Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?
Moses Flores vs. GNRHead
Affirmative Opening Statement
By: Moses Flores
I would first like to thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate this very important subject of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I hope and pray that this debate will come to full fruition and that all who come across it, Protestant or Roman Catholic, will benefit from it to the glory of God.
Let me begin by first defining the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, followed by denying what the doctrine is not, and then exegeting several passages of Scripture that clearly teach the doctrine as defined by the Reformers.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura may defined as follows: That the Scriptures alone, as the sole God-breathed revelation in the Church, authoratively contain all that is necessary to be believed for salvation, doctrine, and for living out the Christian life. As such, Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature, sufficiency and authority of Scripture.
That being said, let me say what Sola Scriptura is not.
1) Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is an exhaustive compendium of all knowledge
2) Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is an exhaustive compendium of all religious knowledge
3) Sola Scriptura does not preclude the Church from teaching nor from formulating Creeds or Confessions
4) Sola Scriptura is not a denial that the revelation of God was ever in oral form
5) Sola Scriptura does not entail the rejection of all traditions
6) Sola Scriptura is not a restriction or a denial of the Holy Spirit in the process of guiding and illuminating the Church
Many caricature the doctrine of Sola Scriptura according to these above statements. For instance, it is quite common to take Sola Scriptura as meaning the Protestant and his Bible alone with no aid in understanding the Scriptures at all coming to whatever conclusions he wishes. Such is not the case. Rather, it is the job and responsibility of each handler of Scripture to understand that this is God’s word and we are to seek the thoughts of God after Him. We do not seek to interpret God but to understand and apply what He has already said clearly.
With that, I will demonstrate from Scripture that the Scriptures alone contain the sufficient material necessary for what is to be believed unto salvation and for living out the Christian life. I will offer two texts here: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21. I will begin with 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
Before engaging the text it is important that we understand the context surrounding the passage in order to really grasp the significance. It is important that we understand that the text was not written without context, but with intention and even particular situations that Paul anticipated to arise in the Church. II Timothy 3:1-9 details the coming false teachers in the Church (v1.) and what activities and lifestyles will define their work. In verses 8 and 9 Paul describes their inevitable end even like those who opposed Moses, God’s holy prophet.
Then Paul tells Timothy, “But you have carefully followed my doctrine…” (v10-11) followed by a harsh truth that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (v12). This is followed by a reiteration of the warning of the coming false teachers and the influence they will have within the Church (v13). Then Paul tells Timothy of that which will preserve his faith. He says,
“But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (v14-15)
The conjunction, “but,” shows that
Timothy is not to follow in the path of deception that the false teachers
follow. Rather, he is to continue in
those things that he has learned from Paul and even from his mother and
grandmother (cf. II Tim. 1:5) who have taught him the law, even the Scriptures,
at a young age. Those things that were
learned were the Gospel. They were not
secrets withheld. Recall that Timothy is
a young pastor for the Church in
But the real reason why Timothy must continue in the Faith is because He has become convinced through Holy Scripture that it is true. It is true that Timothy learned faith early from his grandmother and mother. But their words were nothing to Timothy if they were not grounded in Scripture. That is, there is no conflict between two modes of teaching going on here – one oral and one written. Rather, those things which were taught to him by his mother and grandmother, even by Paul himself, were based on the authority of the Word of God. Thus, the conjunction “and” is not only meant to unite the two sources of Timothy’s knowledge of the Gospel, but to give foundation to the former. Thus, Paul can say of the Scripture here - which is not mentioned of his teaching alone or that of Timothy’s mother or grandmother – that these alone are “able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” The Greek word translated as “able” here is dunamena which is means “power” or “ability.” The force of the word “able” here is that Scripture possesses the inherent enabling power, as it were, to “make one wise for salvation.”
Without even getting into verses 16 or 17 yet, we can see already that the assertion from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that the Scriptures alone contains all that is necessary to know for one to be saved is true from this text. Also, we can see that any other “traditions” or “words of men” taught in the faith must be submitted to and in accordance with Scripture. Paul’s words and the teachings of Timothy’s mother and grandmother were no different than those already recorded in Scripture. The only thing that gave their words validity was that they were in accordance with Scripture, the very word of God(cf. Acts 17:11) . Interestingly enough, at this point in the text, Paul probably only has the Old Testament in mind as the New Testament canon had not yet been completed. Thus, one could say that the Old Testament, rightly understood through the New Testament revelation, is sufficient to reveal that salvation is only through faith in the completed work of the suffering servant of God, the anointed Christ.
Verse 16, however, shifts from only the Old Testament Scriptures to “all Scripture”. The text says,
“All Scripture is God-breathed, and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for
every good work.” (NIV)
Getting technical for a moment, most translations use the word “inspiration.” But this word does not render the best translation from the Greek.
