Why We Need the 'Solas'

Martin Luther is not merely a key figure in the unfolding of events in the Protestant Reformation; he also played a major role in moulding its ideas. 'Perhaps more than any other person, Luther shaped the presuppositions that define Protestantism.' (Stephen J. Nichols) These presuppositions are known to scholars in their Latin form as the five Reformation 'solas': 'sola Scriptura' = 'Scripture alone'; 'sola fide' = 'faith alone'; 'sola gratia' = 'grace alone'; 'solus Christus' = 'Christ alone'; and 'soli Deo gloria' = 'to the glory of God alone.' That they each find their place at the root of Luther's thinking is sufficient testimony to the seminal role he played in their fuller development by later Protestant theologians. In this short study we will consider why Luther thought we need these 'solas.'

Scripture Alone

We begin where Luther begins, with 'sola Scriptura,' the formal principle of all Reformed teaching. We need 'sola Scriptura' because in this dark world of spiritual blindness, 'the only reason we can see at all is that the light of God's Word shines brightly (2 Pet. 1.19).' Without that light 'we would not know or understand anything.' (Works, 6.148) Luther hammered this truth as firmly into his hearers' minds as he hammered the Ninety-five Theses onto Wittenberg Castle Church door. At every opportunity, he calls us away from the spurious claims of Rome, reason, mysticism and the sects, back to the written Word of God. 'We must learn to depend on the visible Word of our invisible and incredible God' (5.183), for 'faith . . . does not judge . . . by what it sees or feels but by what it hears. It depends on the Word alone.' (Sermons, 1905.1.23)

Indeed, the only reason we know that God is present with us is 'through his Word.' To trust in it is to trust in him. So, he resolves: 'God's Word alone will be my rod and staff.' (12.169) 'I will live by what it says.' (22.6)

Luther's heroic stand at Worms can be explained in no other way. In danger of his life from the Roman Catholic emperor Charles V as he recalled John Hus at the Council of Constance; opposed by the papal nuncio Aleander, ready to thunder Rome's anathemas against him; barely supported by Germany's petty princes, hesitant and uncertain of the outcome; Luther refused to be intimidated. When called on to recant, even when no heresy had been proved against him, he replied: 'I am bound to the Scriptures . . . my conscience is captive to the Word of God.' The Bible alone was his sheet anchor during this Satanic storm, as it was throughout his entire life. Thus Luther teaches us that we need the Bible alone because all other testimony is liable to err, and it alone is inerrant.

Faith Alone

Luther hammers home our absolute need of faith as vigorously as he does our total dependence on Scripture. Let us not imagine, however, that with him 'sola fide' was nothing more than belief in God and assent to the articles of the Christian creed. No, it is especially the personal appropriation of Christ and God's gracious promises in him, as given to us in Scripture.

Forceful convictions mingle with child-like tenderness in Luther's teaching on appropriating Christ. 'Of what benefit would it be to me,' he cries, 'if Christ had been born a thousand times . . . if I were never to hear that he was born for me?' (Sermons, 1905. I. 149) By contrast he gently affirms: 'My sweet Redeemer is sufficient for me. I shall praise him all my life.' (Letters, 1908. XXIV)

But whether forceful or gentle, Luther is always pointing us - both preachers and hearers - to Christ alone. In preaching, 'Christ should be placed directly before our eyes so that we see and hear nothing apart from him.' In hearing, 'faith is an unswerving gaze that looks on Christ alone.' (26.356)

What could the snake-bitten Jews do to heal themselves? he asks vehemently. Nothing! Moses commanded them to look at 'the bronze snake, which points to Christ (John 3.14) . . . with an unswerving gaze. Those who did so were healed.' Those who did not, but 'looked at their wounds instead . . . died.' So too, we must not pore over our own sins, but 'do nothing but look to him.' In him we see our sins dealt with by his death, and our victory over sin, death and the devil secured by his resurrection. 'This is true faith in Christ and the right way to believe.' (26.356)

Since 'all God's promises are based on Christ,' to appropriate them is to appropriate him. There is no basic difference between Abraham's faith and ours. The only difference is that 'Abraham believed in the promised Christ who was still to come. We believe in the Christ who has already come. We are all saved' through 'this same faith.' (3.26)

'The Holy Spirit' holds God's promises 'before us so that' we 'may find refuge and comfort' in them when we sense God's anger against us, or when we are assailed by 'serious doubts . . . such as: "What if God does not want me to be saved?" . . . When our consciences are troubled in this way we must continue to believe the promise of salvation - a promise we can trust in and depend on ... We must hang onto God's promise, because if Satan can prevent us believing it, then we have nowhere else to turn. We must hold tightly to the promise and be ready for the times when God will test us.' (4.93) From Joel 2.15, he adds: 'It is wonderful to see the way the Holy Spirit works. He highlights the threat in order to show us the goodness and mercy of God.'

