In my last post I pointed out that sola scriptura is not found in the Bible. This is true of what is taught clearly (explicit teaching) and of what is implied (implicit teaching). As a matter of fact this teaching is contrary to the explicit and implicit teachings which are found in scripture.
Sola scriptura claims that the Bible alone is the primary or sole rule of faith and morals. Passages like 2 Timothy 3:15-17 are quoted, “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All 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.” (KJV)
In this passage we see several wonderful attributes of the inspired writings. We see wisdom unto salvation, God’s inspiration, and that they are useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. Note that this passage never mentions that the Bible is the primary authority for faith and morals. To say that this passage is even talking about a primary authority ignores the plain (literal, historical and grammatical) meaning of these verses.
As a matter of fact there are a number of verses which teach that the Bible is not meant to hold this kind of role. To keep this post brief, I’ve limited myself to the following two passages.
It is written, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15 – KJV) Here Paul commands the Thessalonians to hold fast to the Apostolic traditions – what is written is not referred to as superior to what is spoken. God’s word is not limited to what is written.
It is written, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15 – KJV) This refers to the Apostolic Church as the pillar and ground of truth – not the Bible. God’s Church preserves God’s Word.
Reason shows that this doctrine is self-refuting. Is it any wonder that this sola is virtually ignored while libraries have been printed on the other four?
We have posted about this at The Black Cordelias… Most notably with “Sola Scriptura“…
It isn’t that we who do NOT advocate Sola Scriptura are of the thinking that the Scriptures are failable or problematic. We are of the thinking that individual interpretations can be.
Thank you for reading and commenting. You make a crucial point, and it’s good to have that point made on this post for those who don’t read further. I hope visitors will read my next three posts which expound on that point: Sola Scriptura as Presupposition, A Matter of Interpretation and The Pillar and Ground of Truth. I look forward to looking at your blog more!
I never appreciated so much the usage of 1,2 Timothy to prove the “sola scriptura”, eg because when Paul use the greek term for it, I’m not sure he is talking about the 66 (or 73) books. I mean…srsly?
Anyway, as I come from a catholic background, I am sensitive to this kind of question, first for myself, and when I argue with myself about the reason I agree (almost entirely) with the criteria of “sola scriptura” I look at the following 3 passages (the 3 passage rule: before you say ‘The Bible says so’, can you find at least 3 passages to prove your point?):
– Daniel 9 (focus on verse 2)
– Habakkuk 2 (focus on verses 2-3)
– Ezekiel 2-3 (2:7-10, 3:1-3)
When I have doubt, I look at these 3 HUGE prophets, LORD’s people&speakers, and I see the way God use them in speaking to us.
In Daniel, I see a high reverence for the word of God, as a mean to discover and learn; in Habakkuk I see that God expect to reveal through His own dictation, and not by human vocal cords; in Ezekiel, you know, the famous eatable scroll – how much literal, how much allegorical?
I’m protestant, but I don’t care if you want to consider 66, or 73, or 80something books as the Holy Canon, because I feel God gave us enough stuff already with part of the OT and John’s gospel. I believe with Genesis, John’s gospel, and maybe other 2/5 OT books, anyone can grasp the entire God’s story, and His plan of salvation.
But still…in my opinion, you need them, more than a preacher, or a priest, because as human we are unreliable. No apostle, no missionary, can be better than Ezekiel for me. And he needed that scroll…
When we move to the opposite question: why you are scared to rely on tradition, at the same level like the primary texts, to build your faith, I read some passages like:
– Micah 6:9-16
– Zechariah 10:1-5
and I get scared, and I have fear to make the same mistake they did.
I hope the low-scholar level of my discussion wasn’t off-topic. When I fight with theology, I look to plot/narrative scriptures, and when I argue about bible stories/narrative parts, I search among Theologians. Just to be safe.