Do these passages prove Sola Scriptura?

"You examine the Scriptures carefully because you suppose that in them you have eternal life. Yet they testify about me." John 5:39 ISV

Here Jesus is basically,IMO, saying that the OT proves what He is saying is truth and what the Pharisees were teaching was false. The OT backs up the fact that Jesus was the true Messiah.

Matthew 4:1-11 does indeed prove that Scripture is our most important ally in our struggle against Satan and our own flesh it is the very Breath of God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 basically gives us the source of Scripture that it is indeed a Book written to us from God that we might have eternal life.

Acts 17:11 is probably the best verse you posted that does indeed point to Scripture Alone.

 

None of them prove sola scriptura. (They are all consistent with "prima scriptura" however.)

 

Ditto. Not a doctrine one can 'prove' from Scripture; it's a faith position - you either believe it or you don't.

 

Me! Me!

I do!

I also consider it to be "OBVIOUS" whenever you have an example like Acts 17:11 where the Words of an APOSTLE can be JUDGED by scripture EVEN in the extreme case where those judging are NON-Christians!

You would have to be (spiritually) blind on this point - not to "get it"!

 

I believe the above mentioned verses testify Sola Scriptura is correct.

In other thread, I also mentioned the Bible itself testifies Sola Scriptura and if not, the following verses will not stand:

I believe that Sola Scriptura has the biblical suppport as well.

If we think any human doctrine or human teaching is equal to the Words of God or anyone can replace the Words of God with any scholars opinion or with any Tradition, then it means we are considering those as a kind of another Bible.
If anyone here believes that there exist anything which can abolish the Words of God, please show us here. I can evaluate and will let you know what is wrong with it.

If Sola Scriptura is not the doctrine in the Bible, the following verses would have not stood.

Deut 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverb 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


If there is any doctrine or any teaching other than the Bible Scripture which can be equal to Bible or which can supersede the Bible Scripture, or anything which can abolish or replace the Words of God, then it means that there exist another God which can be equal to the only True God, which can hardly be claimed by any True Believers in Jesus Christ.

No one can present anything equal to Bible or any literature or any doctrine which can supersede the Bible Scripture.
If any tradition contradict Bible, then the tradition is invalid. If the Tradition is the same as Bible, then such tradition is not necessary because Bible covered it already. Therefore Sola Scriptura is quite Biblical and correct.


Sola Scriptura is the declaration by the True Believers in Jesus Christ and therefore Paganism has nothing to do with it, instead, Pagan religion vehemently oppose to it !

 

The words of the apostle in all their teachings aren't being "judged" by the Bereans per Scripture. However, the Apostles (Paul) had made a specific claim that the Christ had to suffer according to the Scripture. It was this particular claim, which by its nature/content invited the hearers to read and check out in the (OT) Scriptures, that was "judged" so to speak by the (OT) Scriptures. The Bereans (unlike the Thessalonians earlier in chapter 17), rather than trusting their accustomed interpretation of (OT) Scriptures, eagerly received the Apostles word AND examined those same (OT) Scriptures to which the Apostles were referring. It's a big LEAP to extrapolate that into a full-blow doctrine of Sola Scriptura, particularly when other specific details of the New Covenant (Baptism, Eucharist, the abolition of certain laws/regulations of the Torah, etc) were NOT spelled out in the pages of the OLD. The Church (including the Bereans) accepted these commands based on the authority of the apostles themselves, whose authority in turn came from CHRIST (who was accustomed to give new commands). This authority to give New Covenant commands (in areas not spelled out in the Old) was indeed demonstrated by signs and wonders and was validated by the Apostle's kerygmatic message (the claim that Christ had to suffer according to the Scripture) being found to be in the Scriptures by those who were open to the TRUTH.

So again at most one can get "prima Scriptura" from this passage, since the Old Testament as interpreted through--and fulfilled in--the Person of the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the heart of the Apostolic kerygma and remains the anchor (along with the NT apostolic writings) of authentic Christian tradition (paradosis) today. "Sola" Scriptura, however, is a different story....

 

Even though there may be diversity of interpretting Scripture, still Scripture is the one which can provide the solution.
If any interpretation contradicts another part of Bible, it is wrong. Scripture is the Judge and provides the solution.

