Not in the Bible: Argument #6 Against Sola Scriptura

As we begin Cameron’s next argument, #6, which is part 33 of this Sola Scriptura series, he attempts to show that the concept of Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. There were a number of unanswered questions generated from Cameron’s first three arguments which I refuted in my previous three blogs and unfortunately none of those questions are going to be addressed by Cameron’s sixth argument against Sola Scriptura. As a matter of fact, this new argument is only going to generate more questions to add to that list of questions that someone on the Catholic side needs to answer.

One of the issues with the ‘not in the Bible’ argument, is that it is still tied to the authority question of argument #7. That is not by my choosing, but because Cameron seems to fall back upon that in his attempt to justify his position for this new argument. I say justify because quite frankly he does not attempt to make a very strong case to prove that Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. I would have preferred he stuck to the stated argument as a standalone topic but that is not what he did.

So, in my rebuttal, I will attempt to show that the concept of Sola Scriptura is in fact in the Bible, as well as address the topics he presents in this argument. Before we get started though, I will readily acknowledge that the phrase ‘sola scriptura’ is NOT in the Bible, just like the word ‘trinity’ is not in the Bible. But just like the concept of the ‘Trinity,’ which is very scriptural, so is the concept of Sola Scriptura.

The Argument: Sola Scriptura Isn’t, but Tradition Is

This is the transcript of what Cameron said in his YouTube video for argument #6,

If Sola Scriptura were true, we would naturally expect scripture itself to teach it explicitly. Yet we don't find it anywhere. Now, to be fair Protestants often cite 2 Tim 3:16-17, claiming it proves scripture alone is sufficient. So, let's examine this one very closely as a sort of case study. Here's what Paul says, “All scriptures breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” Now, at first glance this might sound convincing, like scripture seems sufficient, right, but hold on, let's take a closer look at the context here. So, first Paul explicitly instructs Timothy just two chapters earlier in 2 Tim 1:13-14, “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. Guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” Notice Paul explicitly commands Timothy to preserve the oral teachings he received directly from Paul, not just what was written down. This clearly shows Paul didn't believe in scripture alone as the rule of faith. He affirmed the authoritative role of oral tradition in apostolic teaching. Moreover, Paul couldn't have been referring to the New Testament in 2 Tim 3:16-17 because much of the New Testament hadn't even been written yet. Right, the scriptures Timothy knew since childhood 2 Tim 3:15 were the Old Testament writings. In fact, Timothy, like many first century Jews and early Christians likely used the Greek Septuagint, which includes the very deuterocanonical books that Protestants reject. That's actually double trouble for the Protestant position here. Paul's praise of scripture as inspired and profitable implicitly affirms writings they no longer accept as canonical. More on the canon soon though. Now, if Paul genuinely meant that scripture alone is our only infallible authority, he would not have emphasized oral teaching or entrusted Timothy with an apostolic deposit to guard. Instead Paul would have clearly said something like “Timothy, trust only in the scriptures. They alone contain everything you need.” But that's precisely what Paul doesn't say. In fact, careful examination of every Protestant proof text for Sola Scriptura similarly reveals serious problems. Each attempt fails because it either ignores crucial context or misinterprets passages that actually affirm tradition and church authority rather than scripture alone. And this is exactly why many Protestants today, even prominent YouTubers like Gospel Simplicity, are shifting their position. They're no longer defending Sola Scriptura as an explicit biblical doctrine. Instead they're redefining it as a principle, a sort of guiding idea, rather than a clear biblical command. Why the shift? Well because the biblical case simply isn't there. And this argument matters because even as a principle we'd expect such an important one to show up in scripture but it's not there. The best explanation is that Sola Scriptura is not true and never was. [emphasis added]

