Monday, February 13, 2017

A Biblical Defense Of Sola Scriptura

  • Sola Scriptura: The Bible alone is the only infallible rule of faith (or the spiritual standard) for the church. It functions as the ultimate standard of authority in spiritual matters.
  • There are other legitimate (but lesser) "rules of faith" such as catechisms, concordances, lexicons, commentaries, and the wisdom of godly leaders in the church. However, only Scripture is infallible.
  • Presenting a biblical case for Sola Scriptura:
          -Scripture brings us certainty of the Lord's actions and teachings (Luke 1:1-4):
           *In the midst of competing oral traditions and uninspired writings, we turn to Scripture as the only safe guide for spiritual truth.
          -Eternal life in the name of Jesus Christ (John 20:30-31):
           *If the Gospel of John by itself is sufficient to bring about conversion of heart, then it stands to reason that the same is true of the three other gospel narratives.
           *If the Gospel of John is sufficient to bring about our salvation, then how much more sufficient must the Bible in its entirety be as a rule of faith?
          -Instructions to salvation (2 Timothy 3:15)
          -Assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13)
          -Commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37)
          -Proper conduct in the church (1 Timothy 3:14-15):
            *Scripture is our guide now that the apostles have been deceased.
          -Protection against sin (1 John 2:1)
          -A life of godliness (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
          -Joy that is complete (1 John 1:1-4)
          -Hope and encouragement (Romans 15:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:18)
          -Standard by which ministers are tested (Acts 17:11-12):
            *The apostles appealed to the Scriptures to substantiate their claims despite being given divine revelation from God.
          -Standard that judges traditions (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13)
          -Standard that cannot be exceeded (1 Corinthians 4:6)
          -Scripture is how we are reminded of apostolic oral traditions (2 Peter 3:1-2; Jude 3; 17-18)
            *The implication of this would seem to be that Scripture has replaced apostolic oral tradition. 


  1. I think just the problem is the subjectivity of the reader. One reader could look at a verse and interpret it one way while another looks at it and could think it says something else. As cardinal Henry Newman says, the Bible can’t defend itself against accusations. It needs an interpreter. If not we get thousands of different churches.

    1. And so the Catholics decide THEY are the only valid interpreters, even though they abuse Scripture, invent doctrine out of thin air (like all the mariology, purgatory, infallible papacy, etc, etc). The Mormons claim they are the only ones, the JWs also claim only they can interpret Scripture. --- Rome is no different.

      But the Bereans were called noble for examine the scriptures for THEMSELVES. There can be no subjectivity if the person reading is being objective and actually reads the Scriptures as the writers intended them to be read.