Sola Scriptura? Is it actually in the Scriptures?

Could someone show me in the Scriptures where it says the Scriptures are the only source for knowing about God?Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not asking for Scriptures which authenticate the validity of their source. I'm also not asking for passages of Scripture which state the value of the Scriptures. I'm simply asking for a passage of Scripture which actually specifically says that one can only trust the Scriptures themselves.

I think you might be misunderstanding me a bit. I'm not arguing about whether the Scriptures or true or not. I'm noting what the Scriptures claim about themselves.For example, this passage comes to mind... See what I mean?The Scripture make many claims about themselves -- yet they never seem to say, as far as I'm able to determine, that the Scriptures themsleves are the only source by which one can understand and know God.I find it ironic that the bulwark of the Sola Scriptura theology doesn't actually seem to have rock solid Scriptural "proof text" to back it up.Even in the case of this passage: A common translation of this by some appears to be that the Scriptures will never pass away -- but I don't think that's what this passage is saying.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-16-2005 12:13 PM

But I'm not talking about the Bible. I'm talking about what the Scriptures claim about themselves.Admittedly there are different canons from different Christian perspectives -- Catholic, Orthodox, High-Anglican, Protestant, Evangelical, etc. Each scope of the Christian may have their own view on what is considered correct and acceptable Scriptures to include in the canon.However, whether the protestant evangelical Scriptural canons are correct or incorrect is not important for this discussion.What the protestant evangelical Scriptures claim about themselves, however, is.I'm not here to debate canons. I'm here to ask if anyone can point me to a verse within the traditionally protestant evangelical canons which explicitly claim that the Scriptures are the only souce for knowing God?I may be wrong. Maybe I just haven't seen one passage of Scripture that can actually hold to this claim yet.Do you know of any?

That's what I think too. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-16-2005 12:08 PM

It is an interesting question, isn't it?I guess I'll wait and see what others have to offer.

No one's going to tackle this one? Come one guys -- Sola Scriptura? Surely it must be in the Scriptures?By the way, I'm not mocking anyone's faith. I'm just very surprised that no one actually came to defend this.I guess I'll take a look myself and see if I can find any verses which could be seen in this light.*le sigh*

Hmmm...how about passages like this... These passages are the only ones I can find that even allude to the Sola Scriptura theology -- yet even these do not state that the Scriptures themselves are the only mean by which one can come to know God.There is another one that I hear often... But, yet again, this doesn't specifically state that the Scriptures are the sole means by which one can come to know God.Most people I hear use this passage to prove that miracles do not happen anymore. I even question this interpretation -- because the passage seems to be talking about when a believer is joined with Christ, and seems to have nothing to do with miracles per se in our lifetimes.

Exactly.Don't misunderstand me Ringo. I'm not arguing in favor of Sola Scriptura. I'm arguing that Sola Scriptura is ironically not actually in the Scriptures.I noted that no one seemed to reply to this thread to defend Sola Scriptura -- so I went looking for passages that I've heard others use to defend it in order to examine them here.

I guess what I've already determined -- that Sola Scriptura is not actually in the Scriptures.

Great article.Now could you please point out the Scriptural passages which actually specifically says that one can only trust the Scriptures themselves?

But there are plenty of examples in the Scriptures themselves where believers use numerous other methods outside the Scriptures to determine God's will.For example: They didn't rely on the Scriptures at all. They simply relied on the Lord himself guiding the direction of the lots in order to determine his will.Edit: Now let's get to your post. Whoa, that's actually not fair iano. I'm not the one claiming that the Scriptures are the sole means for salvation and knowing God. Those claiming that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is "biblical" are the ones who need to back up their view by "quoting the Scriptures". In fact, in light of the doctrine itself, people who adhere to this doctrine are very much obligated to provide the proof. We both agree that the Trinity can be seen in the Scriptures. In fact, many Christians from various different denominations will agree with us that the Scriptures plainly state this.But we're not talking about the Trinity, are we?We're talking about the "doctrine" of Sola Scritura.I will also note that my view as a Catholic doesn't have as much to do with this as my former view as a Lutheran does. I've read through significant portions of the Book of Concord, and I've yet to see any Scriptural text which actually validates what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura claims. Although I certainly agree with you that our actions are certainly fallable, the church is considered infallable as far as doctrine itself is concerned.It seems to me the passsages which talk about heresies that come from "within" the church are actually evidence that they do not belong to the church if I recall correctly.Besides that, if indeed a written letter from God is considered infallible, then I will note that 2 Corinthians 3:3 quite clearly states: Actually, for the record, the entire verse states: There's penty of reasons to note (from the Scriptures themselves I might add) that the entirety of God's revelation is not contained within the Scriptures themselves. Occams Razor says that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. However, I have demonstrated that these entities already exist within the Scriptures themselves -- so no one is adding anything in order to exlain anything.Furthermore, since Sola Scriptura seems to be linked with hundreds of different denominational views -- many of which actually contradict themselves -- what really seems to be said here is that Sola Scriptura is actually another name for Tradition among protestant evangelicals.Although it is not specifically stated as such, Lutherans carry on in the tradition of Luther, just as Calvinists carry on in the tradition of Calvin, just as Wesleyans carry on in the tradition of Wesley -- just as Catholics carry on in the traditions of Catholics.The only difference between the Catholic church when contrasted to the reasoning of the other denominations is that the Catholic church calls it Tradition whereas the other groups call it Sola Scriptura.It seems as though, when contrasted with the various denominational ties that are connected to it, the idea of Sola Scriptura itself is what leads Christianity to increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain Christianity. Before you misunderstand me, I will note that, as Dave Armstrong points out, it is important to realize that the parameters set by the Catholic definitions of the Scriptures are all negative -- that is, they point out what cannot be denied about the meaning of a passage but do not limit how much more the passage can be interpreted to say.In other words, the Church condemns denials of a specific interpretation of the text, without condemning meanings over and above but not contradictory to it.Consequently, there are a few verses in the Scriptures which I would ask you to ponder. What do you think these passages mean?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-20-2005 05:51 AM