Cameron's video: 12:43-15:52

Someone Forgot the Instructions

Let’s start by looking at the first part of Cameron’s presentation,

Protestants often cite 2 Tim 3:16-17, claiming it proves scripture alone is sufficient. So, let's examine this one very closely as a sort of case study. Here's what Paul says, “All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” Now, at first glance this might sound convincing, like scripture seems sufficient, right, but hold on, let's take a closer look at the context here. So, first Paul explicitly instructs Timothy just two chapters earlier in 2 Tim 1:13-14, “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. Guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” Notice Paul explicitly commands Timothy to preserve the oral teachings he received directly from Paul, not just what was written down. This clearly shows Paul didn't believe in scripture alone as the rule of faith. He affirmed the authoritative role of oral tradition in apostolic teaching. [emphasis added]

Cameron started his case by claiming that he wanted to examine 2 Tim 3:16-17 ‘very closely,’ but then he never really attempted to do that. Surprisingly, he did choose to use a better Bible translation of the verses which captures a much clearer understanding of what Paul wrote to Timothy, since it uses the phrase that Scripture is “breathed out by God.” but he does not attempt to refute the Protestant position on these verses, nor give a ‘better’ exegetical understanding of them to the listener. So, it may be that his ‘close examination’ was all about his thoughts on 2 Tim 1:13-14. I think everyone would have preferred to hear him expound upon 2 Tim 3:16-17, but since he did not, I submit a previous blog called the God-Breathed Scriptures which does. Please take a moment to review the exegetical content of that blog.

So, now that you’ve had a chance to look a little more in depth at 2 Tim 3:16-17, let’s move onto the verses Cameron seems to have wanted to focus his energies upon, 2 Tim 1:13-14.

Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you. (2 Tim 1:13-14 NASB95)

I find it a bit odd and just a little hypocritical of Cameron to disregard the Catholic Church’s long-standing disapproval (a virtual anathema) for ‘private interpretation’ by attempting to ‘privately’ interpret a verse that the Catholic Church has never provided an infallible interpretation for. Now, it's very likely that Cameron just copied this from another Catholic apologists, but my same criticism applies to whomever that might be. With that out of the way, and since neither Augustine nor I believe it's wrong for either one of us to interpret the text of Scripture, let’s look at what he said concerning these verses,

Notice Paul explicitly commands Timothy to preserve the oral teachings he received directly from Paul, not just what was written down. [emphasis added]

Can you find that command to ‘preserve the oral teachings’ directive in what Paul wrote above? Yes, I know, he means it for, “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me.” But is that really what Paul meant? Let’s dig into this a little bit. First, let’s examine one of the unstated points that Cameron seems to be trying to make, that there were no written Gospels for Timothy to read. So, let’s see what those possibilities might be. The best estimate for the writing of Second Timothy is around 66 or 67 AD, shortly before Paul was executed in Rome. The best estimates for three of the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke are [1]:

• Matthew: 50-65 A.D.
• Mark: 45-65 A.D.
• Luke: 60-70 A.D.

Paul and Timothy

Is it possible that Timothy had access to one or more of the Gospels? Yes, entirely possible. Paul could have given him a copy of one or made sure he had a copy of one. But we don’t know for sure either way. So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume he didn’t have any. Then what could Paul have been referring to? Most likely he was referring to the orally preached and taught Gospel message and any other teachings Paul might have given to Timothy. But make no mistake, Cameron’s meaning here is ‘sacred tradition’ because if it's referring only to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then Cameron’s argument falls apart, because Scripture preserves that. If there were other teachings that were given by Paul that were not a part of the Gospel message, then we don’t have those at all, anywhere. If they exist in the Catholic Church archives somewhere, then she is purposely withholding those from the world for some unknown reason. Their message to us is, "Trust us! There are other teachings but you are not allowed to know what those were. As a matter of fact, no one is allowed to know except a few specially selected individuals, who are never allowed to repeat the information to anyone, ever.” And what we get in return is people like Cameron that tell us the way to understand 2 Tim 1:13-14 is that there were unwritten oral teachings, as well as written, that Paul commanded Timothy to preserve and have been preserved to this day, teachings that neither Cameron, you or I will ever be allowed to know what they were. But is that the real meaning of these verses?

