is completely useless and the faith that we claim is in question. You have closed this part in another assumption, holding on to the apostolic faith. Ok, let us say that it is “apostolic faith” can you described the apostolic faith? What they believe, what they do. And try it to compare with the “faith” that you have right now, with the tradition that you are saying to be “authoritative”?
As I have said in this article at the very beginning:
“I haven’t seen that the Bible says, “sola scriptura”. However, you can find lots of passages against “Tradition” and you can see lots of passages in the Bible that tells us to read and study the word of the Lord.”
Now, this is a challenge to you then, since you do not believe in it, then prove to me that the “Traditions” that you are doing in RCC are Biblical, are indeed following the “Traditions” and the ways of the apostles and of Jesus Christ.
Since you are so skeptics on Protestant practice and continue to claim that what we do are not Biblical, then prove to me that RC ways are Biblical and are at least following the “apostolic tradition/teachings.”
You can start with topics you like. Here are the topics that you may choose if you want, “Praying of the Rosary”, “Infant Baptism”, “Immaculate Conception”, “Assumption of Mary” etc…
Again, make sure that the passage you quote are “REALLY” referring to your practices and is indeed “FOLLOWING”, what the apostles are doing.
If you are then not convinced with the passages above about the Scriptures, then let us test your tradition if it is Biblical.
“Moreover, since the Bible only came into writing and was collected after the Apostolic Age (viz. after St. John’s death), then how can we say that “Sola Scriptura” is apostolic?”
Ans. I am not really sure if you understand the word “apostolic”. When you say apostolic, it came from the apostles. The teachings in the NT is apostolic because it came directly from the apostles of Jesus Christ and apostle Paul, so as to their contemporary servants of Christ such as James. Meaning, first hand information, as to evidence, they were the direct witnesses. NT is their testimony about Christ and teachings.
Response: While you have (re)defined the term “apostolic,” this did not answer the question whether Sola Scriptura is apostolic as per your definition above. Based on your definition however, do you mean those who gathered on the first 7 General Council of the (then united) Church, are not apostolic? Further, what is your take on the scholar’s research that the authorship (names such as “1 Peter,” “Mark” etc) are just attributed since they reflects their teachings not necessarily first hand?
“2 Timothy 3:15-17 tells that the Scripture (which does not include 2 Tim, therefore I would say that it is the OT in this context) is: (a) inspired by God, and that (b) it can be used to produce a perfect man of God doing good works. This does not support Sola Scriptura but that Scriptures can be used to produce good works.
… Let us say then that it refers to the OT, this still have the same question that you did not refute; where is the tradition in the passage? Or at least you will see that the Scriptures encourage us to follow the “Traditions” that you believe? You are not answering the question geekborj.
Response:
Does the passage say anything about ONLY the scriptures? It only defends the inspiration of the Scriptures. I do not say about any traditions within the Scriptures. I’m following the argument for the Sola Scriptura. Isn’t Paul exhorting Timothy not a Tradition? Isn’t it that Tradition gave St. Paul the authority over Timothy, Titus, and the particular churches that he founded?
I wrote: “Therefore, the Scripture is not the only one needed by every Christian! We also need faith and truth. Holding ground can also indicate to “hold on” to the apostolic faith.”
You answered: The teaching here is spiritual battle. As you have quoted previously the book of James, “faith without action is dead”. This just mean that if we claim to have faith (which all of us do), yet without action, which means we do not apply what it teaches, then it is completely useless and the faith that we claim is in question. You have closed this part in another assumption, holding on to the apostolic faith. Ok, let us say that it is “apostolic faith” can you described the apostolic faith? What they believe, what they do. And try it to compare with the “faith” that you have right now, with the tradition that you are saying to be “authoritative”?
Response:
My argument still stands. Let us first concentrate on my question and avoid derailing the topic.
Isn’t sola scriptura a very recent doctrine not known to the apostles?
You wrote: “I haven’t seen that the Bible says, “sola scriptura”. However, you can find lots of passages against “Tradition” and you can see lots of passages in the Bible that tells us to read and study the word of the Lord.”
Response: There is a lot of difference between the “traditions” and “Tradition.”
You wrote:
Now, this is a challenge to you then, since you do not believe in it, then prove to me that the “Traditions” that you are doing in RCC are Biblical, are indeed following the “Traditions” and the ways of the apostles and of Jesus Christ.
Since you are so skeptics on Protestant practice and continue to claim that what we do are not Biblical, then prove to me that RC ways are Biblical and are at least following the “apostolic tradition/teachings.”
You can start with topics you like. Here are the topics that you may choose if you want, “Praying of the Rosary”, “Infant Baptism”, “Immaculate Conception”, “Assumption of Mary” etc…
Again, make sure that the passage you quote are “REALLY” referring to your practices and is indeed “FOLLOWING”, what the apostles are doing.
If you are then not convinced with the passages above about the Scriptures, then let us test your tradition if it is Biblical.
Response:
Let us just concentrate on the Sola Scriptura. Let us not derail the topic into an offensive move (on Catholic “doctrines” which are rather practices, except for Immaculate conception and assumption of Mary). You are here to defend the Sola Scriptura; I’m not here to defend the Catholic Church’s Faith.
I still do not see the Bible speaking about Sola Scriptura but rather against “traditions” which clearly are Jewish traditions arising from Mosaic laws (e.g. washing of hands to be “clean”, marriage to the widow of brother, etc) which are clearly allowed by God because of their hardness of heart. The arguments above missed the argument against Sacred Traditions such as the Sacraments, Laws and Beatitudes, Lord’s Prayer, and Sacred Scriptures.
.-= geekborj´s last blog ..Sola Scriptura is not an Apostolic idea =-.
“Moreover, since the Bible only came into writing and was collected after the Apostolic Age (viz. after St. John’s death), then how can we say that “Sola Scriptura” is apostolic?”
Ans. I am not really sure if you understand the word “apostolic”. When you say apostolic, it came from the apostles. The teachings in the NT is apostolic because it came directly from the apostles of Jesus Christ and apostle Paul, so as to their contemporary servants of Christ such as James. Meaning, first hand information, as to evidence, they were the direct witnesses. NT is their testimony about Christ and teachings.
Response: While you have (re)defined the term “apostolic,” this did not answer the question whether Sola Scriptura is apostolic as per your definition above. Based on your definition however, do you mean those who gathered on the first 7 General Council of the (then united) Church, are not apostolic? Further, what is your take on the scholar’s research that the authorship (names such as “1 Peter,” “Mark” etc) are just attributed since they reflects their teachings not necessarily first hand?
“2 Timothy 3:15-17 tells that the Scripture (which does not include 2 Tim, therefore I would say that it is the OT in this context) is: (a) inspired by God, and that (b) it can be used to produce a perfect man of God doing good works. This does not support Sola Scriptura but that Scriptures can be used to produce good works.
… Let us say then that it refers to the OT, this still have the same question that you did not refute; where is the tradition in the passage? Or at least you will see that the Scriptures encourage us to follow the “Traditions” that you believe? You are not answering the question geekborj.
Response:
Does the passage say anything about ONLY the scriptures? It only defends the inspiration of the Scriptures. I do not say about any traditions within the Scriptures. I’m following the argument for the Sola Scriptura. Isn’t Paul exhorting Timothy not a Tradition? Isn’t it that Tradition gave St. Paul the authority over Timothy, Titus, and the particular churches that he founded?
I wrote: “Therefore, the Scripture is not the only one needed by every Christian! We also need faith and truth. Holding ground can also indicate to “hold on” to the apostolic faith.”
You answered: The teaching here is spiritual battle. As you have quoted previously the book of James, “faith without action is dead”. This just mean that if we claim to have faith (which all of us do), yet without action, which means we do not apply what it teaches, then it is completely useless and the faith that we claim is in question. You have closed this part in another assumption, holding on to the apostolic faith. Ok, let us say that it is “apostolic faith” can you described the apostolic faith? What they believe, what they do. And try it to compare with the “faith” that you have right now, with the tradition that you are saying to be “authoritative”?
Response:
My argument still stands. Let us first concentrate on my question and avoid derailing the topic.
Isn’t sola scriptura a very recent doctrine not known to the apostles?
You wrote: “I haven’t seen that the Bible says, “sola scriptura”. However, you can find lots of passages against “Tradition” and you can see lots of passages in the Bible that tells us to read and study the word of the Lord.”
Response: There is a lot of difference between the “traditions” and “Tradition.”
You wrote:
Now, this is a challenge to you then, since you do not believe in it, then prove to me that the “Traditions” that you are doing in RCC are Biblical, are indeed following the “Traditions” and the ways of the apostles and of Jesus Christ.
Since you are so skeptics on Protestant practice and continue to claim that what we do are not Biblical, then prove to me that RC ways are Biblical and are at least following the “apostolic tradition/teachings.”
You can start with topics you like. Here are the topics that you may choose if you want, “Praying of the Rosary”, “Infant Baptism”, “Immaculate Conception”, “Assumption of Mary” etc…
Again, make sure that the passage you quote are “REALLY” referring to your practices and is indeed “FOLLOWING”, what the apostles are doing.
If you are then not convinced with the passages above about the Scriptures, then let us test your tradition if it is Biblical.
Response:
Let us just concentrate on the Sola Scriptura. Let us not derail the topic into an offensive move (on Catholic “doctrines” which are rather practices, except for Immaculate conception and assumption of Mary). You are here to defend the Sola Scriptura; I’m not here to defend the Catholic Church’s Faith.
I still do not see the Bible speaking about Sola Scriptura but rather against “traditions” which clearly are Jewish traditions arising from Mosaic laws (e.g. washing of hands to be “clean”, marriage to the widow of brother, etc) which are clearly allowed by God because of their hardness of heart. The arguments above missed the argument against Sacred Traditions such as the Sacraments, Laws and Beatitudes, Lord’s Prayer, and Sacred Scriptures.
.-= geekborj´s last blog ..Sola Scriptura is not an Apostolic idea =-.