Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

 

Second Cross Examination Rebuttal

 

Moses Flores

 

 

            There are two points that I wish to respond to in the brief space that I have left.  The first issue is the understanding the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

            It was asserted that it seems as if “the notion of Sola Scriptura does not mean the Bible alone, but actually refers to Scripture along with the being pure and learned, diligent study, the help of the Holy Spirit, and several other things.”  I must emphatically point out here, as I did in my cross examination session, that Sola Scriptura is NOT a doctrinal statement about the hermeneutical method of interpreting Scripture.  There is a difference in making a statement about Scripture and making a statement about how to interpret Scripture.

            I must point out the historical debate of Sola Scriptura is Scripture alone vs. Scripture plus Tradition in Rome.  The debate was not over how to best interpret the Bible.  Sola Scripture is a statement about the nature, sufficiency and authority of Scripture alone to rule the hearts and minds of men for doctrine and life.  It is a statement that says Scripture alone, apart from any other supplemental revelation (though Protestants don’t affirm and other God-breathed revelation other than Scripture).  It is a statement of the sufficiency of Scripture alone to and its clarity to reveal the Gospel so clearly to any who read it.  When anybody reads the words, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved” or “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”(cf. Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9) that there is no way that these words from God Himself given through men under the infallible direction of the Holy Spirit could be misunderstood.

            There is no mention of anything else that one must believe to be saved.  The apostle Paul or Luke never mentions believing in Papal Infallibility as a necessary belief unto salvation, or the Marian Dogma’s, or believing in Rome’s canon of Scripture, etc…Scripture’s clarity is the clarity of the word of the infinite and eternal God:  “Believe and you will be saved.”

 

            Second, concerning “tradition” in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.  It was asserted from this text that the traditions that “were taught” are contained within the writings of the Church fathers.  That they were taught of “the Eucharist, bishops, purgatory, baptism…” as  Rome understand them.  Let’s examine this text to see if we can deduce this.

           

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”  (2:15)

 

            First of all, recall that Rome teaches that the “tradition” is handed down to the Bishops, who are the successors to the apostles, especially to the successor of Peter.  But could that be what was being talked about here?  I don’t think so.  First, note Paul’s audience:  “brethren”.  He is not just writing to the elder of this Church, but to all of the Church.  That is the immediate context.  In the larger context, remember the letter is addressed “to the Church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1).  If Paul was really passing down the Roman tradition understood by Trent and its subsequent dogmatic statements, then Paul should not have included all the brethren, or all the Church, since Rome teaches that only the Bishops possess tradition, and hence only Bishops possess the tool to infallibly interpret Scripture. 

            Next, what about the content of the “tradition”.  Let us note a grammatical point here.  The brethren are to hold to the traditions “which were taught”.  The Greek uses an aorist (past) tense verb here to denote that these teaching were previously taught.  The command is to hold firm to the teaching that had already been given, not what would be given (future tense) or develop later as Rome asserts that Dogmas may develop in the Church. 

Now, we are faced with the question, “what was the content of these teachings?  Was Paul teaching something different to this Church than what had been taught elsewhere?  Of course not!  Paul was always preaching the Gospel and that is what they were to stand firm in.  They were to stand firm in the faith (cf. I Cor. 16:13).  After all, they could only stand firm in that which they were sure of, not what would later develop.  I Thessalonians 4:1-7 also deals with previous teachings that were received by the Thessalonians through Paul’s preaching, and even sum up what those teachings were so that we don’t have to assume them (v. 3-7).  These “traditions” are the same as those mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 where Paul commands the brethren to “withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” which is the Gospel.   Roman Catholic scholar, Mitch Pacwa, even admits that some New Testament usages of the word “tradition” refer merely to the basic teachings of the Gospel.

Finally, we see that these “traditions” – the Gospel - were taught in two ways.  The first was orally which was done when Paul was with the Church in Thessalonica in person while teaching and preaching to them.  The second way they received these “traditions” was by “letter” which is, more than likely, the first letter to the Thessalonians.  Is this inconsistent with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?  Not at all for, as I stated in my opening statement, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not a denial that the revelation of God was in oral form at one time or another.  I would certainly recognize that much of what was taught in the early Church was passed on by word of mouth before it was Scripture.  But to preserve that “tradition” it was put in writing that it may not be tampered with. 

The simple point of this passage is that Paul is binding the hearts and minds of the Thessalonians to the content of his instruction regardless of the mode by which it was delivered.  He is not binding them to how the content came to them.  Rather, he does that more in 2 Timothy 3:16 with Timothy as he realizes he is not going to be with the Church much longer. 

I should point out the inconsistency of my opponent at this point as he himself asserted that the “oral statements” or “traditions” cannot contradict the Scriptures.  It was asserted that “they must complement” each other.  But why must they complement was God says needs no complementary work (cf. Deut. 12:32; 4:2).  The Scripture are God’s covenant document.  We have no right to change God’s covenant at all by adding to or subtracting from it.  Revelation 22:18-19 is especially to be contemplated here.

Thus, grammatically, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 cannot prove the “traditions” of Rome for the dogmas of Rome are nowhere explicitly mentioned in this text at all.  If one asserts them, they are inserting them into the Scriptures.  We should also note the discrepancy that if the “tradition” is contained in the “unanimous consent of the fathers” then, how is it that the Thessalonians were to continue in what had not yet come into existence?  These Thessalonians probably received this letter some forty years before the earliest Church Father.

Finally, I want to deal with an assertion that was made in passing.  First, it was said that if I could show “that Christ’s church always believed in Sola Scriptura and  handed that teaching on to all generations after Christ, then I might rethink my position.”  Well, this cannot be done since Christ church obviously did not “always” believe in it since such a doctrine could not actually have gone into effect until the revelation of God was finished and the canon closed.  This didn’t happen until the late first century with the final writings of the last apostle John.  Before that, the Church had the guidance of the apostles.  But when they died, as I have demonstrated that Peter and Paul so clearly taught, the Church was to follow the Scriptures as their lamp in a dark place, as their guide, as their God-breathed source for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness.  As long as there was revelation still being given, such a doctrine could not even exist.  So your request for “evidence” is essentially impossible, but not to the easing of the conscience but only due to the misunderstanding of the doctrine.

I do not have enough space to answer the series of questions that were asked nor do I wish to as many of them were based off of misunderstandings of Sola Scriptura or topics not relevant to the thesis. 

I must point out that at this point, still, 2 Timothy 3:16 remains grammatically and syntactically unrefuted and still stands.  I hope there will be interaction with that text and my handling of it.