Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

Second Rebuttal

 

Moses Flores

 

 

            Again, I am disappointed with the lack of positive proof for any position that is being taken by my fellow debater.  I understand the claim that Rome is before all, therefore supreme, etc…however, there are some obvious discrepancies, I think, by my opponent and Rome, including his belief in ongoing revelation as is clear by the revelation from God he says he received(CCC 65-67).  There are other topics that were brought up that I would certainly be more than willing to engage with, particularly the historicity and Scriptural basis of the Papacy.  Perhaps after debating Sola Scriptura, we may engage that topic.  For now, I want to address Sola Scriptura and the Early Fathers.

            Recall first, that Sola Scriptura is a claim about the sufficiency of Scripture to contain all that is necessary for salvation and godliness; it is a statement about is perspicuity, or clarity.  I would refer the reader to my opening statement in which I explicitly denied what Sola Scriptura is NOT for already one of those caricatures of the doctrines has come up and been erected as a straw man argument.  In particular, it was assumed that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, especially regarding its formal sufficiency, means that “the scriptures are clear enough so that all may come to the exact same understanding…”  Obviously, this is not my position.  Again, all that needs to be known for salvation is clear.  For instance, when the Philippian jailer asks Paul, “what must I do to be saved?”, it doesn’t take an expert in Greek or a Masters in theology to read and understand Paul’s word, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…” (see Acts 16:30-31). 

            Sola Scriptura is not a statement about exhaustive knowledge or even how the readers will handle Scripture.  Scripture itself is clear that there are those who “twist the Scriptures” (II Peter 3:16), who “distort”(NIV) , “tamper”(ESV) or “handle the word of God deceitfully”(NKJV) (see II Cor. 4:2) as well as those who “peddle” the word of God or adulterate its meaning for personal gain (II Cor. 2:17).  But Scripture does not change because it is misinterpreted.  Scripture remains what it is infallible and eternally (cf. I Peter 1:24-25) for it is the eternal word of the eternal God.  Moreover, Scripture itself does not provide as a remedy for the mishandling of God’s word an “infallible interpreter”, but rather reminds us that all are commended to its study ( II Tim. 2:15) so that we may “rightly handle the word of truth”. 

            Hence, what Protestants are saying about the Scripture is this:  That they alone possess the necessary “stuff” about salvation and the “instructions” of how to understand the “stuff”.  It’s like buying a model car.  The box comes with the parts as well as with the instructions to put it all together.  Scripture contains all that one needs to know to be saved.  It carries within it the sufficient testimony of the apostles and of God the Holy Spirit so that even the ordinary reader might understand clearly what is required for salvation, namely faith in Jesus Christ.  As a statement of its sufficiency then, nothing more is needed beyond what Scripture says for salvation.  One does not need to “supplement” or “add” anything to what Scripture already says about salvation.  As such, Scripture function as the sole infallible authority in the Church for matters regarding salvation and life.  This is in large due to its own nature as Theopneustos, God-breathed (cf. II Tim. 3:16).  I hope this clarifies my position greatly.

            I would like to move on to the view of the early Fathers regarding Scripture as the basis for doctrine, and their strong statements that certainly warrant a historical foundation for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as I have presented here.  I cannot be exhaustive, obviously for that is well beyond the scope of this work.  However, I have written a bit more extensively on this topic than I can present here, and would encourage the reader to certainly explore this work (link).  My purpose, here is to simply show that the Fathers, in word and practice certainly upheld to the principle of Sola Scriptura in how they defended their faith and in how they sought to prove their faith, especially to heretical sects.  They must be quoted at length to give them a fair reading.  I will not comment too much on their words, but only allow them to speak for themselves and let the reader best decide how to understand their words. 