I submit that it cannot be, and here is why. Who was Timothy? He was the person Paul selected to take over where he left off. Paul was writing Timothy from prison in Rome where he was preparing to be executed. Timothy, the pastor at the church in Ephesus, was not an Apostle so he wasn’t going to be able to write or preach the inspired Word of God like Peter, Paul and the other Apostles were. So, he would need those teachings, which is what Paul was referring to in 2 Tim 1:13-14, to continue the work that Paul was commissioning him to do. If you disagree, then you will have to provide the content of the oral teachings Paul taught Timothy. And if you will remember in a previous blog I pointed out that the Catholic Church has admitted in debates that they do not have any extrabiblical teachings from either Jesus or the Apostles which are not already in the New Testament. Not a single word! Which means, there were never any extrabiblical oral teachings preserved from the days of the Apostles. In other words, there is no ‘sacred tradition’ for these teachings.

What was Paul’s main focus as an Apostle? To preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. So, if Timothy was in essence taking over the leading of the churches in Asia minor, then what was Timothy’s main focus going to be? That’s right, preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles and leading those churches. But let’s take it a step further. Everyone should understand that Paul personally taught Timothy a lot of things that were never written down. What were those teachings and conversations? We will never know. And once Paul was martyred and Timothy died, those teachings were lost to time. According to the Catholic Church, we do not have a single preserved word from Timothy any more than we have a single preserved word from Paul outside of Scripture. Whatever he taught has either been lost or was captured in Scripture. Those that hold to Sola Scriptura state boldly that what we have in Scripture is what God intended for us to have to preach and teach the Gospel in our day and make disciples who will in turn preach and teach the Gospel and make disciples.

The Meaning of 2 Tim 1:13-14

But the real proof is in Scripture itself, so let’s see what verse 13 means because we need to better understand what ‘Retain the standard of sound words’ means. The word ‘standard’ (or ‘form’ in KJV) means “an outline, sketch, brief and summary exposition, an example, a pattern.” [2] So Paul is instructing Timothy to retain the form, the pattern, the outline of what Paul had taught him. This makes it abundantly clear that the actual words Paul spoke were not retained as some ‘word for word oral teachings’ passed down through history. It would be similar to taking a class and then having to write an essay at the end of the term to prove you understood the knowledge you say you acquired. Now what do you suppose ‘sound words’ means? Virtually every commentator I checked understands this as doctrine. So putting the whole phrase together, Calvin said,

the command is that he should adhere to the doctrine which he had learned, not only in its substance, but in its form. [3]

Another commentator put it this way,

The true gospel is founded upon the prophets, the words of Jesus, and apostolic teaching. Acutely aware of the damage inflicted by false teachers, Paul returned to the need for orthodoxy as revealed through Christ to Paul. It is this pure doctrine which is the pattern of sound teaching. [4]

Verse 14 states,

Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.

And that treasure was the Gospel of Jesus Christ that Paul wrote about throughout his Epistles. And there should be no question about where this Gospel can be found today; it’s in the New Testament. So, these ‘oral teachings’ were what we have in Scripture.

Yes, Paul Believed in Sola Scriptura

Cameron finishes this first part with this,

Notice Paul explicitly commands Timothy to preserve the oral teachings he received directly from Paul, not just what was written down. This clearly shows Paul didn't believe in scripture alone as the rule of faith. He affirmed the authoritative role of oral tradition in apostolic teaching. [Emphasis added]

Cameron equates ‘sound words’ with ‘oral teachings’ and I don’t totally disagree with that, since our working assumption from above is there were no New Testament books to draw from. From above, we know that ‘sound words’ is referring to Gospel doctrines that Paul had taught Timothy. Now, look at the last part of Cameron’s statement above, he suddenly moves from the biblical ‘sound words’ to ‘oral teachings’ that then become ‘oral tradition in apostolic teaching,’ and we are provided with no definition of what ‘oral tradition’ actually is. Subtly and skillfully, Cameron has changed terms as if all three mean exactly the same thing so that the modern day meaning of oral tradition can be poured into the meaning of this verse. This I have to assume – somehow – changes the meaning of 2 Tim 3:16-17 so that it does not refer to Scripture alone as our rule of faith. Although he does not say that directly, that would seem to be the only possible conclusion. It's also pretty ridiculous if that is indeed the case. How would Cameron reject the exegetical case made for 2 Tim 3:16-17? We certainly are not going to find out by listening to Cameron!

