WeOrthodox
EN UA

Why Sola Scriptura Is Not Biblical: An Orthodox Argument

The speaker argues that Sola Scriptura cannot be true because the principle itself is not found in the Bible. He explains that the deduction behind Sola Scriptura rests on the premise that God has more authority than any person, so His speech carries more authority than any other speech. However, this does not mean that every belief must have an explicit proof text.

The speaker notes that the apostles preached the gospel and established churches years before the New Testament was written. During that period, the earliest Christians used icons and learned directly from their priests through apostolic tradition. Paul instructs believers to hold fast to traditions whether received orally or in writing.

The early church followed the traditions taught by their priests and the successors of the apostles before a closed canon existed. The speaker contends that the practice of the early church demonstrates that Scripture was never intended to function as the sole rule of faith apart from the living tradition of the church. He observes that the formation of the New Testament canon occurred within the context of the church that already possessed the fullness of the faith through apostolic succession.

The argument concludes that Sola Scriptura is a later development that does not align with the historical reality of how the Christian faith was transmitted in the first centuries.

Key moments

  1. Sola Scriptura cannot be true because it is not found in the Bible.
  2. The deduction for Sola Scriptura is that God has more authority than any person, therefore His speech has more authority than any other speech.
  3. Sola Scriptura is not the idea that you must have an explicit proof text for everything you believe.
  4. The apostles preached the gospel and established churches years before the New Testament was written.
  5. The earliest Christians used icons and learned from their priests directly through apostolic tradition.
  6. Paul tells believers to hold fast to traditions whether received orally or in writing.
  7. The early church did not have a closed canon and followed the traditions taught by their priests and the successors of the apostles.
22 opinions in the discussion 14 participants, 14 replies to each other The opinion with the most support Sola Scriptura disproves itself. The Bible was never written to be interpreted by individuals. It was written to be taught by a priest during liturgy. Every Protestant denomination can't be divinely inspired because they all disagree on major theological… Read the discussion
174 comments at the source Original on Instagram

Discussion · 22

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

  • opinion#2460

    Sola Scriptura disproves itself. The Bible was never written to be interpreted by individuals. It was written to be taught by a priest during liturgy. Every Protestant denomination can't be divinely inspired because they all disagree on major theological points.

    • opinion#2462

      "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. The scriptures say the church Jesus built with the Apostles would be the pillar for the Truth, the scriptures, theological beliefs, traditions & teachings established by Christ himself. Without the church we wouldn't know which scriptures are authoritative nor trust they were preserved, accurate & inspired. Sola scriptura forces you to acknowledge the ancient churches as the pillar upholding the truth of the scriptures 😂

    • opinion#2463

      Exactly brother! The Protestant Dilemma in a nutshell.

    • opinion#2464

      I'll play this game. I've seen Protestants try to refute this probably 100+ times and always fail. Show me where sola scriptura is taught in the Bible. Don't paraphrase, don't interpret, and for the love of God please don't use 2 Timothy 3:16 because it'll hurt you more than it helps you. Go for it.

    • opinion#2465

      Show me papal infallibility or Mary being sinless or Mary being assumed into heaven or that the Catholic institution's role is as it is today, and I'll gladly answer.

    • opinion#2466

      Don't change the subject because you can't prove Sola Scriptura. You can't, that's why you're trying to immediately pivot.

  • opinion#2461

    I'm so tired of the same reply to the critique. The Bible is not a human, it can't speak, it can't explain what the written words mean, it needs human agency to interpret and explicate them. My question is always this. Between a 5 point Calvinist, southern Baptist, and a Lutheran, who all interpret many doctrines and passages differently (baptism for example), who has the correct interpretation and doctrine?

    • opinion#2467

      The apostolic churches, and more specifically the oriental orthodox church.

    • opinion#2468

      Do you mean the non-chalcedonians? Don't they admit they believe the same as chalcedonian orthodox and it's just different terminology? Or was that just a rumor and not true? Edit: yes, upon further investigation, the non chalcedonians have admitted and acknowledged they believe the same as chalcedonian orthodoxy and just use different terminology, which begs the question. Why not just accept Chalcedon and reunite with the Orthodox Church?