The word “inspiration” comes from the Latin word “inspirare” used in the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible which means “to breathe into”. This Latin word, however, misconveys the meaning of the Greek word used here, which is Theopneustos. Theopneustos is more properly translated by the NIV as “God-breathed”. The differences between the words are significant. For instance, the Latin word “inspirare” is a verb which would function as saying what has been done to Scripture. The word Theopneustos, however, is a noun and serves as a adjective predicating what Scripture is (the nature of Scripture). The Greek word gives the idea that the words of Scripture are the very breath proceeding forth from the mouth of God as He speaks in the very writings of Scripture. The ESV version translated the Greek as “breathed out by God” which is a very accurate rendering. Theopneustos speaks of the very substance, or nature, of all Scripture.
It is important that we see that Paul most certainly shifted to “all Scripture” and not merely “some Scripture” such as the Old Testament only. Rather, this is clearly a categorical statement about the true nature of Scripture. This becomes important when considering the nature of the canon of Scripture. Since only Scripture is God-breathed, it is logical to say that only those writings that are God-breathed are Scripture and those that are not God-breathed are not Scripture, thus not part of the canon. Scripture is God-breathed by nature as God’s word breathed out of His very mouth and not because it was declared to be by anybody. It is God-breathed and thus Scripture.
The implication from the nature of Scripture is that it alone is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” Now, at this point some will argue that the Scriptures do not use the word “sufficient” but rather the word profitable”. Granted that the word “sufficient” is not in the text, the concept certainly is, however (Much like the doctrine of the Trinity). For whatever else one offers as “profitable” for doctrine, etc… that must necessarily also be “God-breathed”. This is not admitted for any other but Scripture. Not even the apostles themselves, as vehicles of revelation at one time, referred to themselves as “God-breathed.” This word is only attributed to Scripture alone. That which is not the God-breathed Word of God is not as profitable the uniqueness of Scripture to tell us what to believe or how to live.
Paul also states what the purpose of Scripture is for the Christian. The particle “that” which begins verse 17 is referred to as a particle of design, or purpose. That is to say that the purpose, according to Scripture, for Scripture is, first, to “complete” the Christian and, second, to “thoroughly equip” the Christian for every good work. The Greek word for “complete” means “entirely suited; complete in accomplishment, ready,” and even “fully qualified”. Likewise, the Greek word for “thoroughly equip”, a verb, means “to equip or furnish completely.” Now, let’s understand what the text is saying. If the God-breathed Scriptures are able to “make one wise for salvation” (v15), “complete” the Christian and “thoroughly equip” the Christian for every good work(v17) – which we can take, in context, to include doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness – then does it not follow that the Scripture alone, as the sole God-breathed authority in the Church, are sufficient to live out the Christian faith both doctrinally and morally? The answer is an obvious yes! After all, we must ask if the text really means what it says it means here: Do the Scriptures really make one wise for salvation? Do the Scriptures really complete the man of God? Do the Scriptures really thoroughly equip for every good work? If the Bible is taken as true, then one can only answer affirmatively to those questions. If that is the case, then the Scriptures lack nothing to render them “not enough” or “insufficient” concerning the Gospel or anything that God would have us believe or know how to live as Christians. God has spoken, the matter is settled!
A final point worth noting is that Paul understands that he is writing these things to Timothy knowing that His own death was nearing and the Church would soon be robbed of another of its apostles of Christ (see 4:6-8). Thus, it would appear that Paul is declaring to Timothy what would be his guide after Paul died, indeed the guide for all Christians.
The other passage that teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is in 2 Peter 1:19-21. Here, after having just predicted his own death( v14; much like Paul had in 2 Tim.3), Peter wants to “make every effort so that after [his] departure [they] would be able to recall these things”(mentioned in verse 3-10). Peter leaves his audience with a reminder about the truthfulness of those things which were previously spoken to them(1:16). He reminds them, first, that they did not follow “tales” or “myths” when the “power and coming” of Jesus Christ was declared to them that will be witnessed by all in the Second Coming. Instead, the truthfulness of such a claim rested on the fact that Peter, along with James and John, were “eyewitnesses of His Majesty” in the transfiguration on the Mount (Matt. 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8). These three men heard the voice of God Himself declare of Christ, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Obviously the strength of such a testimony is great beyond measure. To actually hear the voice of God speaking about His own Son is certainly quite an honor and a privilege.
