Is that warning about sola scriptura in the Bible?
When you leave sola scriptura, you eventually build a god in your own image.
He talks like you.
Thinks like you.
Swears like you.
Never corrects you.
Always affirms you.
But that god can’t save you.
Only the One who speaks through His Word can.
nostr:nevent1qqsgw7gr8xyq9w3dvx4pr2n9m8pnu4jt8wg0gn22an5tgqr7ldd8utqmkxtw8
Discussion
Deuteronomy 12:32
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.
Proverbs 30:5–6
Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Revelation 22:18–19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.
This presupposes that God's word is *only* scripture (which is not what these verses say). It also presupposes that you are only supposed to use the words in the Bible (which is also not what these verses say).
There is no prescription in scripture for what books are supposed to constitute the Bible. How does one know what books belong in the Bible if the Bible doesn't tell you and you're only allowed to use the Bible to know this?
This makes your last verse very difficult, considering it was written by John before the new Testament was assembled (and perhaps before it was even finished being written). You are ascribing the warning in Revelation to all of the Bible after the fact, thus begging the question.
Your argument boils down to this: “We need something higher than the Bible to tell us what the Bible is.” But that means your authority is not Scripture, it’s the church, or your traditions, or your pope. That’s Rome, not Christ. That’s circular in the wrong direction.
The Reformed faith says: Scripture is self-attesting, sufficient, and supreme because its Author is.
If you need further clarification, I’m happy to lay it all out.
The Reformed faith is an interpretation put over-top of scripture. You can argue it is derived from scripture, but my original reply outlines how scripture alone is insufficient to determine what scripture is valid or authentic. I once was Reformed as well, I am familiar with the arguments. And I am Orthodox Christian now, so we have no infallible Pope in Rome thankfully!
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your background, especially having spent time in the Reformed tradition.
You said Reformed theology is an interpretation laid over Scripture, but that misses the point. The Reformers didn’t claim to create authority for Scripture, they affirmed that Scripture is self-authenticating because it is the very Word of God. The church didn’t establish the canon; it recognized what the Spirit had already inspired.
Yes, the Bible doesn’t include a divinely inspired table of contents but that doesn’t make tradition the final arbiter. The Spirit who authored the Scriptures also leads the church to recognize them. As the Westminster Confession says, their authority doesn’t depend on “the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof.”
Orthodoxy may reject Rome’s pope, but it still replaces the sufficiency of Scripture with ecclesial tradition. And once you elevate tradition alongside Scripture, you’ve lost the foundation. You’ll always need someone above Scripture to tell you what it means, and that’s not what Christ gave His church.
God has spoken. And His Word is enough. Grace and peace