 

            Cryil of Jerusalem

“Have though ever in mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures.  For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech.  Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures.  For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.[1]” (italics mine)

 

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…we comprise the whole doctrine of the faith in a few lines…for these articles of the faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith.  And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments.[2]” (italics mine)

 

Athanasius

 

“Since, therefore, such as attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness!, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures.  For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable.[3]” (Italics mine)

 

“Which of the two theologians sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures?  If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews.  But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and ‘over all blessed for ever,’ is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil , a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls ‘knoweth not that giants perish with her, and reacheth the depths of Hades?’ This they know themselves, and in their crafts they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, but uttering something else.  For if they speak, a condemnation will follow’ and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side…Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shewn, and it shall be shewn now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles.[4]” (italics mine)

 

“But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say.  For an argument when confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly proved.[5]”

 

“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.  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.  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 such 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 unreasoned.[6]” (italics mine)

 

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine Scriptures.[7]” (italics mine)

 

“These are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain.  In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.  Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.  For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’  And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘ Search the Scriptures, for these are they which testify of Me.’[8]” (Italics mine)     [Interestingly enough, Athansius has just stated what he believes to be the canon of Scripture prior to this statement and only mentions the 66 books affirmed in the Protestant canon]

 

Augustine of Hippo

 

“We do no injustice to Cyprian when we make a distinction between his epistles and the canonical authority of the divine Scriptures.  Apart from the Sacred canonical Scripture, we may freely pass judgment on the writings of believers and disbelievers alike…For that reason Cyprian’s epistles, which have no canonical authority must be judged according to their agreement with the authority of the divine writings.  Thus we can accept from Cyprian only what agrees, and safely reject what does not agree, with Scripture.[9]” (Italics mine)

 

“However, it is for the philosophers to determine whatever and how they differ, though their own writings sufficiently testify that they make great account of love (amor) placed on good objects, and even on God Himself.  But we wished to show that the Scripture of our religion, whose authority we prefer to all writings whatsoever, make no distinction between amor, dilectio, and caritas; and we have already shown that amor is used in a good connection…what we assert let us prove from Scripture[10].”

 

“But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely, of those which in the Church are called canonical, it must be believed without reservation.  In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.[11]”

 

“However, if your inquire or recall to memory the opinion of our Ambrose, and also of our Cyprian, on the point in question, you will perhaps find that I also have not been without some whose footsteps I follow in that which I have maintained.  At the same time, as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.[12]”

 

            Again, this kind of presentation does not allow me to be as thorough as I would like to be, but I think it is sufficiently clear (no pun intended) that some of the early fathers certainly held to the principle of Sola Scriptura.  That is, they certainly gave the Reformers the raw material, and even direct formulation of the doctrine.  They give clear quotes concerning their doctrinal formulations being in line with Scripture alone.  Especially those that dealt with the Gnostic heresy, for recall that the Gnostics taught that there was more to Scripture that was needed to truly interpret and understand it, particularly their “viva voce” as Irenaeus referred to it, or living voice, or tradition, that one needed in order to be saved.  It was the Gnostic who postulated “not by Scripture alone” and it was the Fathers of the Church who could only combat them by appealing to Scripture alone. 

            Again, I have this material examined much more extensively.  I was asked to “please read the early church father themselves and not commentaries on them,” and I think I have done this sufficiently. 

            I must point out again, that so far my arguments based on the exegesis of Scripture remain unrefuted.  Thus, so far, I have demonstrated that the Scriptures testify to their own sufficiency.  Nothing has been presented from that text as error on my understanding of it either grammatically or syntactically.  I’m hoping to engage more with what you believe rather than merely answer questions about my own belief, though I don’t mind the opportunity to what I believe.

            Sola Scriptura, thus, is Biblical and historical.  Jesus adhered to this principle when he engaged his opponents including Satan and the Pharisees.  The apostles even supported their Gospel with the Scriptures (eg. I Cor. 15:3-5).  The early Church even, as best as they had the Scriptures (for they were still under persecution and even the Scriptures were threatened for destruction, and the complete body of the New Testament was still scattered throughout the churches) adhered to the principle of Sola Scriptura. 

            I hope this information proves useful to the reader in expositing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as well as giving historical foundation to it.  In Christ’s name.  Amen.