 

You mean rather than trusting in the oral traditions [Mosaic], which were deemed equal to scripture based on the same line of reasoning (with proof-texts) as catholicism. Among other things, these traditions say that the scriptures on "the suffering servant" referred to ISRAEL.

The fact that the Old Covenant spoke of a new covenant would support a new set of rules. It is only certain other people here who think that everything from the old automatically transfers over to the new with modifications.
And yes, it was the Apostles' oral, written, and conciliar (ch.15) teaching, backed with miracles that set the new practice. That still does not give later leaders the same authority, especially as the writings of the original apostles became widespread, and supporting acts such as visible miracles, the office of the 12, etc. apparently ceased.

And even "prima scriptura" would eliminate many of the traditions of the later Church. (images, "Father" as religious title, etc)

 

Yet the OT (the "Scriptura") didn't specifically spell out what those new rules would be...or that those new rules would be necessarily confined to one particular book.

Yes, like "Sola" Scriptura, "Sola" Fide, monergistic predestination, Zwinglian Memorialism, OSAS, the pretrib rapture (whether in AD 70 or yet in the future), papal infallibility, etc.

 

"OBVIOUS". Com'on Bob open your eyes and see Scripture. The Bereans were lost and when Paul preached Christ as the Messiah to them they grabbed the OT to see if Jesus really did fulfill the prophecy of the OT.

 

Acts 17:11 They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF THOSE THINGS spoken to them by Paul "WERE SO"

Well ok - I guess we can start with this direct contradiction of scripture and "go from there".

The "conclusion" appears to be "obvious".

And so you quickly contradict your opening assertion. Well done.

The point is that ALL scripture is USED for doctrine and reproof as we see from 2Tim 3. BY IT's very nature it TEACHES about God!! So when others come along doing THE SAME (doctrinal statements) then they are subject to scripture because they are making claims about God in some way!

Theology.

Wrong. The text says it in REVERSE order. THEY FIRST studied to "SEE IF those things were so" THEN they accepted.

And as for "first rejecting the traditions of the church so that they could simply judge the new teaching by scripture alone" -- well that seems to be exactly what they were doing!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hardly. Those doctrines did not exist prior to the 16th century.

 

Well, no...they were actually rejecting an interpretation based on a tradition of the synagogue to embrace an interpretation based on apostolic tradition, the tradition of the Church.

 

Exactly, Matt. It wasn't until the 16th century that certain of the Reformers and their followers started to read those doctrines into the Scriptures based on traditions that they more or less invented.

 

Here is a good example of a practice AND a text that did exist before the 16th century!

Well ok - I guess we can start with this direct contradiction of scripture and "go from there".

The "conclusion" appears to be "obvious".

And so you quickly contradict your opening assertion. Well done.

The point is that ALL scripture is USED for doctrine and reproof as we see from 2Tim 3. BY IT's very nature it TEACHES about God!! So when others come along doing THE SAME (doctrinal statements) then they are subject to scripture because they are making claims about God in some way!

Theology.

Wrong. The text says it in REVERSE order. THEY FIRST studied to "SEE IF those things were so" THEN they accepted.

And as for "first rejecting the traditions of the church so that they could simply judge the new teaching by scripture alone" -- well that seems to be exactly what they were doing!

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

 

This assertion also made based on the "traditions" that were more popular being held by the big powerful state Churches.

 

At what point in time?

 

I don’t think any of Davyboy’s passages prove sola scriptura.

2 Timothy 3:16-17. Some allege that, “This passage proves that the Bible is all Christians need.” However, what the Greek says is every (not all) Scripture is inspired, and when Scripture is used in the singular it refers to an individual passage or book, not the whole Bible (which is the Scriptures—plural). Thus, if this passage proves sola scriptura, then it proves too much. If this verse proves that the whole of Scripture is sufficient, then every individual Scripture in it is also sufficient. In addition to sola whole Bible, we could claim sola Matthew, sola Mark, or even sola 3 John.

