Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

[paulsmallwood]

You are describing solo Scriptura not Sola Scriptura. Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of “Scripture versus tradition.” Protestants are said to teach “Scripture alone, ” while Roman Catholics are said to teach “Scripture plus tradition.” This, however, is not an accurate picture of the historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order to understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura we must understand the historical context more accurately.
The Reformation debate over sola Scriptura did not occur in a vacuum. It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of “tradition” itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neither the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation “Tradition 1.”
The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine. Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition “Tradition 2” (Professor Oberman had many gifts. The ability to coin catchy labels was apparently not one of them). It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century. A turning point was reached in the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham. He was one of the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the two-source view of revelation. From the fourteenth century onward, then, we witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that the Reformation occurred.
When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over sola Scriptura becomes much clearer. The reformers did not invent a new doctrine out of whole cloth. They were continuing a debate that had been going on for centuries. They were reasserting Tradition 1 within their particular historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within the Roman Catholic Church. The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei. They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as Tradition 1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause, Rome reacted by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it officially at the Council of Trent. (Rome has since developed a view that Oberman has termed “Tradition 3, ” in which the “Magisterium of the moment” is understood to be the one true source of revelation, but that issue is beyond the scope of this brief essay). - essay by Keith Matheson

[seldypu]

Scripture *cannot* be “the only infallible rule of faith”, *because* nothing in scripture, tells us which ancient books count as scripture, and thus you are relying on tradition to know which books belong in the collection of infallible books (the bible) and you must believe that this tradition is infallible *OR* you are admitting that you don’t actually know which books are or aren’t inspired and do or do not belong in your bible.

For example, if you claim that you don’t know with absolute certainty, that the books in your bible are all inspired, you are admitting that it is possible some or even all aren’t inspired.

So you must believe with absolute certainty that every book in your bible is indeed an inspired book, (theopneustos or as commonly translated “God breathed”) but you don’t know this from scripture itself, since there isn’t an inspired table of contents.

What you consider as the correct collection comes to you as a tradition.

(BTW, not every denomination agrees on what that collection is, there are several different traditions.)

[yungspaghetti]

Sola Scriptura is like the Trinity, it is not explicitly stated as a doctrine but it is nonetheless present all throughout thr Scriptures. Jesus is actually the biggest Sola scripturist of the Bible, as he is constantly quoting the Scriptures non stop, explicitly or implicitly, always refuting his opponents with the Scriptures placing the Scriptures as the sole infaillible and last authority in matters of faith.
Sola scriptura doesn't mean no tradition it means Scriptures trumps tradition as the only infaillible and last source. Jesus always used the Scriptures as the last source of authority, in fact he never quoted any rabbinical tradition of his time and the only jewish traditions mentionned are condemned by him...using the Scriptures. When Jesus faced Satan, he exclusively used the Scriptures and that battle is a blueprint and a microcosm of all the battles we face with Satan, through that He shows us that the weapon we ought to use are the Scriptures.

[PInkW]

Jesus gave us 12 apostles
Not 12 bibles

[LittlefootRoseRocker]

Yes, and who founded the Bible and brought the books together? The Catholic Church founded by Jesus and passed on by Peter. It doesn’t say Jesus when you Google who founded the Protestant faith…

[Narikku]

The question about Sola Scriptura is about infallibility, not authority.

Are there other infallible sources other than God? We agree that Scripture came through God. Protestants also recognize that there are other authorities. These authorities are not, however, infallible.

What other rules of faith do you believe are infallible? Why do you believe they are infallible?

[Ghost.Spectrum]

"I never found Sola Scriptura in the Bible.."

"BTW here are these traditions mentioned in the Bible you also should follow for salvation.."

Make Catholicism make sense

[polktechnologysolutions]

The Law of YHVH is PERFECT, The Way, The Life... if it is perfect, you require nothing else to find the WAY, The Truth, and the Life.... Traditions can help you in the walk but, they are not the way, they are not the truth, and they are not the life...

[marcuswilliams]

It doesn't matter how many times Roman Catholics hear the position of Sola Scriptura properly articulated. They keep asking the same questions that demonstrate they simply do not understand what Sola Scriptura means.

[vceptx]

Sola scriptura is in the Bible and the teaching is very plain and clear that even a 2nd grader can understand:

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

So therefore if you believe it's (Sola Scriptura) not in the Bible then you do not follow the Jesus of the Bible. There is only one truth, one way and one life and that is Jesus.

[DaudH]

Jesus slaps the tradition and burys it, And he says that those who practice it are blind guides of the blind, together they will fall into the hole:

“Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭15‬:‭2‬-‭11‬ ‭KJV‬‬

It is not a text taken out of its context, it is a whole teaching of Jesus.

[fernandown]

Hey, a genuine brazilian christian humbly answering:
obs.: by profets I mean both OT and NT authorities.

Scripture is revelation. Once Scripture does not affirm that they're other revelation beyond it, there's no reason to believe there is. Almost 300 pages of New Testament, and nothing directs me into the ideia that the successors of the apostles can't fail.
It seems to me that this claim came from sinful bishops, already full of power because of their position, wanting to establish their power even further; see how frequent this is in History: those who conquered a strong visible power, don't take too long to claim invisible powers. Inter alia, people in the first centuries that used to affirm infallibility were often received as heretics, such as montanists and groups of gnostics.
Apostolic word can survive both through Scripture and through the tradition of the successon of presbyters (huge example, Irineu de Lyon). But the second way mentioned depends on the transition of informations from fallible mouths, not apostolic ones, being them, for instance, able of erring. They are a very strong authority, specially if they are almost unanimous among the presbyters through all christian world (that's why the plenary councils are strongly very very authoritative), but they can still err.
But what the profets wrote, in contraire, that is infalible, because it's precily registered. See how important this register issue was to God in Isaiah 30:8 and Jeremiah 30:2. There's a hole crowd of people who are not receiving the correct liturgy and the correct ministration of Sacraments because God didn't want to let the infallibility issue registered in the profetic writings.

Since that ideia is self evident, it ins't necessary Scripture to reveal it. Because revelation works in order to reveal things we cannot apprehend only through our reason. Where's in Scripture that scripture is what's written? I mean, there is no reason this information to be in Scripture in terms of a revelation necessity, because we need no revelation to seize it.
We prefer to stick on what God decided to register on the writing of those he gave authority to, the profets. Otherwise, it is very probable that we'd be relyng on doctrines made by humans, doctrines that strived from truth and ended up in error.

Plus, I consider that it's not reasonable to affirm that God only left us Scripture as 100% trusteble, but his providence left it lacking things. I also consider that the hole Scripture is sufficient to make me perfect and completely prepared for the works of God (1 Tm 3:16-17). That's the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, that God's providence made Scripture not necessarily complete, but suficcient. And that is not the same thing as the principle of Sola Scripture, witch claims that since the content of Scripture is the only content we're sure that came from the profets, it is also the only infallible authority, since outside tradition can err (because they're not from infallible mouths) .

Dude, if you guys are right, God's word is imperfect, because there are things lacking. I mean, why didn't God's providence made it clear that Church, under the Bishop of Rome, can't fail? It would only take 2 or 3 lines on a almost 300 pages of NT. The Schism of EO wouldn't have happened, neither the Reformation. Your way contradics how God was acting in the OT texts I mentioned before. God's word is perfect, and perfection pressuposes completude. And it is necessary God to have left it clear, once God can't cooperate against people's spiritual health.

Man, I'm just someone trying to find the truth. That's why I'm watching to your videos. By the way, I'm learning a lot, thank you! You're a very humble person, and that's awesome, considering that I've seen a lot of arrogant Catholics around. They are unwatchable.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

[MrPeach]

Where are altar calls replacing baptism found in the bible...