When God-fearing people hear the Word, they apply these promises to themselves in the right way. 'Disheartened and crushed by God's anger and threat of punishment,' knowing 'they deserve divine judgment,' and recognizing 'the seriousness of sin and its condemnation . . . when they hear these promises they turn to God's mercy,' and he calms their consciences. This is the way God works in his people. After terrifying them 'with threats, he comforts them with his promises.' (18.97) And it is the faith he has given them that appropriates these promises for their deliverance.

This kind of faith, and no other, Luther claims, is sufficient for our salvation. Therefore 'we should conclude with Paul [in Galatians 2.16] that we are justified by faith alone . . . faith that takes hold of Christ the Saviour and keeps him in our hearts.' (26.136)

As if to strike one last hammer blow on behalf of faith alone, Luther concludes that without it we cannot understand the Lord's dealings with us at all. But faith 'will comfort me' even 'when I leave this earth . . . My body will be buried in the ground and eaten by worms . .. When I look at death I do not see God's plan for me. Yet God has promised that I will come back to life. Christ said: "Because I live, you will live also" (John 14.19). But how will I live? I will live in eternal life, in a body that is brighter and more beautiful than the sun. I cannot see or feel any of this yet. But I believe it, and I can tolerate the short delay.' (6.401)

We need 'sola fide,' then, because faith is the only thing that lays hold of Christ in the promises of the Word for our salvation.

Grace Alone

Luther has as much to say in defence of 'grace alone' as he has about 'faith alone.' Indeed, he sees it operating in every part of the believer's life. As with other 16th century Reformers, he divides scriptural teaching on it into two parts. The first is God's objective grace, or free, unmerited mercy towards us. The second is his subjective grace infused and working in us.

Objective grace opens the door to our justification. 'People are not justified and do not receive life and salvation because of anything they have done. Rather . . . because of God's grace through Christ. There is no other way.' Those who are tired of hearing this great truth because they learned it when young barely understand how important it is. 'If it continues to be taught as truth, the Christian church will remain united and pure,' for it 'alone makes and sustains Christianity.' It is so essential that 'we will always remain its students, and it will always be our teacher.' Those who really understand it 'hunger and thirst for it. They yearn for it more and more. They never get tired of hearing about it.' (14.36)

Grace is so necessary to our justification that 'wanting to be justified by our own works through the Law is ... throwing away God's grace . . . This is a serious error.' From Galatians 2.21, he infers that to reject salvation by grace alone also makes 'Christ's death . . . pointless, which is the highest blasphemy against God.' (27.240) It is only 'because of God's mercy and grace' that sinners are accepted by him and receive from him a righteousness not their own. (12.328)

This constitutes the glory of the gospel. 'It does not tell us to do good works to become virtuous, but announces God's grace to us, freely given and without our merit.' (30.3)

Grace becomes subjective when it is infused into sinners' hearts by God's Holy Spirit in their new birth. This is the grace that actually unites them to Christ and makes them new creatures. 'We cannot feel the new birth . . . we cannot see it . . . we cannot . . . understand it.' Yet it is real, and 'we must . . . believe it. What is born of the Spirit is spiritual.' Because it is so, its primary benefit is eternal life. (22.290) Just as after Adam sinned he could do nothing to restore to himself the life he had forfeited, so we too can do nothing towards our restoration to God. (30.263) God himself must restore us. This makes subjective grace absolutely necessary.

Once God's grace has been infused into us, Luther continues, it does marvellous things. For a start, it enables us progressively to keep God's Law, which we could never do before. He who 'brought God's grace and truth' to us (John 1.17) really enables us to keep the commandments. Being 'enlightened by the Holy Spirit, renewed by the Word of God, and having faith in Christ,' we who believe now have 'a new spirit that makes God's Word and God's laws a pleasure to obey.' Moreover, as we proceed through life, it is the same grace that enables us to 'find joy in trusting God above everything else.' (22.143)

It is grace alone too that deals with the darker side of the believer's life. When cast down by sin, fear and doubt, he finds grace at hand to uplift him. Even when, like the psalmist in Psalm 42, 'you see only the Law, sin, terror, sadness, despair, death, hell and the devil . . . grace is present when your heart is restored by the promise of God's free mercy . . . Are not grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, comfort, joy, peace, life, heaven, Christ and God also present?' Therefore, say to yourself: 'stop being troubled, my soul . . . Trust God.' 'Whoever truly understands this [i.e. by experience] can be called a theologian.' Grace is thus so necessary that we must be 'diligent students' in its school 'as long as we remain in these sinful bodies.' (26.341)

Finally, when this sin-troubled life is over, it is grace alone that gives believers the victory over death. We do not win it. Rather, it is given us 'out of God's grace.' Christ secured it for us, and we share in his victory over it. (28.212)

From foundation stone to topmost stone, then, the house of salvation is built entirely of grace. Luther states why we need both grace and faith in one sentence: 'If grace or faith is not preached, then no one will be saved, for faith alone justifies and saves.' (27.48)

Christ Alone

'Christ alone' is the next 'sola' that Luther dings into our dull ears. How greatly we need it is evident from the knowledge God gives us of our legalistic, self-righteous hearts. From a wealth of available sources, we select a small sample to illustrate his firm conviction of its necessity.