The problem here is that Cameron has not established the historical existence of the type of ‘oral tradition’ that the modern-day Catholic Church believes in. Protestants do not dispute that oral teachings from the Apostles took place, they dispute there were any existing extrabiblical authoritative teachings that were orally transmitted down through history for the last 2000 yrs and whose content does not present the doctrines that currently exist in Scripture when there is no evidence to show any have ever existed. If no one knows their content, how do you prove they exist?

Lastly, let’s deal with his statement,

This clearly shows Paul didn't believe in scripture alone as the rule of faith. [Emphasis added]

This is simply a convenient presupposition on Cameron’s part based on his subtle word change noted above. Cameron didn’t show or prove anything of the sort, he didn’t even come close. So, his presupposition has no basis in fact or reality.

Because Scripture Hadn’t Been Written

Let’s look at the next few sentences,

Paul couldn't have been referring to the New Testament in 2 Tim 3:16-17 because much of the New Testament hadn't even been written yet. Right, the scriptures Timothy knew since childhood 2 Tim 3:15 were the Old Testament writings. In fact, Timothy, like many first century Jews and early Christians likely used the Greek Septuagint, which includes the very deuterocanonical books that Protestants reject. That's actually double trouble for the Protestant position here. Paul's praise of scripture as inspired and profitable implicitly affirms writings they no longer accept as canonical. [Emphasis added]

Let me start by agreeing with Cameron that not “all” of the New Testament existed (even though it’s very clear that a number of books actually did exist) and that Paul’s reference to the “sacred Scriptures” in 2 Tim 3:15 was to the Old Testament. But what Timothy was taught from them as a child was likely much of what Jesus taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13-35, since his mother and grandmother were Christians. But what Paul is referring to in verse 16 is all of Scripture – both Old and New Testaments, not just the Old. We already know that Peter considered Paul’s writings as Scripture and it's likely that most if not all of Paul’s Epistles had been written as well as the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Now, there is no way to tell if Timothy had any of the New Testament books, but if it's foolish to assume Timothy had any of the New Testament books, then it's just as foolish to assume that he did not. Do you think that Timothy could not have acquired a copy of Romans or the two epistles to the Corinthians or Ephesians or Colossians? Yes, that’s speculation and we probably shouldn’t do that. But Cameron talks like no one had any idea the New Testament “Scripture” had been written.

And to make this point even more vivid in your mind, Cameron jumps to the deuterocanonical books (i.e., the Apocrypha) as if they have compelling theological significance to the Christian doctrines of the Gospel. Concerning the deuterocanonical books, several response videos to his video have pointed out that,

• Romans 3:2 makes it clear that the Old Testament Canon had been set by the Jews and those books were never included.
• The Apostles never quoted those books as authoritative.
• The Jews, like the Protestants, did not accept those books as Canonical.
• The early Church did not include them because they were not apostolic.
• Early forms of the Septuagint split these books off explaining they were only for edification of the Church, they were not Scripture. Later copies blurred that line.
• Jerome stated there were 39 Old Testament books and did not believe those books should be included.
• Those books were consistently contested up to the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

So, it's not the Protestants that have the issue here because there is no clear reason why the deuterocanonical books were included into the Catholic version of the Canon. Honestly, bringing up those books really has nothing to do with the argument he’s attempting to make, other than his attempt to needling Protestants for excluding ‘Scripture’ when they say they revere it so much.

What God Should Have Said?

