Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura

Response to Round One This is a false starter because you claimed you are going to be arguing for something that isn't relevant to our debate. You defined sola scritpura as "the idea that the Scriptures are all a man needs to help him learn Christian beliefs and practices." Though this isn't a great definition, it is fairly accurate. Here is what Oxford Reference (a compilation of Oxford’s Dictionaries, Companions and Encyclopedias) defines as sola scriptura: "the belief that the truths of Christian faith and practice can and must be established from scripture alone, without additions from, e.g., tradition or development." http://www.oxfordreference.com... I think this is a better definition, but my main point is, you argued you will prove that "Scripture is the highest teaching authority". This is not what we are debating. We are debating if Scripture is the sole rule of faith for the beliefs of the Christian faith, not whether it is the highest rule of faith, which implies there may be lesser rules of faith that are authoritative, as long as it doesn't contradict Scripture. The claim that "the Scriptures...DO TEACH Believers to rely upon them as the highest teaching authority" is known as Prima Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura. I wouldn't mind debating you on Prima Scriptura, but that is not relevant to our debate here. You also claimed you will argue "that the Scriptures are irrefutable for Christian teaching and doctrine." This is also irrelevant, and something I would not dispute, as I believe the Scriptures are infallible and that Sacred Tradition does not refute or contradict Scripture (the two come from the same source, i.e. God, so how could they?) By the way, I don't accept your canon of Scripture, but for the purpose of this debate, I will use the Protestant canon alone."Self-referentially absurd" means self contradictory. Basically, Protestants claim that if the doctrine is not found in the Bible then it cannot be a belief of the Christian faith (as the definition above indicates). Scripture never teaches that it ALONE is the rule of faith for the Christian, and thus, it is self contradictory.My Argument I will demonstrate that Scripture teaches that God spoke through Jesus, and this Divine Revelation was passed down in two forms, oral and written, to the Apostles and to their successors, and thus demonstrate that sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible. In order to understand why sola scriptura, as defined above, is not what Scripture itself teaches, we must first look at what Scripture says about Divine Revelation.Source and Transmission of Divine Revelation Hebrews 1:1-2 says: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." So, God use to speak to us through the prophets, that is Divine Revelation came to us through the prophets, but in these "last days", that is, since the coming of Jesus, God has spoken to us through His son Jesus. Scripture itself does not state that Jesus passed on His Divine Revelation through the written word alone. In fact, Jesus did not write any book in the Bible. Instead, Jesus set up a teaching body (i.e. a magisterium) to teach the world what He revealed from the Father, as He said: "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20) It was the Apostles, and their successors, to whom God's Divine Revelation was entrusted, not to written documents. Scripture teaches that Divine Revelation was passed down to the successors of the Apostles: "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others." (2 Timothy 2:2)Pope Clement I, while the Apostle John was still alive (!), wrote the following in the first century, confirming what I have stated immediately above: "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]). Modes of Transmitting Divine Revelation Though, the Apostles, and their successors, did put some of this Divine Revelation into writing, and this is what we call "The New Testament Bible" or "Scripture", it nowhere states that everything Jesus taught the Apostles was written down in Scripture (see John 21:25). In fact, Paul said there were authoritative traditions which were both written and oral:"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2 Thess. 2:15) Thus, there are things the Apostles taught, which were not written down, and the Church Fathers testify that this is the case, that is, that some things the Apostles taught in matters of belief were passed down, not through the written word alone, but through Sacred Tradition, which carries the same force as Scripture. “[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]). "Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force." (St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 27, 66)Problematic Scriptures for the Sola Scriptura Position Additionally, Scripture itself identifies the Church, not the Bible, as the "pillar of truth", which is highly problematic for the view that Scripture alone, and not the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is the sole rule of faith for matters of faith and morals. "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Furthermore, Scripture also says that there are some things in Scripture, which are hard to understand, thus we need other sources to help us understand what Scripture teaches about matters of faith and morals, as Peter says of Paul's writings:"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)Conclusion In conclusion, Scripture teaches that God spoke through Jesus, and this Divine Revelation was passed down in two forms, oral and written, to the Apostles and to their successors. Thus, sola scriptura is not Biblical.