Sola Scriptura? (Scripture Alone)

I was recently looking at debates about the idea of using Scripture on its own as a normative authority. I did not find any developed side for using "Scripture alone" (also known as "Sola Scriptura"). Much of the information that I have here is very seldom brought to the forefront. However, I believe that it is imperative to bring the following information forward when communicating the authority of Scripture. Let me know what you think.

If anyone was going to say that there is another authority apart from Scripture, they admit that Scripture is an authority. As such, every authority would have to maintain a strict adherence to each other. That means that there cannot be contradictions between these authorities. If there are contradictions, one can assume that the first is the infallible one and that the new one is of merely human construction (will be elaborated on later). The question is: What was the Scriptural authority before the Bible in its present form was an authority?

Before the preceding question is explored, I must say that it is irrelevant to ask whether or not one book in the Bible recognizes the entire Bible as the normative authority. The books in the Bible were written before it was compiled as the Bible (AKA, the canon) we have today. I would argue rather, that the New Testament in its form before it was compiled was in another form: the oral tradition passed down and taught from Jesus himself and those who were with him. Oral teachings and traditions was the form that the New Testament was in, in the early ages of the church before the Bible was compiled. Some of it was written, but it would not be readily available to the average person. The theology of the Bible in its entirety was still followed by the early Church in its early form. Again, the Bible as it was then, was in an oral form. The oral traditions and teachings of Scripture were normative to the Christian faith. Even before the Catholic Church was formed, the New Testament existed in mostly an oral form (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The oral form of the New Testament was just as pervasive to them then as the written New Testament is to us today. As we can see, when Paul spoke to Timothy, Paul was not a member of the Catholic Church, nor was he referring to their doctrine which did not exist at the time,

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

Here a form of the Bible existed when Paul speaks of the “Holy Scriptures”. However, I believe that the "Holy Scriptures" that Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament and not the New Testament (will be elaborated on later). “Those from whom you have learned it” has to refer to the oral tradition passed down from those who have originally been with Christ in the first and second hand (I believe this would be the New Testament equivalent in its oral form as its interpretation is derived from the Old Testament). To me, to say that the Bible did not exist in one form or another before it was canonized is ludicrous. I also believe that if we research the oral tradition of passing down Scripture verbally before the Bible was fully written, we will never come across a time where that Scripture was contradicted. In ancient times oral tradition was very reliable and meticulously maintained. Today the idea of passing things down orally seems very unreliable because we do not live in an oral culture where that is the primary means of passing things down. The oral tradition was very reliable despite most speculation on it today.

Another thing to ponder is the question: Was the Bible a compilation of the “Holy Scriptures” as it was understood to Paul in this passage, just in another form? Also, is it possible that Paul could only be referring to the Old Testament when he refers to the Scriptures? If Paul is only referring to studying the Old Testament at the time, should we not assume that the New Testament should be completely reliant on the authority of the Old Testament?

I would argue that Paul did not use what was accepted as new Scripture at the time at all. At first this could sound heretical until we understand that the main test for the authenticity of the New Testament is its grounding in the Old Testament. At no point should the New Testament present any information that is contrary or different from the Old Testament. As an Old Testament scholar of the time (in its form) Paul made it his main duty to make sure that what was taught was taught out of the Old Testament. That is, the New Testament is authoritative because of the authority it holds from the Old Testament.

The Old Testament as the authority to the New Testament begs the question: Where did most of the Old Testament get its authority from? We hear of all kinds of prophesies all over the Old Testament! Is all of the Old Testament authoritative in and of itself or did most of the Old Testament prophesies have an authority from which to base its prophesies? The Jews before Christ recognized that everything that they believed in stemmed from the books of Moses, also known as the “Torah” back then, or the “Pentateuch” today. Therefore we can deduce that the test for the authority and authenticity of the rest of the Old Testament came from the Torah.