Notice also, that just because something is “profitable” or useful doesn’t mean that it is all we ever need or that it is the only thing we need. Something can be profitable without being totally sufficient or exclusively necessary. A hoe is profitable for weeding a garden. But the hoe is not sufficient for growing a garden. We also need soil, water, seeds, and sunlight. Nor is a hoe absolutely necessary for weeding a garden. We could weed with a shovel, trowel, or with our hands instead.

Some people continue, “Scripture makes the man of God ‘complete’ and ‘equipped for every good work;’ therefore Scripture is totally sufficient.” The Bible speaks of many things making a man complete. In 2 Timothy 2:19-21, St. Paul says that whoever purifies himself from ignoble things will become “ready for every good work.” St. Paul uses the exact same Greek phrase as in 2 Timothy 3:17 (pan ergon agathon—“for every good work”). If we apply the same reasoning as 2 Timothy 3:17, St. Paul would be saying that our personal efforts to become purified are “sufficient”—apart from grace, faith, or conversion—which is an absurd conclusion.

The same absurdity occurs when we apply this reasoning to James 1:4: “Let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” This is far stronger language than that found in 2 Timothy 3:17. If 2 Timothy 3:17 proves that Scripture is sufficient, then James 1:4—which uses even stronger language—proves that mere steadfastness is sufficient, and that things like grace, faith, repentance, and even Scripture are totally unnecessary. No one accepts that conclusion.

John 5:39. Some assert, “Jesus is commanding us to search the Scriptures. He doesn’t tell us to consult Tradition or the Church. He tells us to consult the Scriptures alone.” This verse also fails to prove sola scriptura for two reasons: (1) Most translations render this verse as a statement of fact, not a command: “You search [or “are searching”] the Scriptures....” Jesus is telling the Jews that He is the fulfillment of their OT Scriptures. He is saying, “You think you know the Scriptures, but you missed their whole point—me.” (2) If somehow this verse proves sola scriptura, then it proves that the OT alone is sufficient since the NT hadn’t been written yet.

Matthew 4:1-11. Some say, “Jesus did not appeal to Tradition or the Church. He appealed three times to Scripture. That means Scripture alone is to be our guide to truth.” But that’s not what this passage means at all. Notice that one of the verses Jesus uses to rebuke the devil is, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Not all of God’s words are contained in Scripture. Many of God’s words come to us orally (see John 21:25; Acts 20:27; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, 3:6; 2 Timothy 2:2). Moreover, Jesus is the preeminent Word of God (John 1:1, 14).

Jesus is not teaching a “Bible alone” approach to truth. He is reminding us to hold and live by every word He speaks, not just those written down in Scripture. Notice also that merely quoting Scripture is not enough to establish truth. The devil himself—in this very passage—quotes Scripture for his untruthful purposes. We must also rightly understand and interpret Scripture. As St. Peter warned, “There are some things in [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16).

Acts 17:11: “Now these Jews [in Beroea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word in all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”

Notice that this isn’t a command to “examine the Scriptures daily,” but a statement of fact. St. Luke is simply contrasting the receptive attitude of the Beroeans with the riotous attitude of the Thessalonians who refused to receive the Christian message (Acts 17:1-8). Again, the “Scriptures” referred to here are the OT. So if this passage proves sola scriptura, then it proves sola OT.

Finally, notice that the Beroeans accept both St. Paul’s oral proclamation of God’s word as well as the written Scriptures. The Beroeans are not Bible-only believers. They use the written word to confirm St. Paul’s oral word. The Beroeans are commended for being willing to see whether what Paul was saying about the OT’s Messianic prophecies was true, not for skeptically testing every claim they heard.

Revelation 22:18-19: “I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

Some say “We don’t add anything to the Bible, like you do with your traditions.” However, “this book” refers to the book of Revelation itself, not to the Bible as a whole. The word for “book” refers to a scroll, and the whole Bible was never placed in a single scroll. Thus, the warning is against textually corrupting the book of Revelation. The same applies to every book of Scripture, but this doesn’t tell us anything about which books are Scripture or whether there are other places God’s word is found. Consider: In Deuteronomy 4:2 and 11:32, Moses gives the same command not to add to or subtract from any of his words. What are we to do with all the books in the OT after Deuteronomy as well as all the books of the NT? If Revelation 22:18-19 proves sola scriptura, then Deuteronomy 4:2 proves sola Torah (the first five OT books).