[genuineapbt]

Wow, on the surface this man seems intelligent and well read. I understand his position well. The issue is not that the Bible doesn’t explicitly say “sola scriptura”. Even if it did he wouldn’t believe it. You need God-given hearing that comes from the word itself, and with it, faith that come from hearing. But for that God must also grant you repentance from sin. Repentance and faith. Catholics believe salvation come from faith plus works. Based on that fact of adding to faith. they are not saved. So in short, this man is trying to spiritually discern, without having the spirit of God residing in him through salvation by faith alone.

[Steve-wgcr]

If one includes verse 17 with 2 Timothy 3:16 one could make the argument that Scripture is all we need to live godly lives.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in uprightness, so that the man of God may be proficient and equipped for good work of every kind." (2 Timothy 3:16-17, New Catholic Bible).

[MattPerman]

As many have pointed out, you are actually talking here about the sufficiency of Scripture, not Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura simply says the Scriptures are the ultimate authority, not that they are the only authority. Other authorities, such as church tradition, are real but not infallible.

Then it is the sufficiency of Scripture which teaches us that only Scripture can bind the conscience. 2 Tim 3:16 actually does bring this up, when it says Scripture makes us adequate and equipped for every good work. Also Matthew 23 is often very overlooked here, verses 1-10 or so.

It is also odd that Jesus never appeals to the Jewish tradition as authoritative, but constantly refers to OT Scripture as authoritative. That certainly sets a big expectation that he will continue to rule the church by Scripture as the sole infallible authority.

When Paul speaks of holding to traditions, a case needs to be made that he means the same thing by tradition that the Roman Catholic Church means by it today. Also it’s not problematic while the canon is open and the apostles are there; it’s also likely those traditions are what got recorded in Scripture, such as that of 1 Cor 15:3-8 and other early Christian creeds.

[savedbygrace]

Luke 4:4

“And Jesus answered him, saying,  It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

SOLA SCRIPTURA!

WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY MARY WAS IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED
OR WAS PHYSICALLY TAKEN UP TO HEAVEN
IT DOESN'T.
Catholics believe anything they are told to by their priests,
By the way,


A large majority of priests in the Vatican are gay, although many are not sexually active, a new book claims.

A total of about 80 percent of the most revered clerics in the Roman Catholic Church are homosexual despite the church’s opposition to gay rights, according to the extensively researched book by French journalist Frédéric Martel.

The gay priests adhere to an unspoken code called “the closet, ” where it is understood that, for instance, a cardinal or bishop who denounces homosexuality is more likely to be gay, according to the book “In the Closet of the Vatican.”

Another controversial claim in the book is that Colombian Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo defended the church’s positions on homosexuality while hiring male prostitutes,  according to The Guardian.

[savedbygrace]

A large majority of priests in the Vatican are gay, although many are not sexually active, a new book claims.

A total of about 80 percent of the most revered clerics in the Roman Catholic Church are homosexual despite the church’s opposition to gay rights, according to the extensively researched book by French journalist Frédéric Martel.

The gay priests adhere to an unspoken code called “the closet, ” where it is understood that, for instance, a cardinal or bishop who denounces homosexuality is more likely to be gay, according to the book “In the Closet of the Vatican.”

Another controversial claim in the book is that Colombian Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo defended the church’s positions on homosexuality while hiring male prostitutes,  according to The Guardian.

[TheThreatenedSwan]

The Bible can't interpret itself. We need an interpretive tradition to interpret it, so that interpretive tradition had better be one with authority. Protestants have no way to say whether their interpretation of the Bible is correct at all. When they argue for perspicuity, they have no way of saying whether it is clear due to some shared tradition or because of sola scriptura. And we see the people who argue along those lines always have a Christianity that is very particular to their time and place, one that would seem out of place and down right wrong in any other time and place especially the early Church.

[TheSignofJonah]

We never said “all things” rather tradition takes a back seat to the buble