Is Sola Scriptura (being limited to only the Bible alone for everything) Biblical, logical, and practical?

[rakovsky]

I have a major soft spot for Lutheranism because I was baptized Lutheran and its positions so frequently match early patristic ones, like on the Real Presence. This draws me to consider and evaluate one of its foundational dogmas or axioms, "Sola Scriptura."

Luther and the Lutheran Church who created the Sola Scriptura concept defined it in their writings like the Formula of Concord to mean that the Bible Alone is the Only rule and authority:

“The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3).

Accordingly, one would not also use other sources outside the Bible like early Christian writings or Church Councils to help decide on teachings. It's a nicely convenient idea to imagine that we have a single text alone that addresses all religious questions. It also is a convenient way to avoid being forced into the tons of extrabiblical Catholic teachings of the Magisterium.

But the Lutheran and Reformed dogma of Sola Scriptura appears disprovable in both logic and practice. Following the dogma of Sola Scriptura, one should use the Bible alone to judge whether to use the Bible alone. When we turn to the Bible alone to judge this question, we find passages on tangential topics: It says that all Scripture is inspired and it commends early Christians for following the apostles' "traditions." At one point Paul writes in a Biblical epistle that women should wear head coverings and not have authority over mean, and says that his teaching on the topic, which cover numerous verses, is not inspired. However, the Bible alone never specifically says that the Bible alone is the only rule or authority to decide all teachings.

In fact, the Bible gives lots of suggestions to use other helpful sources and materials in addition to judge questions. For example, John's Gospel noted that Jesus gave sayings that were not recorded in the Bible, and the Bible notes that the apostles appointed overseers or bishops over the Christian community. One of the first bishops was Clement of Rome whom Paul mentions. Early writings like II Clement have sayings by Jesus outside the Bible. If you were living in the mid-1st Century, Jesus' sayings and the decisions by apostles and bishops would have some rulemaking authority for you, even if they were neither written in the Bible nor infallible decisions.

The early Church responsible for the Bible must not have wanted and intended for the Bible to be the only authority for Christians because they would have said so in it. The Torah has many detailed prohibitions like avoiding mixing wool with linen. Naturally, if they wanted Christianity to teach such a foundational Lutheran idea as Sola Scriptura, they would have written something like "Scripture is the Only rule" or "never use any authority outside Scripture." Nor does it even claim to cover all religious questions.

Then there is the practical problem. If Sola Scriptura was correct, a faithful person or community could just read the Bible alone and would reasonably find the Bible's position on every issue from it. But in practice, if sincere individual Christians or their groups go by the Bible Alone, they don't understand what its writers intended on all issues. If you give a Bible to a person or group who were never taught anything about Christianity, whether they are tribal people in Africa or young college educated European or Chinese inquirers, they are de facto not going to choose the right answer to every major religious question from Trinitarianism to the Real Presence to Infant baptism.

Second, the Sola Scriptura denominations, from Lutherans to the Amish to Baptists to Calvinists, disagree on what the Bible teaches on such major issues as having bishops, baptizing infants, and the objective Real Presence in the elements. Each one may believe that they have found the Biblical position by reading the Bible alone and that all other Bible-Only believers are wrong. But objectively and practically speaking, if the Bible Alone were the right, correct approach for faithful Christians, then they would not read it and come to so many opposite conclusions on so many questions so frequently.

 

[rakovsky]

Third, if you could realistically use only the Bible alone to judge every question, then you could just strictly quote Bible verses to another open minded Christian with an opposite point of view whenever you want to both decide the Bible's position on any topic. You would not add your own sentences to what you quoted from the Bible to explain what it means, because when you do, you are using some source (your own) in addition to what is found in Scripture. So if someone asked whether to baptize infants, you could just quote to them from the Bible and they know what to do. But in practice that doesn't work. A Lutheran can't in practice just go to a sincere Protestant who denies infant baptism and without any explanations only quote the verse where Jesus says, "Let the children come to me," and the other Protestant will get the Bible's position on the topic, because the verse is not on-point enough on the specific question of baptizing infants. For instance, maybe the children were not "infants."