Please note that I've edited my first post.

Let's back up a bit here... While I'll admit that the reference to the law does have a strong connotation with the Scriptures, I would like to note that the word testimony seems to be used elsewhere in the Scriptures for either...1) ...the literal words spoken by God or words from someone else's mouth...or2) ...the Ark of the Testimony itself.In either case, the usage of "testimony" in the Isaiah passage almost certainly is not a singular reference to the Scriptures. In fact, everywhere else in the Scriptures, outside of this chapter in Isaiah, the word testimony is used for either 1) or 2) as noted above -- and yet not once does it indicate that it's a reference to the Scriptures themselves (even in the passage you've quoted I might add).See...take a look for yourself. Bible Search Results in NIVI will also note that the "binding" of the testimony in Isaiah 8:16... ...seems to be using metaphorical language. In other words, there does not appear to be "literal physical things" to bind up.Do you disagree that the "binding of the testimony" in Isaiah 8:16 seems to be using metaphorical language?Or, asked differently, what do you think the passage of Isaiah 8:16 means when it says "bind"?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-20-2005 11:15 AM

No problem.But I would like you to know that if you believe that God inspired the writers of Sacred Scripture as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, then I do agree with you I admit that I could be wrong, but I think it does.For example, consider the following:

oops...missed this one.Just marking a place in this thread that I can edit and respond to your post tomorrow. EDIT Sure. ok. But Occam's razor does not support the idea that God only communicates through the Scriptures. Just as he allowed the authors of Scripture to be moved by the Holy Spirit to write the words -- he also allows the readers to be moved by the Holy Spirit when reading the words.In other words, the Spirit is transmitted by the Scriptures. But this doesn't mean that the Scriptures are the only means by which the Holy Spirit can transmit a message. No. Our starting point is the Holy Spirit which enables us to understand these things according to God's will.Furthermore, historical, geological, and living traditions have carried the Spirit's motion since the beginning. But who's moving outside of it for interpetative purposes? Then why are there over 1000 Christian denominations around today, all claiming Sola Scriptura yet often disagreeing with themselves? The problem of over 1000 denominations claiming to use Sola Scriptura yet often disagreeing with themselves? Buh? And making the claim that Bible interprets the Bible isn't a circular argument either?Clearly there are historical and geological materials readilly available for one to validate what the Scriptures have claimed -- so why are they not considered valid either? Sure. I certainly agree with this. No. It must lie within the power of the Holy Spirit to move the reader toward God's will. Sure there is.What happens when we comes across words that we do not understand, but then come across them "in context" from the culture the Scriptures were written in.Why is there such things as Biblical archeologists in the first place?What about the writings of the early fathers that gave us a snapshot of what the church believed in the first four centuries?Furthermore, it should be noted that even though many Christians regard the Scriptures themselves as a 'sign' or 'evidence' of Christ's physical presence here on earth, it should not be underscored as to how much value the early church fathers proved to be for providing this evidence.The earliest manuscripts of the Scriptures that we have are dated from 175 to 250 A.D.However, the early church fathers (97-180 A.D.) bear witness to even earlier manuscripts by quoting from all but one of the Christian Scriptures. They are also in the position to authenticate those books, written by the apostles or their close associates, and can distinguish from later books such as the gnostic gospel of Thomas that claimed to have been written by the apostles, but were not. You've got to be joking right?No?How exactly did we get the Scriptures handed down to us in the first place?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-21-2005 02:40 AMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-23-2005 08:36 AM