Sola Scriptura is latin for “by scriptura alone”. Proponents of sola scriptura often adhere to the other ‘5 solas’ of the reformation. Sola Scriptura requires that the Bible, the infallible Word of God, is the only infallible authority for the church. Sola Scriptura also dictates that scripture alone should interpret scripture and that all scripture is able to be interpreted for doctrine by ordinary use. In essence it requires that everyone be a scholar. Sola Scriptura was the primary principle of the reformation, although the other 5 solas played a vital role as well (sola fide, sola gratia, solo Christo, and soli Deo gloria).
The Westminster Confession of Faith says “ VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
This is in contrast to tradition, scripture, and episcopacy playing equal roles within the church and in doctrine. Sungenis expounds on this as well on his website catholicintl.com
My issue with sola scriptura is that it is a logically fallacious presupposition. The idea that scripture alone should interpret scripture, or that scripture alone should be the authority for all doctrine or matters within the church is preposterous as the Bible never states that it is the sole authority. Within the Bible stating it how can they believe it? Because it is deduced from scripture?
2 Thess. 2:15 says “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” I think we all can agree the keyword here is Tradition.
Mark 16:15 says “And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” We see the commandment to the apostles to preach, not write, yet 3 of them still wrote. Do we consider the other apostles’ messages to be defunct because they were not written as scripture? No they were presented orally, as tradition. Sungenis has a great writing on this.
2 Timothy 2:2 says “And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.”
We stand with a great church heritage of Tradition, Scripture and Episcopacy. We have the Ecumenical Councils, the Scripture, the Bishops of Rome, The Pope, and the Early Church Fathers.
“Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian A.D. 200
“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures….Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” Cyril of Jerusalem A.D. 350