Fourth, in practice Luther, Calvin, and their Churches did not follow Sola Scriptura in practice either. In order to learn, understand, and explain the Bible they and their Churches relied on the writings of the Church fathers, especially Augustine. So De Facto they were treating Augustine and other writers as authorities to understand the Bible's position on questions, as opposed to using only the Bible alone on them. Further, when it came to the practice of Church administration, they along with the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches found that they needed to use church leaders, documents, and institutions as authorities. So whereas the preceding generations of Christians used bishops, declarations, and councils like Nicea in addition to the Bible to decide teachings, Luther and other Protestants in practice did that too. The Lutheran and Calvinist bishops or elders, formulas or "confessions," and assemblies de facto were making decisions on major religious issues like whether to baptize infants. And their institutions had practical force because for instance they could depose Protestant clergy if those clergy violated the assemblies' decisions. In other words, it was not enough for those clergy to accept the Bible, but they also in practice had to accept the decisions of those Protestant bishops, elders, or assemblies. Calvinists could claim in response that they just have "elders" whose "confessions" just match the truth but are not "authoritative" like the bishops and canons of past Church generations who took decisions on issues. But in practice, they and past generations were both meeting the same definitions of "authorities" and "rules" because both the past bishops and the Calvinist "elders" had power to make decisions on issues.

Finally, Sola Scriptura is one answer and reaction against the Catholic idea of the infallible Magisterium, but is not actually the only or best answer to it. A more natural answer to the topic is the Orthodox Christian or Anglican or Methodist principle where Scripture is the highest authority, but not the only authority. In Anglicanism and the Methodist Church descended from Anglicanism, this principle is called Prima Scrptura, the idea that Scripture is the First in authority. The Methodists have Scripture as part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that includes Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

To better understand the Sola Scriptura principle, it is best to see how it stands in an opposite tension or "dialectic" with the Catholic Magisterium concept. The Catholic Church developed the idea that if all bishops everywhere agree on a teaching, then it becomes part of an "infallible" Magisterium. Luther was probably a Catholic monk reacting against this Catholic concept in a kind of action-reaction "dialectic." He objected to numerous Catholic traditions, and so to give his objections power, he advocated the "counter-dogma" of following only the Bible alone, not traditions. In essence, Luther threw the baby out with the bathwater. While he was right to challenge many of the Catholic Church's decisions, much of extrabiblical Christian Tradition has key value for Christianity. Further, Luther's premise that Christian institutions or writings outside the Bible have no authority is not actually correct or practical, as Luther's own practice as a church leader showed.

Luther's theory may have missed the fact that just because something like a Christian council, declaration, commentary, or assembly might be mistaken or "fallible" does not actually mean that it has no authority or should have no role in rule-making. His theory may have also overlooked that even if one considers the Bible as the highest possible written source to decide on any issue, it doesn't follow that it is the only source. Nor does it follow that it is best or realistic to use the Bible as the only source. This is because while the Bible has general positions, like Jesus using wine at the Last Supper, Paul recommending alcohol as being healthy, and to avoid drunkenness, it doesn't have clear on-point directly relevant positions on every issue, like whether one can unconditionally only ever use fermented red wine for Communion. One can theorize that the Bible's story of the Last Supper implies that we should use fermented red wine unless such wine is unavailable, like if you are in the arctic wilderness with no grapes. That is the Orthodox Church's position. But the fact that the Bible is not on-point on the question is what helps give rise to variations like medieval Catholics giving only wafers or many Protestant congregations using grape juice.

 

[1Thess521]

Is Sola Scriptura (being limited to only the Bible alone for everything) Biblical, logical, and practical?​

good thing that is not the doctrine Sola Scriptura


From Catholic.com
the principle of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized

from New Advent
"The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice (not the only source)"
" Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible,"

from James White:
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

 

[rakovsky]

good thing that is not the doctrine Sola Scriptura

Luther and Lutheranism officially defined Sola Scriptura to mean that only the Bible alone is the only authority. It sounds like you don't actually believe in Luther's actual Sola Scriptura teaching either.

 

[1Thess521]

Luther and Lutheranism officially defined Sola Scriptura to mean that only the Bible alone is the only authority. It sounds like you don't actually believe in Luther's actual Sola Scriptura teaching either.

please provide the official statement that the Bible alone is the only authority.
is that official statement authoritative?

 

[1Thess521]

Luther and Lutheranism officially defined Sola Scriptura to mean that only the Bible alone is the only authority. It sounds like you don't actually believe in Luther's actual Sola Scriptura teaching either.

what you are describing has been called SolO Scriptura:
that is NOT the Reformation doctrine of SolA Scriptura

So you are presenting a STRAWMAN:
" Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Henry Bullinger, and Martin Bucer all wrote catechisms and confessions for their people.
They viewed an anti-creedal and anti-confessional theology as anti-Christian.
None of the prominent Protestant Reformers advocated solo Scriptura"

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/is-scripture-alone-the-same-thing-as-scripture-only/

Do want to discuss the Reformation doctrine of SolA Scriptura
or something else?

