Sola Scriptura II

SOLA SCRIPTURA...PART 2

Sola Scriptura means, 'If it is not in the Bible, I will not believe it'. Ask a Protestant if he believes in Sola Scriptura. If he/she says 'yes', then ask, 'Why, by what authority do you believe this'? In order for anyone to practice Sola Scripture, then the Scripture for believing that doctrine must be found in the Bible, or else how can they believe it? They will invariably point to 2Tim 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by GOD, and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of GOD may be perfect, equipped for every good work."

Now let us use our good old 'common sense' and examine these verses.

1. Q. Does verse 16 say 'ONLY' Scripture? No, it says 'ALL' Scripture. Now just what does this mean? What is 'ALL' Scripture? 2Timothy was written by St. Paul at about 65-66 A.D., since he was martyred soon after in 67 A.D.. What Scripture did Paul refer to? What Scripture was available to Timothy at this early time in Christianity?

A. During the first century, the Scripture used by the early Christians was the Old Testament. It was a Jewish work known as the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew O.T. into Greek, the language used in the whole region at the time. There was no New Testament for hundreds of years until the 'Council of Carthage' in 397, assembled the individual 27 books into what we now have. So if you believe in 2Tim 3:16-17, as the authority for Sola Scriptura, then you have to throw out the New Testament and make do with the Old. That is called 'Judaism'. By the way, the Septuagint included the Apocrypha, called Deuterocanonicals by Catholics, the seven books of the O.T. not included in protestant Bibles. Now fundamentalists are put in the awkward position of having to accept the Apocrypha if they cling to 2Tim 3:16-17.

2. Q. But weren't there were a few N.T. books written by the time Paul wrote 2 Tim?

A. Some of Paul's letters were written before 2Tim, and Mark about 50-65, and Luke in the early 60's. But none of these were in use at the time. Besides, this whole question becomes moot if you back up and read 2Tim 3:15, "For from your infancy you have known the Sacred Writings.." If Paul wrote 2Tim in 66, and Timothy was then a Bishop, then Timothy in his infancy, pushed the time back to around 36, many years before the first N.T. book was written. Again it was the O.T. only, that Paul had to have referred to at that time.

3. Q. How can it be O.T. only? Did not the Apostles teach about Jesus Christ and all that He had done?

A. You are absolutely right. They followed to the letter, the command of the Lord in Mt 28:20, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..." Did Jesus command that the Apostles should write a book? No, He said go out and teach. Now what does this mean? How about 'Tradition'? The Apostles taught of Jesus Christ by word of mouth, handing down what they had been taught, verbally. That is a very good explanation of the meaning of Tradition. Read the Acts of the Apostles.

4. Q. What about 'useful for teaching'?

A. Useful? Yes! Use 'only' the Bible for teaching and nothing else? No! After all, a screwdriver is useful for putting in screws but another tool is needed to hammer a nail. Paul does not say Scripture is the 'only' means of teaching.

5. Q. But verse 17 said the man of GOD may be perfect, equipped for every good work.

A. Yes, but who is the 'man of GOD'. Don't forget, Paul is addressing Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus, and truly a 'man of GOD'. A man of GOD needs Scripture to perform his 'good work'. Does it say 'fully' equipped for every good work? How about if I showed you another passage with almost the same wording, but about another subject. Would you believe that one too as being self sufficient? Look at Jam 1:4, "And let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and entire, lacking nothing." Now using the Protestant logic here, then 'patience' is all that is needed to be 'perfect', and 'entire'. Hmmm, I thought Scripture was all that was needed in 2 Timothy!

Now to sum it up and tie it all in a neat little package, we have to back up one more verse to 2Tim 3:14, "But do you continue in the things you have learned and that have been entrusted to you, knowing of whom you have learned them." What is this verse telling us? Paul said, 'continue in the things I have taught you'. Paul taught them orally as demonstrated time and again in Acts. He tells Timothy to continue in the traditions. If you take 2Tim 3:14-17 in context, Paul tells Timothy to keep the traditions at first, and then to use Scriptures to advantage at the end. He is saying, 'Tradition', and 'Scripture' go hand in hand. Sola Scriptura therefore is not Biblical.

Sola Scriptura is not historical either, as the 'doctrine' did not exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity. There were no Bibles for the masses, as each one had to be hand copied by Monks. Each copy took many years to produce and they were prohibitively expensive. Even if copies were plentiful, which they weren't, the vast majority of the population of the world was illiterate and could not read them anyway. Sola Scriptura is therefore not workable, as there was no Scripture for the 'masses' to use.

The false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, first proclaimed by Martin Luther, created the 'everyone for himself' syndrome for Bible interpretation. Each individual would claim, 'the Holy Spirit told me'. This thinking flies into the face of what the Bible actually teaches, that individual interpretation of Scripture cannot be done. See Acts 8:27-39, and 2Pet 1:20, and 2Pet 3:16-18. Belief in Sola Scriptura is the primary reason for the fact that there are over 28,000 splinters in Protestantism. There can be only one truth, and yet each splinter claims, 'the Holy Spirit told me'. Each claims the truth, yet each has differences with the others. Truth is one, therefore all Churches should be united in the one truth. Are we led to believe there over 28,000 Holy Spirits, each telling a protestant sect something different, or maybe one Holy Spirit giving a different truth to each? The doctrine of Sola Scripture is clearly a false doctrine invented by mere men, and has no Scriptural basis whatsoever.

Anyone who believes in the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and rejects tradition, is taking away from the Word of GOD. They are therefore in violation of all of the Bible verses which admonish, "Do not add to, or take away from, the Word of GOD." Deut 4:2, 11:32, 13:1, Psa 12:7, 33:4,
Psa 50:16-17, Prov 5:7, 30:5-6, Jer 23:36, Gal 1:8, 1Pet 1:24-25, 2Pet 3:15-16, Rev 22:18-20

I think if anyone is really serious about believing in Sola Scriptura, then he must agree that the Bible has to spell out the doctrine, or he cannot believe in it. If that is the case, then please, someone show me the verse, so I can believe in Sola Scriptura too?

Return To HomePage: