|
Background
The concept of Sola Scriptura was essentially non-existent until the time of the Protestant Reformation. Before addressing the specific scriptural references that contradict the concept of Sola Scriptura, we must address the source of what most all Christians refer to today as the “Bible”.
While there were agreed standards for the content of the Old Testament Scriptures, there was no uniform standard or canon for the Christian Scriptures until the late 4th century.
First, at the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. The final canon of Carthage was as well ratified by the Pope. These Councils were attended by and participated in by the Bishops throughout the Roman Empire.
This New Testament Canon was essentially undisputed for 1100 years until the time of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. The priests, clerics, monks, and others of the Catholic Church maintained the content of the sacred scriptures in handwritten format despite the challenges of the Roman persecutions, Germanic migrations/invasions, the Islamic invasions and conquests, not to mention the societal challenges of things such as the Black Plague, which killed 1/3 of the population of Europe. Lesser but significant challenges existed due to the actions of heretical groups such as the Gnostics, Manicheans, Arians, and others.
Some Christians, without the historical perspective of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, tend to view the Bible as a book that dropped out of heaven at the time of The Reformation. In reality, the Protestant reformers would have had no Bible on which to establish the doctrine of “sola
scriptura” had it not been for the actions of the historically authentic Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and of course, the protection and guidance of The Holy Spirit.
If a person believes and proclaims the current day Bible to be the inspired Word of God, he or she must accept that the Holy Spirit was at work within and amongst the Bishops of the 4th century that determined the books and letters to be included in the New Testament.
In addition to learning about the formation of the Bible, a person seeking Truth should consider when the Word of Jesus Christ was first reduced to writing.
The earliest known books of the New Testament, the letters of St. Paul, were not known to exist in written format until at least 20 years after the ministry of Jesus.
The Book of Revelation was not put to pen by St. John for approximately 60 years after the ascension of Jesus Christ. So, what is the point of this?
Oral vs. Written – What does the Bible say?
Clearly, the Good News of Jesus Christ was being taught by the apostles in oral and liturgical tradition for several decades before being reduced to written text.
In 2 Timothy 2: 2, Paul makes it clear that the faith he established was initially established by oral tradition:
“And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well”.
In 2 Thesalonians 2: 14-15, St. Paul instructs the church in Thesalonica:
“To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of
ours”. Here it is clear that oral statements and traditions were used as well as the written word to spread and build the Christian church.
In 1 Corinthians 11:2, Paul states similarly to the church in Corinth.
“I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you”.
On occasion while writing to the Thesalonians, Paul stated that the Word was received by hearing (vs.reading).
“And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe”.
(1 Thesalonians 2:13)
Sola Scriptura is not Biblical
I have never seen or read anything in the Bible supporting the Fundamentalist Protestant concept of sola scriptura. Then, what do defenders of Sola Scriptura use to defend this concept?
I have personally encountered and read of the application of 2 Timothy 3: 14-17.
|
"But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good
work". |
A brief analysis reveals no support for Sola Scriptura in this passage. As Paul writes to Timothy mentioning the scriptures
“that from infancy you have known”, it should be clear that the scriptures Paul refers to are the Old Testament. No New Testament scriptures were available while Timothy was an infant. Additionally, all Christians would agree that the NT and OT scriptures are
“useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in
righteousness”. However, nothing is present in this passage to justify Sola Scriptura, or the concept that Divine Revelation must come exclusively from the Bible.
Somewhat to the contrary, Jesus himself stated “You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. But you do not want to come to me to have
life”. (John 5:39-40) Yet, it should be clear that Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, with reference to their knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures.
Not everything done or said by Jesus was placed in the Bible, at least from the viewpoint of John, and he had the probable benefit of already knowing the material of the synoptic gospel writers.
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name”.
John 20: 30-31
“It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written”.
John 21: 24-25
|
If no Sola Scriptura, then What?
St. Paul was clear in stating that the Church was the source of Truth.
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of
truth”. 1 Timothy 3:15
Stern Warning
It seems to me that one of the precepts of Sola Scriptura is the concept that any given individual should be able to pick up the Bible, read it for his or herself and personally determine the complete fullness of Truth. St. Peter seems to have stated otherwise:
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of
God”. 2 Peter 1:20-21.
Who truly practices sola scriptura?
It seems that another precept of sola scriptura is that tradition, Sacred or ordinary, should have no place in the faith life of a Christian. Yet, practical experience has revealed to me that very few Christians will read the entirety of the Bible and solely from the Bible, develop his or her beliefs and doctrines for living their life. Most Christians will use a commentary or the opinions of their pastors to aid in forming their understanding of the Bible. In essence, this is a type of tradition. This is made clear by the existence of such varied interpretations of books such as Revelation and Daniel and by the existence of thousands of denominations.
Conclusion
Few Christians that claim to believe in Sola Scriptura truly practice sola scriptura. Every preacher and independent church develops its own tradition when it interprets the Bible differently from other Christians and proceeds to teach accordingly. The Bible does not support the concept of sola scriptura, but it does refute the concept of sola scriptura.
An honest review of the history of Christianity will reveal that the Bible comes from the Church, not the other way around. This should not be interpreted to undermine the value of the Bible, for
“an ignorance of scripture is an ignorance of Christ”. (St. Jerome, 342-420 A.D.)
C. Gleason
|