Let’s move on to the next few sentences of Cameron’s case,

Now, if Paul genuinely meant that scripture alone is our only infallible authority, he would not have emphasized oral teaching or entrusted Timothy with an apostolic deposit to guard. Instead Paul would have clearly said something like “Timothy, trust only in the scriptures. They alone contain everything you need.” But that's precisely what Paul doesn't say. In fact, careful examination of every Protestant proof text for Sola Scriptura similarly reveals serious problems. Each attempt fails because it either ignores crucial context or misinterprets passages that actually affirm tradition and church authority rather than scripture alone. [Emphasis added]

Again, Cameron returns to ‘oral teaching’ in which his actual meaning is Catholicism's modern-day concept of ‘oral tradition.’ In a time when these oral teachings might have been inscripturated but not widely distributed, Paul had already instructed Timothy and then in this letter encouraged him to hold onto the ‘sound words’ (doctrines) that Paul had taught him and the only way for Timothy to do that would be via the Scriptures and 2 Tim 3:16-17 clearly teach this. For Cameron and those in the Catholic Church, the only way they are going to believe Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith is if God Himself comes down from heaven and writes it on a wall.

The Pretenders

If you will remember argument #7 was about ‘final authority,’ but here we are again returning to this previous argument because Cameron didn’t really bother to address argument #6 as he should have. So, since Cameron seems to want to return to it, let's start by making sure that we remember what Sola Scriptura is. I started this series with this definition from James White,

Sola Scriptura – means that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. Since they are ‘God-breathed’ (Mat 22:31; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), they are ultimate in authority, for there can be no higher authority than God Himself. All other rules of faith, creeds, councils, or anything else produced by the Church herself, are subject to the ultimate correction of God’s Word. [emphasis added]

And in a recent YouTube video, Galvin Ortlund states it this way,

… It's the idea that scripture is the only infallible rule for the church. A rule is a standard that governs the church's faith and practice. Infallible means incapable of error. So, Sola Scriptura is essentially saying that scripture is the only authority standing over the church that can't get it wrong, that can't make a mistake that would then need to be subsequently corrected.

The ULTIMATE Case for Sola Scriptura (1:45 - 2:15)

Gavin states later in the video, that Scripture is not the only standard or authority, but it is the highest authority for the church, and that is what Cameron wants to lead us away from, especially in a future argument. Protestants believe Scripture is the highest authority, where Catholicism believes that the Church is the highest authority. But for Catholicism the Church is not the only infallible authority which prompts Protestants to ask a question something like this,

If Scripture is infallible, and the Church (or magisterium) is infallible, and ‘tradition’ is infallible, and Councils are infallible, and Creeds are infallible, and the Pope is infallible, then who is at the top of this list? Protestants look at this list and just scratch their collective heads and ask a simple question, ‘If there is a conflict between any of these infallible authorities, then who decides which is correct?’

Since I have no idea how Catholicism would resolve this conflict, I’ll give my view on the Protestant resolution,

• Councils - Augustine stated that councils have contradicted themselves, so we know that they are not infallible, which means Scripture is above councils.
• Creeds - they were created from Scripture as a confessional statement for believers to acknowledge. But also, being written by men, they have the possibility of being wrong, even if they are 100% correct. That makes Scripture above the Creeds.
• Popes - they are men and men are fallible. No matter what you believe about Matt 16:18, all one has to do is look at the Great Schism and the pornocracy within the Medieval church to know that the popes cannot be infallible, at any time. Again, that makes Scripture above the Popes.
• Tradition - tradition cannot be given authority when there is no definition of what those traditions actually are. Matt 15 and Mark 7 refer to the Jewish traditions that were handed down from Moses, which sound a lot like the traditions Catholicism says exist but cannot prove. Without proof, Scripture must stand above, not alongside, tradition.
• Church - one of the Church’s roles was to preserve and hand down scripture to subsequent generations. And since the Church has been shown to be fallible (Honorius, the Great Schism, pornocracy), Scripture is then above the Church.
• Scripture - Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism believe Scripture is infallible. And since no one yet had shown it to be fallible, Scripture remains the only infallible rule, standard and authority for the Church. Therefore, it stands above all.

Again, there can be other authorities, but Scripture is the only one that is truly infallible and therefore the highest authority of them all.