 

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Thirty years ago I used to occasionally listen to the WhiteHorse Inn podcast. It filled a void. The participants were from different flavors of reformed traditions. Sola Scripture was referenced frequently. All of the participants were longterm students of dogma.and cited from extra biblical sources frequently.

Reading church fathers isn't dangerous. Being ignorant is dangerous. People who don't want to be bothered with historical theology are easy targets. Have observed how old friends and family have wandered into all manner of cultishness. Neopaganism has won over a frightening number of my friends who were once christians. Some of these people are graduates of seminaries who are now disciples of people like Richard Rohr or even Rudolf Steiner. My friend who was quoting Rudolf Steiner to me that last time I talked to her is the daughter of two ordained Lutherans, missionaries to Brazil.

Been reading Melito of Sardis on the Passover. He occasionally makes some errors in christology. You don't read a second century author as if the fourth century has already happened. Melito employs a different style of presentation from Alexandrian fathers who came later. He uses language differently.

 

[rakovsky]

please provide the official statement that the Bible alone is the only authority.
is that official statement authoritative?

The Lutheran official foundational Formula of Concord says that:

“The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).

It reiterates this:

“We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3).

The Lutheran Book of Concord says:

• "We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…"

Luther wrote:

• "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so." (Martin Luther, Smalcald Articles II, 15.)

Luther wrote in An Assertion of All the Articles (1520):

I do not want to throw out all those more learned [than I], but Scripture alone to reign, and not to interpret it by my own spirit or the spirit of any man, but I want to understand it by itself and its spirit.2"

So although he wants to have commentaries, he wants the only decisionmaker to be the Bible and he wants to understand it by itself, ie. alone. But in reality, when you use commentaries to understand the Bible, you are not understanding the Bible by itself.

Luther used the terms Scriptura Alone (Sola Scriptura) when he said that the Bible must be read without commentaries:

You say, “scripture alone must be read without commentaries.” You say this correctly about the commentaries of Origen, Jerome, and Thomas (Aquinas). They wrote commentaries in which they handed down their own ideas rather than Pauline or Christian ones.

Luther also wrote:

Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.

Luther compared using the Bible alone instead of with the church fathers, which he called the "words of men", to using a naked sword removed from its sheath, implying that this was the right way to use both:

That is truly a carrying of the sword in the scabbard, when we do not take the naked sword by itself, but only as it is encased in the words and glosses of men. This dulls its edge and makes it obscurer than it was before, though Emser calls it smiting with the blade. The naked sword makes him tremble from head to foot. But I cannot help him, he must take his punishment."

Early on, Luther initially responded to the Catholic Church's declaration in 1521 with perhaps a more limited use of the term Scripture Alone that unrealistically claimed that the Bible substantiates or judges other writings but never the reverse. In the 1521 passage, in order to justify his Sola Scriptura dogma, Luther began with the nice-sounding unrealistic claim that "Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings."

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.5

5. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–12.

Luther's statement here that the "Bible Alone" is the "master over all other writings" apparently means that you use the Bible to substantiate those other writings, and never the other way around. His justification is that A) he unrealistically claims that the Bible is clearer than any other writing and B) he claims that "nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure."

The practical reality is that you also need to use other writings to interpret and evaluate the Bible. If saying that the Bible is the "master over all other writings" means that you use the Bible to see if those writings are correct, the logical inevitable conclusion is that other writings are also "masters" in regards to the Bible, guiding you and teaching you about the Bible's meanings and substantiating the Bible.

Let me give some examples of other writings evaluating or substantiating the Bible. First, How does one know what books go into the Bible? One can feel those books' interpretations are correct, one can check it against other Biblical Books. But De Facto one uses what the Church Fathers and Councils listed as the Biblical Books. In reality, if someone just threw the full range of different churches' Biblical books from Enoch to Genesis to 3rd Corinthians to Tobit on a giant table of 100 Protestant scholars who did not already know which books were in the Bible or what other writers thought were right, they would not get a consistent answer. Luther himself went through a process of evaluating which books were "Biblical" when he made the Lutheran Bible, and he was considering even throwing out James' Epistle. De Facto he read other writings outside the Bible like the earliest Church canon lists as part of his deciding whether the Biblical books were correct and should be included in the Bible.

Second, in real life the Christian community, including the Lutheran Church, goes through a process of interprets, judges, and substantiates the Bible to be correct. A basic part of Christian Apologetics is writing defenses that substantiate the Bible's narratives. The New Testament commends the Bereans in Acts for searching the OT to check whether the NT story is correct. It's pretty common for people to find substantiation of the Bible in texts outside the Bible. Just because those texts confirm instead of rejecting the Bible does not keep them from serving as substantiation.

