Protestant apologist James White has admitted that sola scriptura was not valid during times of enscripturation, and I agree with him. Of course, I also believe that sola scriptura is not a valid concept now, either, and I�m going to demonstrate this in one quick and easy refutation. In other places on my site I have refuted the arguments Protestants use with verses such as Matthew 15:1-20, 1 Corinthians 4:6, and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I refuted each verse separately, but here I will refute them all at once.
For the sake of argument, let�s grant that every verse Protestants use to support sola scriptura actually can be interpreted to mean sola scriptura. However, we know that since sola scriptura wasn�t valid during times of enscripturation, the New Testament authors could NOT have meant sola scriptura, and the original readers couldn�t have interpreted those verses that way (except for Revelation, the last book written). Now, sola scriptura says that Scripture is sufficiently perspicuous (clear) for anybody of average intelligence to understand its meaning. So, if the original Christians were able to interpret Scripture to mean something OTHER than sola scriptura, then why shouldn�t we? Even if some verses COULD be interpreted as sola scriptura, there�s no reason to believe they should; Scripture is not sufficiently perspicuous to show whether or not they should. Let me use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as an example:
�All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.�
Some Protestants interpret this to mean that Scripture completes us, so therefore we don�t need anything else. However, when Timothy read this, Scripture STILL completed him, but he STILL needed the oral Traditions (both those that would later be written down in Scripture and those that would stay oral) because the New Testament had not been completed yet. So if Timothy interpreted this to mean something OTHER than sola scriptura, there�s no reason why we shouldn�t.
Because of this, Revelation, the last book written, is the only book of the bible that can possibly teach sola scriptura. So, does it? Nope. The best verse Protestants can come up with (although I think most Protestants don�t use this verse) is Revelation 22:18:
�I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book�
Some Protestants say that Tradition adds to �this book,� but they misinterpret the verse. Rather than referring to the whole bible, this verse is obviously only referring to the book of Revelation, so no sola scriptura here.
So, since Revelation does not teach sola scriptura and no other book of the bible CAN teach sola scriptura, it is unbiblical. If it is unbiblical, then it is self-refuting and untrue. How about that for a quick and easy refutation of sola scriptura :-P