In a letter defending his attack on papal indulgences, he writes: 'I teach that man must trust solely in Christ Jesus.' (Letters, 1908, London. XXI)

While expounding John 3.16, he says: 'God gave his Son to the lost so that they might be saved. Then what should you do? Nothing! Don't go on pilgrimages. Don't do this or that good work. Instead, simply believe in Christ alone.' (22.374)

A leading aspect of the Holy Spirit's testimony within the believer is that'Christians can depend on nothing except Christ, their Lord and God.' (24.119)

From the expression: 'of his fullness have all we received' (Col. 2.10) Luther deduces that we need no-one else but Christ. Whether our faith is strong or weak, we 'have the same Christ' and 'are all made perfect through faith in him . . . Whoever accepts him has everything.' (23.28)

In such varied ways as these, Luther proclaims a thousand times the sole saving efficacy of Christ. Having done on our behalf all that God requires, he alone can be our Saviour. 'There is no other . . . but Christ alone' (24.48) This is reason enough to hold onto the principle of 'solus Christus.'

The Glory of God Alone

By his constant insistence on believing, it may be suspected that Luther places man's salvation above God's glory. But it is not so. Luther teaches that God is glorified more in man's salvation than in his damnation. This is why God himself - by his prophets, his Son and his apostles - repeatedly beseeches them to come to him.

So, concludes Luther: 'Glory belongs to no-one but God alone.' (Sermons, 1905. I.156)

Chief among Luther's thoughts on how to honour God is that we should hold his Name or character in the greatest reverence. When his Name is 'holy in us . . . God becomes everything, and we become nothing.' (42.27) Everything that threatens to usurp this unique honour is anathema to him.

Inevitably, Luther ascribes equal glory to each Person of the Godhead. All the Father's glory belongs to the Son, who is 'one God together with the Father. Likewise the Holy Spirit has the same divine nature and majesty.' (22.6) When by grace we give God his due, we glorify all three Persons of the Godhead.

The same honour must be given to all God's attributes or perfections. Singling out his goodness and mercy for special treatment, Luther is most practical in showing us how to honour God because of them. When, for example, we read that the Lord is good (Psa. 118.1) we should not 'skim over' this truth 'quickly or irreverently,' but should 'remember that these are vibrant, relevant and meaningful words that emphasize the goodness of God.' Pausing to ponder them should lead us to realize his inclination to do us good 'from the bottom of his heart.' He punishes people only because of their 'wickedness and stubborn refusal to change.' His 'daily and continual goodness' should draw from our grateful hearts the praise and thanks he deserves. (14.47)

Luther makes a special point of encouraging us to 'reflect back on the years of our lives.' Even when we are bewildered by what has happened to us, we should be able to see 'God's wonderful power, wisdom and goodness' guiding us. 'Only when we look back do we fully realize how often God was with us when we neither saw his hand nor felt his presence.' But as Peter says: 'He cares for you.' (1 Pet. 5.7) Luther is so insistent on this practice that he says: 'Even were there no books or sermons to tell us about God, simply looking back on our own lives would prove that he tenderly carries us in his arms. When we look back on how God has led and brought us through so much evil, adversity and danger, we can clearly see the ever-present goodness of God.' (42.130)

As for his mercy, it is the balm of every sin-burdened and guilt-ridden heart. When we by faith hide beneath his mercy seat, we find ourselves 'covered with a vaulted ceiling called mercy.' So, resolves Luther, setting us an example: 'My heart and conscience will crawl under it and be safe.' (51.278)

True to character, Luther extracts from the angels' song at the birth of Christ (Luke 2.13-14) two delightful lessons for us. 'First of all, by joyfully singing about the honour of God, they show how full of light and fire they are.' Furthermore, 'they don't take credit for anything. They enthusiastically give glory to God, the One to whom it belongs. If you wonder what a humble, pure, obedient and happy heart in God is like, then think of the angels praising God. This is their priority as they live in God's presence.' Secondly, they show us how much they love us, because 'they celebrate our salvation as if it were their own.' So we should 'regard them as highly as we would our best friends.' 'We might not know what they are made of,' he concludes with childlike simplicity, 'but we know what their highest desire is.' So we should imitate them in praising and honouring him. (52.29)

Conclusion

Even from the few select references we have offered, it may be clearly seen that the five Reformation Solas' - Scripture, faith, grace, Christ and God's glory - are internally united and therefore inseparable. This is because the mind of God as revealed in Scripture is one. When the Holy Spirit combines them in our experience, we too cannot think of one without referring to the rest. This is the aim of all true theology - to think God's thoughts after him, and so be conformed to his mind. May he accomplish this in us, that we might live by them, and be able to teach others also.