So the problem with Luther's thesis "Scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings on earth..." is directional, actual, real, and practical. Judging writings and doctrines is not actually a simple situation of:
Bible (Master/Judge/Interpreter) ========= over ========>>>> All other writings.

It's actually a cycle where both the Bible and other writings interpret and evaluate each other.

So in conclusion, the early Lutheran Church's most formal, official declarations on Sola Scriptura, in agreement with Luther's ideology, were that only the Bible alone is the rule to judge all teachings, like when it said in the Book of Concord,

• "We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…"

 

[rakovsky]

Thirty years ago I used to occasionally listen to the WhiteHorse Inn podcast. It filled a void. The participants were from different flavors of reformed traditions. Sola Scripture was referenced frequently. All of the participants were longterm students of dogma.and cited from extra biblical sources frequently.

Thanks for sharing. In Academia when you cite sources to back up your point, it's called treating them as authorities. The fact that academic Protestants do this so much shows that the Sola Scriptura dogma as Luther presented it is unrealistic.

 

[1Thess521]

So in conclusion, the early Lutheran Church's most formal, official declarations on Sola Scriptura, in agreement with Luther's ideology, were that only the Bible alone is the rule to judge all teachings, like when it said in the Book of Concord,

are any of the sources you quoted authoritative to Lutherans?

 

[1Thess521]

So in conclusion, the early Lutheran Church's most formal, official declarations on Sola Scriptura, in agreement with Luther's ideology, were that only the Bible alone is the rule to judge all teachings, like when it said in the Book of Concord,

Sola Scriptura is about the hierarchy of authority: that is what your quotes are stating

Does God speaking from His Throne; Jesus preaching from the Mount, and ALL God breathed writings all carry the same EQUAL authority?
Are there any other writings that carry the EXACT same authority as God speaking from His Throne or Jesus preaching from the Mount?

 

[Stirling Bartholomew]

The fact that academic Protestants do this so much shows that the Sola Scriptura dogma as Luther presented it is unrealistic.

Not only that, but hermeneutics and philosophical presuppositions play a huge role In determining how a text is understood. In the late 70s when orthodox Protestants were actively discussing "Biblical Inerrancy" there was a whole separate volume published on Hermeneutics and Canon. One author, who is not an easy read, John Frame[1] has written some exhausting analysis of the question of reformed epistemology. All these questions qualify the idea of Sola Scriptura from a reformed point of view.

[1] The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, John Frame, 1987.

Postscript:
Hermeneutics is a vast topic. Paul Fry, OpenYale has a series of lectures on literary criticism where he covers the 20th century secular approach to reading texts. I have repeatedly gone to Paul Fry's lectures for help sorting out what was happening toward the end of the 20th century in literary criticism.

Has anyone actually read all they way through?

God, Revelation & Authority, 6 Volumes​

By: Carl F. H. Henry

 

[1Thess521]

Thanks for sharing. In Academia when you cite sources to back up your point, it's called treating them as authorities. The fact that academic Protestants do this so much shows that the Sola Scriptura dogma as Luther presented it is unrealistic.

the Reformation doctrine called Sola Scriptura does not deny other authorities.

And neither did Luther
and neither do Lutherans
There are other authorities; they are less authoritative than Scripture
and the other authorities are not infallible


Sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority, other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible.
Church councils, preachers, biblical commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach
-wiki

 

[Stirling Bartholomew]

the Reformation doctrine called Sola Scriptura does not deny other authorities.

I haven't read much of Luther other than Bondage of the Will. I wonder if Luther was really so dense that he didn't understand the issues we are discussing. He is often quoted using strong statements about biblical authority in his polemic responses to Erasmus. It is dangerous to use samples from polemic rhetoric to evaluate someones theological sophistication. I suspect Luther understood what we are talking about here. In reading Luther it is obviously important to understand what the dispute with Erasmus was all about. Sola Scriptura is an idea with an historical context. It isn't something carried down from Mt Sinai carved in stone.

 

[Yakuda]

I have a major soft spot for Lutheranism because I was baptized Lutheran and its positions so frequently match early patristic ones, like on the Real Presence. This draws me to consider and evaluate one of its foundational dogmas or axioms, "Sola Scriptura."

Luther and the Lutheran Church who created the Sola Scriptura concept defined it in their writings like the Formula of Concord to mean that the Bible Alone is the Only rule and authority:


Accordingly, one would not also use other sources outside the Bible like early Christian writings or Church Councils to help decide on teachings. It's a nicely convenient idea to imagine that we have a single text alone that addresses all religious questions. It also is a convenient way to avoid being forced into the tons of extrabiblical Catholic teachings of the Magisterium.

