Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura is not Biblical The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that Christians should base their beliefs on the Scriptures (the Bible) only is not a doctrine that holds up to Biblical scrutiny. I will argue that Christian doctrine should also be derived from Divine Revelation through the Holy Spirit (as given through the prophets, apostles, etc), and the Traditions of the Church which can be supported by logical argument as long as these do not contradict Scripture. I hold this position for the following reasons: The Existence of Christian Doctrines that are not found in the Bible (1) The Bible canon is a widely accepted belief among Christians that 66 books are inspired of God and belong in the Bible. But the collection of these books finds no basis in Scripture. There is no Bible verse telling us how many or which books should be included in the canon. Books like Esther, Job, Genesis, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Timothy make absolutely no claim of divine inspiration. Nowhere do these books say "this is the word of the Lord," or "the vision God gave me," or "the angel of God came to me, saying"" And even though some books, like Isaiah and Revelation do claim to be divinely inspired, such a claim alone is not enough to warrant inclusion in the canon as there are many books which make this claim that are not included in the list. (2) The position of Satan before sin entered the world. Most Christian denominations believe Satan was once an obedient, high-ranking angel before he was ousted from heaven. The Bible never says this. (3) Most Christians believe slavery is wrong even though the Bible is silent on the issue. The Bible doesn"t speak out against one human owning another as property. (4) Posts in the Christian Church such as Minister and Priest find no backing in the Bible. Biblical prophets made predictions not foretold in the Scriptures, and yet these predictions were worthy of belief by the Church. Acts 11:27-28 Jesus and his disciples didn"t practice Sola Scripture. (1) Christians accepted the resurrection, not based on the Bible, but based on the authority of the eyewitnesses. The disciples didn"t have any beliefs based on the Old Testament about Jesus resurrection because at first, they didn"t even believe the Messiah would have to die. (Luke 24:1-11; John 20:16-29) Neither did they base it on the New Testament because this wasn"t written yet. They didn"t believe in the resurrection because the Gospel of Mark said so, but because the apostles taught it and handed down that belief. (1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Peter 1:16) (2) While different denominations use the Bible to debate if Christians should speak in tongues, the first Christians in Acts 2:1-11 used this gift without an Old Testament command to do so. (3) The structure of the Church with apostles being the foundation was not based on the Old Testament, and the New Testament wasn"t written yet. So apostleship was not a Biblical concept while it operated before the NT was written. (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11-12) (4) The OT Jews were not evangelizers. Evangelism was a new concept not based on the OT and was introduced without any Scriptural basis. (Matthew 28:19-20) (5) Jesus said that we shouldn"t swear (Matthew 5:33-37) but this wasn"t based on any OT text even though this was the only Bible he had. (6) Baptism was a widely held belief before the NT was written, yet there is no OT support for it. (John 1:26; 3:22-26; Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:37-42) (7) The Communion was taken with wine with no OT precedent. (Luke 22:17-20) Paul kept this meal before the Gospels were written commanding it. 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Divine Revelation is a just means of knowing truth aside from the Bible. (Matt 16:13-17) This was how men knew God before the Bible was written, and the Bible never says such revelation has ceased. Traditions like socialism (the rich sell their possessions and give to the poor) were practiced without any written commands in a Bible. (Matt 19:21; Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 6:1-6 food distribution) The house to house method of ministry also had no Biblical basis. (Matt 10:11-14; Acts 5:42; 20:20) The word of God isn"t Scripture till its written down, so these Christians lived by God"s word in addition to Scripture. And not all of God"s word is written down anyway. For these reasons we can say that Christians in Biblical times didn"t believe in Sola Scriptura then, neither can it be true now. If it wasn"t Biblical before the Bible was finished, how could it become Scriptural after its completion? Just as Christians did then, we too can formulate beliefs based not only on Scripture, but also on the Divine Revelation of the Holy Spirit as received through those with appropriate authority in the church, or such revelation as preserved in the Traditions of the Church. I guess my main point is that the word of God isn"t limited to the Bible, but God can speak to each of us, and those who are enlightened by his Spirit may impart information to us not found in the Bible. We can even have doctrine from nature/consciense (1 Cor 11:13-16) Proverbs 30:5-6 clearly wasn"t saying that no more doctrines could be added after the book of Proverbs was written, for many other Bible books were added since; rather, it is saying we should add nothing that isn"t in harmony with his word. But notice it doesn"t say "add nothing to the Bible," but add nothing to "his word." His word wasn"t limited to the Bible. If it were, then no one could accept the book of Proverbs as the word of God because this book never claims divine inspiration and neither does any other Bible book claim Proverbs is such. So the only way men knew Proverbs was inspired is by listening to the traditions of God"s people respecting which books were accepted, as well as the word of the Spirit speaking to their hearts which confirmed those traditions as true. Circumcision, for example, was a binding practice among God"s people before the Torah was written. They didn"t wait for the Bible to tell them about it.