The Scriptural Evidence

Since Cameron does not attempt to disprove that there is Scriptural support for Sola Scriptura, let me attempt to lay that groundwork of proof for it here. It will be somewhat abbreviated, otherwise this blog will never end.

Protestants will always lead with 2 Tim 3:16-17, which was expounded upon in: Part 8: God-Breathed Scriptures and Part 9: Fully Equipped: Answering an Objection. The nature of Scripture being God-breathed tells us that it comes directly from God. These are the words that God wants His people to know, inside and out. They are not reserved for your bookcase or a special table in your home; these are the words we are called to live by. Next, the equipping nature of Scripture means that believers are specially trained to minister to those we encounter throughout our life. It first starts with training our will to conform to God’s will and His desires for us. He will correct us and continue to do so until we listen to Him. That’s a promise that should thrill and humble us. God loves us so much that He will never leave us or forsake us. We might give up on Him, but He will never give up on us while we walk this earth.

Catholic apologists will always lead with 2 Th 2:15, which has been answered at length in: Part 3: Tradition: Oral and Written, 2 Th 2:15. They assume that “either by our spoken word or by our letter” means their modern-day two-source concept of sacred tradition and Scripture. I dispelled this in multiple ways.

Next, Protestants like to use 2 Peter 1:19-21, which was expounded upon in: Part 10: 2 Pet 1:19-21: Divine Origin. These verses mean that Scripture does not come from the thoughts of man, but from the mind of God. No prophet and no Apostle can bring forth Scripture by their will or great oratory power, it is only because the Holy Spirit resides in them and speaks through them. That means Scripture isn’t just God’s words like it's a literature book or a novel, they carry the weight and the power of God’s desires for mankind and have the ability to change us at our very core. They are also authoritative in all matters, because they are God’s spoken words to man. God’s word tells us how to live a Godly life, and He expects us to know it and follow it.

John 20:31

“these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31 NASB95)

At the end of John, God tells us that the purpose of Scripture is ‘so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.’ The Gospel of John makes it clear that Scripture contains all that is needed for salvation. We don’t need a church or an apostle for salvation since reading Scripture gives us the Gospel message. When Peter and Paul preached the word of God and people believed, they immediately became Christians when they repented and believed. None of those new believers needed the Church to come to Christ, they needed the Gospel which is now only found in Scripture. Once they became believers, they were added to the Church, because the Church is the body of Christ, the group of believers in a specific location who carry out God’s mission in that location. It is NOT an institution. Also, read through the New Testament and see all the people that preached the Gospel that were not Apostles, men like Philip, Apollos, Timothy and Titus (and women too). Scripture has the power to change lives when it is preached and taught by any believer.

Matthew 4:4

But He [Jesus] answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ” (Mat 4:4 NKJV)

This is an overlooked supporting verse, where Jesus quotes Duet 8:3 to remind the devil that we are to live by every word that God has spoken, and that spoken word can only be found in Scripture. It is also a proclamation that believers are expected to live a life that demonstrates an understanding of God’s word (i.e., faith and practice). And we can only understand what that expectation is if we are reading, understanding and applying God’s word in, to and for our lives.

Romans 15:4

For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. (Rom 15:4 NIV)

In this verse, we see that Scripture gives us both endurance and hope, but it was also written to teach us the Gospel, biblical doctrines and how to live. Again, we are to live by God’s words. Nowhere does it say to live by the Church. Of course, the Church has an important role in the believer's life, but it is Scripture that is our primary source of information.

Ephesians 6:11-17

(11) Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. (12) For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (13) Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. (14) Stand firm therefore, HAVING GIRDED YOUR LOINS WITH TRUTH, and HAVING PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, (15) and having shod YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE; (16) in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. (17) And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Eph 6:11-16 NASB95)

And here is one of the understandings one can draw from these verses (there are others that could be drawn as well):