But notice Peter’s modesty of such an experience. Rather than boast in the experience, he says that because of the experience, “we have the prophetic word made more sure”. The more natural rendering of the Greek, however, is “we also have the more sure prophetic word”. Thus, the ESV translates this phrase as “we have something more sure, the prophetic word…” What Peter appears to be saying is that even though he can base the truthfulness of the “power and coming” of Christ on the experience that he had, there is an even stronger foundation for declaring the “power and coming” of Christ, and that is the prophetic word, the Scriptures. This is not to deny the experience that Peter had in any such way, of course, but Peter’s view of the authority of Scripture is much higher than that of empirical evidence and subjective experience. Even as he wrote in his first letter, the Word of God is “incorruptible” and it “lives and abides forever” (I Peter 1:22-25).
Peter goes on to say that we would do well to pay attention to the prophetic utterances as one pays attention to a lamp shining in a dark place. The illustration is that just as light attracts our attention in a dark room because light is what allows us to see, so the scriptures are what allow us to be able to discern truth from falsehood and to guide us through life. I don’t doubt that Peter, as a Jew, had Psalm 119:105 which says, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”
But why are the scriptures able to serve as a light? Peter explains this by turning to the origin of scripture. He starts off with a negative statement: “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Most would want to understand the phrase “one’s own interpretation” as a rejection of private interpretation of Scripture. However, in context, this is not Peter’s intended meaning at all. Rather, as Scripture continues Peter’s thought, it becomes clear when he contrasts this statement with the statement in verse 21 about the origin of Scripture, it becomes clear that “one’s own interpretation” is another way of saying what is said in verse 21 as “not being produced by the will of man”. Peter wants us to understand this “first of all”, or most importantly: that prophecy did not come through “an act of human will” or, as other versions say, “never had its origin in the will of man.” That is, Scripture, although penned by men, did not originate from the mind and will of men. Instead, Peter says that “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
The imagery of the Greek word translated as “moved by” is a nautical imagery of a ship whose sail is “carried along” by the wind and directed to its destination. In the same way, the Holy Spirit has carefully directeded men according to their own abilities to be able to write the very Words of God. That is, though some writers of Scripture were more learned than others (for instance, Paul or some prophets) the Spirit was able to use these men so that the words they wrote were not from themselves, but had their origin in God.
With this testimony, Peter declares to us the divine authority of the Scriptures. Peter does not say that we cannot trust the Bible apart from “Sacred Tradition” of some sort. Instead, what is clear is the sufficiency of the scriptures alone to serve as a light in a dark place and are trustworthy and, as such, do not need to be supplemented by anything else. Peter believes this to be true because the scriptures originate from God through the Holy Spirit.
The parallel to II Timothy 3:16 is fairly obvious as well. Both texts are teaching the sufficiency and supremacy of scripture in matters of faith and doctrine. Both of these apostles are writing to their respective congregations or followers as to how they are to be guided once they are gone. In essence, they were now leaving the Church, dare we say mandating, to her the final orders as to how they would function under the normal operations without special revelation through their elders and deacons without the Apostleship. Both of these apostles commended to their followers the Scriptures.
Clearly the points mentioned in the definition of Sola Scriptura have been demonstrated to be based upon the Scriptures alone. That the Scriptures are God-breathed revelation and originate ultimately from God has been demonstrated. Their authority lies in the fact that they are God’s word and based on His authority. That they contain what is necessary to be saved and to operate as a sure guide for doctrine and life apart from the mention of any supplemental “revelation” or “tradition” has also been demonstrated.
Space does not permit an exhaustive list, but it is worth noting, and I shall demonstrate further in upcoming responses that the early Fathers, while not formally defining such a doctrine, had the raw material of such a doctrine presupposed in their faith. I can only offer a brief quote from one early Father here. Regarding inquiry into Christian doctrine, Athanasius (297-373), the champion of the Nicene Creed wrote,
The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ unreasonable (Against the Heathen, part 1.1-3)[1]
Here Athanasius clearly demonstrates
his belief in the sufficiency of Scripture to contain “the knowledge of our
religion” and “the truth of things”.
Further, he says that the source of this knowledge is “independently
manifest” and thus not “in need of human teachers”. Where is this source? Where can I inquire of the plain facts that
“assert themselves day by day”?
Athanasius says one can find them “from the divine oracles” which are
the Scriptures. He explicitly mentions
the sufficiency of Scripture in passing by saying “the sacred and inspired
Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth”.
The Roman Catholic Church accuses Protestants of their doctrines like Sola Scriptura being “theological novums”. Yet, as demonstrated from Holy Scripture and demonstrated from at least one early Father, the doctrine is not new at all. If anything, it was merely suppressed and rediscovered in the Church. Space only precludes me from mentioning more quotes from the Fathers about their view of Scripture.
Sola Scriptura is a Biblical doctrine. God’s word should function as God’s word: authorative, infallible and sufficient. For there is nothing that God has withheld from us in revealing His fullest revelation in the Logos, Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1-3). The Word of God is sufficient.