    • opinion#2469

      Saying there are 2 natures after the union is heresy. We affirm 2 ousies but hold to one united nature, because any separation in Christ is heretical. One nature out of 2 natures after the union.

    • opinion#2470

      They all do that… one says everything is predestined, one says baptism is only symbolic and doesn't save or regenerate, another says baptism does save and does regenerate. So which one is right? They all read the exact same scripture yet hold completely different views on just this one doctrine of baptism. 😂

    • opinion#2471

      Well then, looks like your church just admitted to heresy…

    • opinion#2472

      Christ has one will because he has one hypostasis. He is from two natures, but after the union the two are no longer two, as St Cyril says. Nestorianism is the theological idea that Christ has 2 natures and 2 hypostases; Nestorius himself wasn't actually a Nestorian, he was the first Chalcedonian.

    • opinion#2473

      Why does your church admit it believes the same as the Chalcedonians then?

  • opinion#2456

    Catholics: the Church has equal authority with scripture. Me: prove it. Catholics: let me open the bible. Me: game over 😂😂😂

    • opinion#2474

      You lean on your own opinion and interpretation of scripture. But scripture itself calls the church the pillar and support of the truth, tells you to hold to the apostles' oral traditions, even calls those traditions the "word of God", and shows the principle of apostolic succession (what the church is and where its authority comes from). Scripture also doesn't state every doctrine explicitly, and it doesn't even give an explicit form of worship, a worship service, or how the church should go about worshiping God and what that should look like.

    • opinion#2475

      Humans aren't all knowing. That's why there are so many heresies within the Catholic Church. Don't put your trust in people, put it in God. The church was established to build community through the word of God, not to be made the final authority.

  • opinion#2457

    Everything these guys argue about was settled by Ecumenical councils and the church fathers over the last 2000 years. They should read. If Scripture is your sole authority, a simple question remains: who gave you the Bible? Who decided which books belong in it? Who recognized Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as Scripture? Who preserved and copied the manuscripts for centuries? Who determined the canon? And by what authority do you accept the Protestant 66-book canon? The answer can't just be "the Bible", because the Bible never gives you its own table of contents or says "these 66 books, and no others." You got the Bible through the historical Church and its Tradition. And Scripture itself commands holding both written and oral apostolic teaching: "Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess. 2:15. Paul also says: "The things that thou hast heard of me… commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Tim. 2:2. That's apostolic transmission and succession. Christ didn't leave us a book and tell us to invent our own churches. He established His Church. "I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16:18. "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Matt. 28:20. And Scripture calls the Church "the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15. So it's…

  • opinion#2454

    The Protestant view also assumes the Church's binding teachings, an Apostolic Tradition, aren't the Word of God. We believe God spoke through fallible men to produce an infallible book, so why wouldn't He also have an ongoing infallible teaching authority?

  • opinion#2455

    Unreasonable argument, because demanding "where is that explicitly stated in the bible" ends up attacking Catholic and Eastern Orthodox practices too. It's just unreasonable to treat the inspired word of God as comparable to anything else. 🤷‍♂️

  • opinion#2458

    So you completely ignore what he just said and then make this cringe video edit. 😂 Sola Scriptura is something you guys obviously don't understand. It means the Bible is the final authority. Why? Because it's God's Word, and God is the final authority on everything. I don't know where the lapse in judgment happened, but if you argue the Bible needs an infallible interpreter, then you need an infallible interpreter to interpret that interpreter too. The problem is there's no such thing as an infallible human interpreter. You're just adding another layer of authority instead of letting God's Word speak for itself.

  • opinion#2459

    But the Bereans Paul visited are famously commended in Acts 17:11 because they received the word eagerly and examined the Scriptures daily to see if those things were so, showing even an apostle's teachings should be checked against the written Word of God. Also, on the principle that Scripture outranks human tradition, Jesus strongly rebukes the religious leaders in Mark 7:8-9 and 7:13, saying "You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men" and noting they nullified God's word by their traditions. So how do we know whose traditions are right, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics or others? By examining the Scriptures and the Church Fathers who don't contradict Scripture. I believe after the first four ecumenical councils, traditions started contradicting Scripture, like the added Mary doctrines, the Crusades etc.