But the Lutheran and Reformed dogma of Sola Scriptura appears disprovable in both logic and practice. Following the dogma of Sola Scriptura, one should use the Bible alone to judge whether to use the Bible alone. When we turn to the Bible alone to judge this question, we find passages on tangential topics: It says that all Scripture is inspired and it commends early Christians for following the apostles' "traditions." At one point Paul writes in a Biblical epistle that women should wear head coverings and not have authority over mean, and says that his teaching on the topic, which cover numerous verses, is not inspired. However, the Bible alone never specifically says that the Bible alone is the only rule or authority to decide all teachings.

In fact, the Bible gives lots of suggestions to use other helpful sources and materials in addition to judge questions. For example, John's Gospel noted that Jesus gave sayings that were not recorded in the Bible, and the Bible notes that the apostles appointed overseers or bishops over the Christian community. One of the first bishops was Clement of Rome whom Paul mentions. Early writings like II Clement have sayings by Jesus outside the Bible. If you were living in the mid-1st Century, Jesus' sayings and the decisions by apostles and bishops would have some rulemaking authority for you, even if they were neither written in the Bible nor infallible decisions.

The early Church responsible for the Bible must not have wanted and intended for the Bible to be the only authority for Christians because they would have said so in it. The Torah has many detailed prohibitions like avoiding mixing wool with linen. Naturally, if they wanted Christianity to teach such a foundational Lutheran idea as Sola Scriptura, they would have written something like "Scripture is the Only rule" or "never use any authority outside Scripture." Nor does it even claim to cover all religious questions.

Then there is the practical problem. If Sola Scriptura was correct, a faithful person or community could just read the Bible alone and would reasonably find the Bible's position on every issue from it. But in practice, if sincere individual Christians or their groups go by the Bible Alone, they don't understand what its writers intended on all issues. If you give a Bible to a person or group who were never taught anything about Christianity, whether they are tribal people in Africa or young college educated European or Chinese inquirers, they are de facto not going to choose the right answer to every major religious question from Trinitarianism to the Real Presence to Infant baptism.

Second, the Sola Scriptura denominations, from Lutherans to the Amish to Baptists to Calvinists, disagree on what the Bible teaches on such major issues as having bishops, baptizing infants, and the objective Real Presence in the elements. Each one may believe that they have found the Biblical position by reading the Bible alone and that all other Bible-Only believers are wrong. But objectively and practically speaking, if the Bible Alone were the right, correct approach for faithful Christians, then they would not read it and come to so many opposite conclusions on so many questions so frequently.

Sola scriptura is not biblical. That's all we need to know.

 

[1Thess521]

Sola scriptura is not biblical. That's all we need to know.

Don't you first need to know what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches?

 

[Yakuda]

Don't you first need to know what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches?

No you need to show that the bible actually supports it no matter what it teaches. You are being challenged as to the veracity of it's existence in scripture not on what it teaches.

 

[1Thess521]

No you need to show that the bible actually supports it no matter what it teaches. You are being challenged as to the veracity of it's existence in scripture not on what it teaches.

The Scriptures teach that God's words (whether written or spoken) carry the authority of God Himself:
No other words (whether written or spoken) can make that claim that carry the authority of God Himself:

God speaking from His Throne, or God giving a Sermon on the Mount; or a writing breathed out from God all have the same level of the authority.
and there is not higher authorly than that.

That is Sola Scriptura

 

[Yakuda]

The Scriptures teach that God's words (whether written or spoken) carry the authority of God Himself:
No other words (whether written or spoken) can make that claim that carry the authority of God Himself:

God speaking from His Throne, or God giving a Sermon on the Mount; or a writing breathed out from God all have the same level of the authority.
and there is not higher authorly than that.

That is Sola Scriptura

Where does scripture teach that? You offered an opinion not a chapter and a verse. The first three words of your post require you to cite a chapter and verse. Again you're being challenged on the scriptural source for your claim not the content of your claim.

 

[1Thess521]

Where does scripture teach that? You offered an opinion not a chapter and a verse. The first three words of your post require you to cite a chapter and verse. Again you're being challenged on the scriptural source for your claim not the content of your claim.

"The first three words of your post require you to cite a chapter and verse"
FALSE: not all truths are explicitly stated in a chapter and verse
Sola Scriptura is TRUE because of the attributes and characteristics of God words

IN THE SAME WAY: God does not need to say that He is highest authority for it to be true:
There is no authority higher than God BECAUSE of attributes and characteristics of God : nor because of what He says.

I don't think you know what Sola Scriptura is