Finally, where did the Torah come from? The Torah is believed to have come directly from God and from God through Moses. All of the authority of Christianity and the Bible rests on what we get from God through Moses in the Torah. This does not mean that, in order to disprove all of Christianity and Judaism, all we need to do is find fault in the books of Moses. The meanings and significances of the Torah are very difficult to understand. There is so much information in such a small area of text that it is very easy to misunderstand and misrepresent. This is also why it would be impossible for those who have never known God to refute God’s Scriptures on any level. That is not to say that Christians who know God can, but that they would have the potential to understand much more of its true meaning because of the indwelling Spirit. Those outside Christianity cannot hope to even touch upon the true meaning of the Torah, and thus are no threat to its truth.

You may ask: Where is the divine inspiration in the extracted Scriptures if it was always based on what came before it? Over time, the Holy Spirit revealed to us through stages the fuller meaning to the original Torah and from the Torah to the rest of the Old Testament, and finally from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Jesus, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) explained to us what the heart of the Ten Commandments was when it was written. Things like, if you hate your brother it is the same as murdering him, or lusting after someone is the same as having intercourse with them. Jesus made the extracting of the New Testament from the Old Testament possible by fulfilling and confirming many of its’ prophesies. The New Testament flows out of the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies. The Holy Spirit worked through Jesus to make the Old Testament prophesies plain to us, fulfill them and present the new implications of those fulfillments. The rest of the New Testament authors use Jesus’ interpretations of the Old Testament as their own and even expand on the implications of Jesus’ ministry further with the Old Testament.

It may help us a lot to remember that God is the same and never changes (Hebrews 13:8, Psalm 102:24-27, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). What God gave us originally in the Torah holds all the truth that He wants us to have. The rest of the Bible is Holy Spirit led extractions from the Torah. God never deviates from what he originally gave us because God does not change. The God of the New Testament is the very same God in the Old Testament. This is how the Bible remains amazingly coherent despite taking more then a millennia to write.

Finally, if any group is to accept the Bible as an authority, they will have to subject themselves to each level of Biblical extraction. When one understands that the New Testament stemmed from the Old Testament and The Old Testament from the Torah, one can see that arguments with the New Testament’s authenticity is irrelevant if the arguments disagree with the accounts of the Old Testament from which the New Testament came. In other words, the New Testament can only be open to scrutinizing as far as it does not act in accordance to the Old Testament. Also, those who create new doctrines and try to impose it on the New Testament cannot if it does not stem explicitly from the Old Testament. The Bible as a whole is usually very apparent with its doctrines and is therefore not an administer of strange and ambiguous teachings (2 Thessalonians 2:15, Hebrews 13:9a). One way to test “strange doctrines” is to check its coherency or lack there of to the Scriptures. The Bible at no point contradicts itself. If there is a contradiction, then it is a false doctrine. As such, if anyone accepts the Bible as an authority, they cannot add anything at all to Scripture, otherwise they will be going against the essence of God who does not change (as we saw previously). Anything new added to Scripture is thus heretical and not of God. If someone has an issue with New Testament canonicity, they will have the Old Testament to deal with and so on. The Bible supports itself at every stage. As such, no one can claim ownership to the Bible we have today.

The Gospel of Judas and Thomas were rejected because they disagree with the Old Testament. We must remember that the New Testament books are not presenting new ideas! If the New Testament was presenting things apart from God’s unchanging truth, then others could claim ownership over their own heretical anti-truth. As it stands however, God is the only one who can claim ownership over the Bible as a whole. Anyone who does claim ownership of the Bible is thus an anti-Christ because God’s truth does not change. The Bible’s ultimate test is itself. Humankind has no provision to change its unchanging truth as they have no provision to change its unchanging God.

Concluding verses:

Jesus said “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17).

Paul said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:6-9).

Hebrews 6:13-20 “For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, ‘I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you’. And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. 19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, 20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Luke 24:25-27 “And [Jesus] said to them, ‘O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?’ Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, [Jesus] explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”