Sola Scriptura

Sola scriptura is a doctrine held by protestants that basically says Christians only use scripture for authority, not oral tradition or human only works. It is in some ways very biblical, other ways maybe questionable, since preachers can give messages simply based upon memory, they can function without scriptures in front of them short-term. Long-term the church must have scripture and preacher memorization isn't sufficient over long periods or large sections of scripture. Plus, not all audiences have long memories, James 1 shows why a mirror image of tradition is necessary, Short-term memory isn't conducive to long-term change and repentance. We need a lasting memory.

James 1:24

For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 

Neither James nor Peter believed the church came before God's word. The prophets wrote of Christ before Peter preached from them. James says we are begat of the word.

James 1:18

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. 

We were begat of the word so it preceded us.

1 Peter 1:23

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 

The word is different than the church councils which came centuries later, the new birth was possible without church councils through the gospel. Sola scriptura is true in the sense that we are begat by one word, the gospel of Jesus Christ. That gospel is preserved in scripture. In most cases teachers used scripture in the presence of the hearers. Whether written or spoken it is one authority. The word came before the church since Jesus had to live out the gospel before his disciples could believe in it. Christ and his life was the word.

Mark 1:15

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 

In a certain sense Sola Scriptura is very true though the term isn't in scripture. The term word and scripture are, so using different descriptions in scripture we can arrive at the meaning. The funny thing is those against the concept generally use scripture to try to disprove it. They use what they disprove. The word and the gospel are the same.

We know the scriptures themselves contain historical proofs that can't be found in other places, so the church couldn't function independent of scripture. Later sources only quote scripture.The history is contained within scripture itself. Acts 2, for instance, can't be found apart from scripture. History follows the scripture not scripture follows secular history. Matthew 16:16-19 wasn't found outside of scripture and Catholics quote it from scripture, not in history, without scripture it would only have been in minds. Church councils used scripture though not exclusively, not always correctly. They allowed extra-biblical history to define what scripture meant, which may not be correct. Verses weren't put in scripture because historians found an inscription somewhere concerning a belief.

Opponents to this method believed there was sufficient internal evidence in scripture to determine meaning. I believe this is true. Though we use dictionaries and concordances, those help with original language, we can determine doctrine conclusively from internal evidence.

Catholics sometimes confuse oral tradition with biblical history. These historical proofs are still prophetic in that a true prophet who was inspired is defining the history. Luke used the prophetic gifts to write Acts, so prophetic oral tradition was rolled into scripture. The thousands present in Acts 2 had personal memories, but personal memory didn't become the prophetic version. Thousands of personal traditions would cloud our minds with unimportant facts and distractions and keep us from knowing what God wanted us to remember.  The prophet could take thousands of possible memories and condense it into the facts God wants remembered in scripture, scripture was written by inspired scribes/prophets and make better sense of the entire events. Oral and written are the same.

Remember, God wanted excess memories to fade, not be preserved. I Cor.13, "knowledge will fade away".

Not one of the thousands of eye witnesses contradict Luke's version, though they may have seen it from their personal view, none of the eye witnesses complained their version was needed for the world to go to heaven. They aren't authoritative.

Paul said in Eph.2 the Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, which Catholics imply is oral tradition, but apostles and prophets wrote the scripture. Oral and scripture merges into the same truth, they were from the same office. It isn't different.

So, history and historical examples can still mean sola scripture. Realize Peter was sola scriptura long before protestants. Rome the congregation was sola scriptura in 175 AD. Catholics tend to hide these examples. Peter uses "any man", so no Christian teacher is excluded.

1 Peter 4:11

If "any man" speak, [let him speak] as the oracles of God; if any man minister, [let him do it] as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 

Ministry is never based solely on human memory, man's memory isn't that great. Even Catholics wrote their decisions down. Their church councils are no longer oral, they actually never were. 

Paul was sola scriptura as well, since the doctrine had to be delivered to them, not decided by them.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 

This word "word" was used of Hebrews and Luke's writings. It meant treatise. A written oral teaching for teaching purposes. It takes a message from oral to written. Notice they were taught "by" word or epistle, their instruction even in the earliest days wasn't oral alone. It was written spoken orally, The written was the means. Even Catholics still use a catechism book. Thessalonians were the first of Paul's epistles, so from the earliest churches teaching was via scripture, written material. Acts 2 had written prophecies from the prophets, Acts 15 had writings accompanying. The Thessalonians were taught out of written material. It is very clear.

The churches' speech and sermons should be guided by the oracles "of God". Thus, not man breathed but God breathed. This could be oral as a prophet, but oral prophecies were to cease according to I Cor.13 so that scripture was left to us. Scripture is God breathed. Today's speech is not. 

1 Corinthians 13:8

Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away. 

1 Corinthians 13:10

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 

Prophetic speech would cease and so history and doctrine was rolled into permanent scripture. It says knowledge would vanish away, meaning the product of oral traditions would cease to be in memory. All we have left are the histories and doctrines of scripture. Many people had personal memories of Christ, but those personal memories would vanish into history, and they have. Personal oral tradition wasn't meant for preservation.

In 175 AD Roman presbyters wrote the number of prophets was complete, showing they did not accept new prophets. They restricted all public reading to recognized prophetic works like the 4 Gospels, Acts, or epistles. That means they accepted their Canon before the councils were called. Extra biblical were removed from Church worship. Rome did not believe the bishop of Rome had prophetic gifts, so the Papal doctrine falls apart. Rome only used prophets writings (scripture) publicly. Sola Scriptura.

We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church. The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public38 in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.

The Church of Rome would not believe in modern prophets, including the Papal prophets. They also did not consider the one sitting in the chair of Rome a prophet. Interesting. Peter had prophetic gifts, the Church in Rome did not at this time.

2 Peter 4:11 above says to minister with the ability God supplies, once the Apostle and prophets ceased, their abilities ceased. Most Catholic arguments come from this era when prophets existed. Those abilities do not apply today. So oral tradition isn't still being judged with these gifts. Every example from scripture may not be valid as a precedent once the gifts ceased.

Rome itself early on was sola scriptura in public practice. They would not allow non prophetic works to be read in public. Since 175ad was before the councils they had no such councils to draw from. Even local works of Rome like the "Shepherd of Hermas" were not read in public worship. It was supposedly written by a church leader in Rome but was excluded from public reading.

The first seven ecumenical councils were after 325ad, so their decisions couldn't have been used in church teaching publicly. There were regional meetings before 325ad but these were after the 175ad date. In 175ad the church did not use any councils not written in scripture. Acts 15 was written in scripture.

synod of Rome 193ad

synod of Carthage 251ad

synod of Antioch 264ad

As you see the Church in Rome was Sola Scripture in the beginning, it only became an issue later through church councils as they introduced non-biblical doctrine and non-biblical authority.

Remember when it was written to "obey those who have rule over you", the popes, cardinals, arch-bishops, singular bishop, church councils, etc , did not exist yet. These were not what the writer had in mind necessarily.