The term “sola Scriptura” is often identified with the sixteenth century Reformation. It was at this time that many theologians were questioning the authority of the Roman Catholic Church (and, ultimately, the Pope). The question raised was; what determines “sound Christian doctrine”?
1) The written word (OT & NT)
2) Apostolic succession/authority
3) Oral Tradition
Is “Sola Scriptura” found in the Bible? Well, yes and no. While it is not spelled out in quite those terms, the underlying principle can be seen throughout. The New Testament contains a multitude of quotes/appeals to Old Testament scripture. The writing of Paul contain theology centered around OT scripture, and how it applied to the NT revelation of Jesus Christ.
In the early Church, the apostles taught orally. However, at the end of the apostolic age all revelation was preserved via the written Scriptures. Should “new revelations” be accepted after the Apostolic age? Concerning this potential problem, the Apostle Paul wrote:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Concerning oral teachings, would we consider reliable? The early Church (2nd generation) wrestled with those who sought to bring “new revelations”…some were teaching doctrines that clearly contradicted the Apostolic teachings. In the early 2nd century one can already see the appeal to “Sola Scriptura” in their attempts to refute false teaching. They didn’t appeal to oral tradition. They didn’t appeal to a particular bishop/”pope”. They quoted scripture as their source of authority.
Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, etc) defended Christianity against heresies. In order to teach sound doctrine, they appealed to the authority of Scripture. Likewise, the writings of later apologists (e.g.- Justin martyr, Athenagoras, etc) the same principle can be demonstrated.
A very early Church father, Irenaeus, also addressed this issue. He firmly reinforced the fact that the Apostles oral teaching had been committed to writing via the Scriptures. Hence, the Scriptures had now become the only basis for Church teaching. Irenaeus wrote:
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”
Sola Scriptura is about the Bible, not in the Bible. It’s the theory that you can find all you need for religious conversion and belief in the Bible. The abundance of churches with differing beliefs is a good argument against Sola Scriptura.
Are you looking for a specific scripture? I doubt if Sola Scriptura is just one verse, but 1st Corinthians 15:3 and 4 states: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, and that He was buried and that He rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures,” Don’t know if that is what you mean. I think the Bible is Sola Scriptura, but I’m not sure. Blessings to you, Nani
Here is a classic discussion of Sola Scriptura by AA Hodge (Christian theologian of 150 years ago):
You can’t. When Jesus told the Apostles to communicate the faith, the truths that must be believed in order to be saved, He did not say, вЂњTake your Bible, go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.вЂќ Jesus made no reference to the Holy Bible because in those days, there was no Holy Bible as we know it today. Sola Scriptura is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of “Sacred Scripture” aside from the Old Testament; there was no “New Testament”; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters.
Jesus never wrote a Bible. He never commanded His Apostles to write Bibles. Jesus never said to write Bibles, to scatter them all over the earth and to let every man read it and interpret it for himself in accordance to His teachings. Yet, this is the basic belief of Protestantism. Everyone needs to read the Bible and decide what is the truth and what is not the truth. Not only does each individual denomination have its own individual and opposing beliefs, so does many Protestant Churches within the same denomination.
And when Jesus condemned tradition, He was not speaking of Apostolic Tradition. the pharisaic laws regarding daily activities had become a kind of neurosis – He was speaking of that kind of traition. Note what Jesus will now emphasize вЂ“ what is wrong with this corrupt teaching, and He will say nothing about the idea of Tradition itself…”there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.’ that was the point of it: not, “Scripture versus Tradition” but “People, listen to reason: it’s not the dirt on the outside that matters but the dirt in the soul.”
New Testament repeatedly teaches the value of Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; cf. John 20:30; 21:25; Mark 4:33-35; 6:34-35; Luke 24:27-28; Acts 1:3; extra-biblical Tradition alongside Old Testament accounts is used in Jude 1:9; 2 Timothy 3:8; James 5:17; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4; cf. Matthew 2:23; 23:2-4).
More important in this context, however, many of Jesus’ teachings, too, are based in rabbinic tradition that does not appear in the Bible. Take the golden rule, for example. In Leviticus 19:18 it had the form of “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” but in the Gospels, Jesus teaches it in a different form:
“So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.”
Jesus seems to have taken the form of this teaching from the work of Rabbi Hillel (40 B.C. вЂ“ 10 A.D.), who taught, “What you do not like should be done to you, do not to your fellow; this is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
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.
Finally, there is Jesus’ famous upholding of the “Chair of Moses” as a teaching authority (at least for the time being), an element of the faith that does not appear in the Bible, but comes from tradition (Matthew 23:2-3).
You cannot ; “sola scriptura” is the heresy that constitutes the foundation on which all protestant and evangelical denominations were created.
Many people nowadays are tinkering with the Bible without understanding a few important facts:
1) The Bible came from and belongs to the Catholic Tradition ; it cannot be properly read or understood apart from the Catholic Tradition ; in rejecting the Catholic Church and its Sacred Tradition, well meaning Protestants reject the most important Work of the Holy Spirit, the Counselor that Jesus promised to send us, in order to teach us, remind us of and make us understand His Holy Word. When we reject Divine Assistance failure and confusion is to be expected. If you want to check out the teachings of the Sacred Tradition, you can consult it online at http://www.usccb.org/catechism/index.sht…
2) Many Bibles were edited by people who are heretics or even unbelievers (i.e.:TMN) ; such versions celebrate and worship the power of man and while they still contain much of the original text intact, omissions, additions, errors and falsifications abound ; confusion is bound to occur when reading such versions ; when consulting a religious book, one should check the first pages for the “Imprimatur” and the “Nihil Obstat” endorsement by a Catholic Bishop (such as is the case with the NAB version or the Catholic edition of the RSV). You can access the NAB version online at http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/
3) Luther, a catholic priest, who is credited in making the Holy Bible more accessible by translating it in spoken languages, was not as aggressively anti-catholic as some of our hard core Bible Christians can be ; he would be shocked and would never go alone with some of the perversions that are being taught nowadays in the name of “sola scriptura” ; if you want to get an idea of how the Bible was interpreted long before Christians began arguing about it, you can check it out at http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaA…
You can’t. “Sola Scriptura” is LATIN.
However, the concept the “Sola Scriptura” describes is present in MANY places in both the Old and New Testaments.
Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone, is, ironically, an unbiblical concept.
People can call it Sola Scriptura, but it includes the decisions of the people who decided which books would be included and which would be excluded.
sola scriptura IS the bible.