• Verse 11 – the passage as a whole tells us to protect ourselves with the tools God has given to us, which is what the ‘armor’ depicts. Verses 14. 15 and 17 quote the Old Testament and instruct us to know and use the Word of God to protect ourselves against the ‘schemes of the devil.’
• Verse 12 – this verse tells us why it is so important for us to put on the armor of God, which is the knowledge of how to utilize the Word to protect ourselves. All manner of evil will come against us and we don’t stand a chance without armor.
• Verse 13 – again, without God’s word living in us, we do not stand a chance against satan because it is the armor of God that helps us resist evil and stand firm against satan’s assaults against us.
• Verse 14 – where do we get ‘truth’? From His Word. The loins of truth are the doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus which can only be found in Scripture. These are the things, the truths that God has worked in and through our lives. The breastplate of righteousness is an allusion to the fact that as believers we bear the imputed righteousness of Christ which protects us from the attacks of satan. Without it, we are naked and vulnerable to every attack.
• Verse 15 – John Gill says the Gospel transforms our temperament and behavior, which is what gives our mind peace as well as directs our way to eternal peace.
• Verse 16 – the Word of God is what brings about our faith and is what encompasses us as a shield. Our shield guards and protects us against false doctrines and the wiles of satan. But this shield can also be used within a group to protect other more vulnerable people. When shields are joined with others they can create a near impenetrable wall of protection.
• Verse 17 – the helmet guards the mind, but it is a mind immersed in Scripture and prayer. It protects the mind from false doctrines. The sword of the spirit is the Word of God and is the only offense and defense tool in this list. It is what is used to fight back against satan’s attacks, just like Jesus did when He said, “It is written…”

These are our tools to defend ourselves and others against the onslaught from satan. But it is the Word of God that creates our tools, our armor. We can only mount a defense if we apply Scripture to our lives. Leaving this to someone else is foolishness and goes directly against what Scripture teaches. It is our responsibility, not someone else's like a Church.

All of this makes Scripture the most important part of the Christian’s life. Every other ‘authority’ listed above, expects others to do for us what we are required to do for ourselves. Worse, the Catholic Church tells her people that they cannot do it themselves without the superior knowledge and authority of something else.

Matthew 22:31

And finally, Matt 22:31, one of the most remarkable unknown verses in the New Testament, Jesus says,

“But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God:

Read that again, “have you not read what was spoken to you by God.” How much clearer does Scripture need to be? How much more does anyone need to be convinced about the place Scripture should have in the believer's life? Yes, Jesus was speaking to the Jews and it's a reference about the Old Testament Scriptures. But aren’t they the Christian’s Scriptures too? This verse is about the Sadducees, who didn’t believe in the resurrection and were trying to trick Jesus, but as always, He turns the tables on them and schools them on that very subject. But what I highlighted above is so remarkable! Jesus points out to the Sadducees that Scripture might be in written form, but it is the voice of God to His people. God speaks to us through His written word.

And I haven’t even gotten to other proofs of Sola Scriptura: [5]

• 1 Cor 4:6 – Where Paul explicitly tells Christians “not to go beyond what is written,” which is his day was a reference to the Scriptures that had, Old Testament, but for us is a reference to the entire Bible.
• Acts 17:11 – commended the Bereans as “noble” for “examining the Scriptures (OT) daily to see if” the apostolic witness was true.
• John 5:39 – Jesus told the Jews that the Old Testament Scriptures were sufficient for the Jews to accept Him.
• Jude – “faith once for all delivered to the saints”

All of these Scriptures make one thing abundantly clear, 2 Tim 3:16-17 are NOT the only verses in the New Testament that scream from the highest hill, “Sola Scriptura is in the Bible!”

A Warning About What Is Coming

The above verses are only a handful of those that could be used to show the existence of Sola Scriptura in the Bible. It demonstrates that Cameron didn’t really try to show that it isn’t in the Bible. Now, remember that Cameron’s disagreement here seems to be about the ‘oral teachings’ that 2 Tim 1:13-14 and 2 Th 2:15 mentions even though there are no preserved words from either Jesus or the Apostles that are not already in Scripture. To take this a step further, Protestants have been asking for over 500 yrs for these extrabiblical ‘oral teachings’ that have been handed down from the Apostles to be revealed but the Catholic Church has steadfastly refused to do so. With that as the Catholic position, one can only conclude that these extrabiblical teachings simply do not exist.

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)

Is this not a warning against those that would pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ as captured in Scripture? If those extrabiblical ‘oral teachings’ are real, then they need to be produced so that all can profit from them, Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic alike. But if they are not real or Catholicism continues to refuse to release those supposed ‘apostolic oral teachings,’ then they fit into the category of ‘perverse things’ whose purpose is to draw believers away from the truth.

What’s Really Being Said

Now, let’s take the totality of Cameron’s argument and answer what he seems to really be saying – “I can’t find the words ‘Sola Scriptura’ in the Bible nor do I see the concept being explicitly taught.”

Galvin Ortlund, in the same YouTube video referenced above, stated this,

… you'll hear this that Sola Scriptura is self-defeating because it says everything has to be in the Bible but it's not in the Bible, and this kind of thing and … the point here is, I think pretty simple, Sola Scriptura does not claim that everything that we believe needs to be taught explicitly in the Bible, that is just not on the table. What is being targeted here is the idea of the sufficiency of scripture.

The ULTIMATE Case for Sola Scriptura (7:32 - 7:50)

And the key word here is “explicitly.” If you are expecting to see the exact words, ‘Sola Scriptura’ in Scripture, then you will not find it. But you are not going to find the word ‘Trinity’ in the Bible either, even though the concept is implicitly taught in Scripture. We are not told the Holy Spirit is God in the Bible either, but again, Scripture can be shown to teach that He is. Just read through Athanasius’ work on the Trinity and the Holy Spirit. He used Scripture to prove that the Holy Spirit was God and that the Trinity is how to understand the nature of God.

And if we really want to talk about doctrines not taught in Scripture, then let’s talk about the assumption and perpetual virginity of Mary, indulgences, papal infallibility, and the veneration of saints and icons. None of these are in Scripture, and the supposed Scriptural support I’ve seen for these ‘doctrines’ are laughable.

Conclusion

It’s actually a shame that Cameron’s case for this argument was so extremely weak, as he completely avoided the real topic and substituted something else without bothering to really prove either point. But knowing the real topic, it made sense to provide a real response for those that might actually want to know why Protestants all the way back to the Reformation have vigorously defended the belief that Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture.

I attempted to touch upon the main points of Cameron’s case for this argument and provided what I believe is a solid defense for Sola Scriptura, especially when it comes to its Scriptural support. I found that several of the response videos for this argument were almost mocking Cameron for the poor case he laid out. I do find it odd that the Catholic Church cannot seem to find Sola Scriptura in the Bible when so many Protestant apologists over the last 500 yrs were easily able to and even to expound upon those verses to show the strength of their argument. Yet the Catholic Church can find ‘allusions’ in Scriptures to the nonexistent doctrines I mentioned above, but the supporting verses they find are far-fetched at best. Worse, many times they won’t even offer justification since the ‘Church’ says these doctrines are true. But Protestants can prove, just as I have done, that Sola Scriptura is in the Bible, and not just in a single verse.

Far too many believers do not seek to read or know Scripture. But Scripture is what tells us about who Jesus was and is, and what He wants for our lives. It is also what believers need to defend against the attacks of satan. We don’t need secret oral teaching that no one is allowed to know and talk about as a mysterious nonexistent ‘tradition.’ Christians have a God who knows them personally and intimately, who created them and desires to have a relationship with them, a God who speaks to them through His Word. We have a God who died for our sins, rose from the dead and who resides in us, who changes us and it is His Word that tells us everything we need for life and Godliness (2 Pet 1:3).

We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say.

Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386) – Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff

Footnotes

1. I am excluding John since it may have been written early or late, depending on your eschatology.
2. See Strong's word: G5296
3. As quoted by Albert Barnes’ New Testament Notes on 2 Timothy, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.
4. Knute Larson, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, vol. 9, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), p. 270.
5. Some of this section is from Case for Sola Scriptura Using Scripture Alone - @IndianaBrunner.

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/