Moses declared to all Israel:

Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life, - Deu 32:46, 47

The people do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word. The priests, prophets, and scribes of Israel certainly function to help the people ministerially. The prophets, who were indeed inspired, came very much in the spirit of Micah who said, “He has shown you, O man, what is good,” Micah 6:8. The function of the prophets and priests was not to add to or even clarify the law; rather, they applied it to the people who were sinfully indifferent.

If this principle of the sufficiency and clarity of the Word is true in the Old Testament, we do not have to assume it is all the more true in the New Testament - which gloriously fulfills what the Old Testament promises - given the example found in II Tim 3 & 4. There Paul writes to his younger brother in the faith, Timothy — who was instructed in the faith by his mother and grandmother — also learned all about Paul’s teaching (3:10).

Nevertheless, Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15). He teaches that the Scriptures are useful for teaching, reproof (rebuking), correcting, and training in righteousness (3:16). Because the Scriptures have this character, they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (3:17). So Paul tells Timothy that he must preach this Word, even though the time is coming when people will not want to hear it, but rather will want teachers to suit their fancy, who will instruct them in myths rather than the truth of the Word (4:1-4).

Catholic apologists respond by repeatedly asserting II Tim 3 does not teach sufficiency. Sometimes they will refer to Jam 1:4, Mat 19:21, or Col 1:28 and 4:12 as parallel texts, claiming that the word “complete” in II Tim 3:17 does not mean sufficient. But such passages are not parallel; II Tim 3:17 uses exartizo, which has to do with being fitted for a task, while the other passages use the Greek word teleios, which has reference to maturity or having reached a desired end.

In contrast to this assertation, the force and clarity of Paul’s teaching is striking. In spite of the rich oral teaching Timothy had, he is to preach the Scriptures because they gave him all that he needed for wisdom and preparation to instruct the people of God in faith and all good works. It is Scripture that makes Timothy wise for salvation, and equips him with everything he needs for doing every good work required of the preacher of God. The sufficiency and clarity of the Word are taught in this one section of Scripture over and over again. John Chrysostom paraphrased the meaning of Paul’s words to Timothy this way: “You have Scripture for a master instead of me; from there you can learn whatever you would know.”¹

Repeated assertations by Rome's apologists do not prove a point; that is only a propaganda technique; an answer in a responsible, thorough way, is demanded of them.

The great church father, Augustine, in his treatise to prepare leaders of the church in an understanding of the Bible, wrote:

Among those things which are said openly in Scripture are to be found all those teachings which involve faith, the mores of living, and that hope and charity which we have discussed.²

At the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus faced the focused temptation of the devil in the wilderness. And how did He face that temptation? Did he not appeal to the oral tradition of Israel, the authority of the rabbis or Sanhedrin, or to even His own divinity or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Our Savior, in the face of temptation, turned again and again and again to the Scriptures. “It is written,” He said.

He implied that even the evil one knew what he said was true. When the devil quoted the Scripture, Jesus did not turn to some other authority. Rather Jesus said, “It is also written.” [emphasis mine] When the evil one or his representatives misuse the Bible, or imply that it is unclear, Jesus teaches us that we must look more deeply into the written Word, not away from it.

While making much of tradition, they will never really define tradition or tell you what its content is. Historically, they have not agreed among themselves about the nature and content of tradition. For example, one has said that tradition does not add anything to Scripture. But almost all Roman apologists, for over three hundred years after the Council of Trent, argued that tradition does add to the Scriptures. Some Roman apologists believe that all binding tradition was taught by the apostles, while others believe that tradition evolves and develops through the centuries of the church so that there are traditions necessary for salvation that were never known to the apostles.

This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. . . . For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fulness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.³
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scriptures and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.⁴

Carefull analysis of the foregoing statments allows one to discern that the real authority for Rome is neither Scripture nor tradition, but the church as final arbiter of all things spiritual for Man. What is the Scripture, and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you. What is tradition, and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you.

The Scriptures are not authentic, except by the authority of the church. - John Eck⁵

"I am tradition"⁶ was the declaration made by Pope Pius IX at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870; sola ecclesia is the unimpeachable doctrine of Rome. The Reformers saw that the words of Jesus to the Pharisees applied equally to their day: “You nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Mat 15:6).

That notwithstanding it can be shown that tradition contradicted tradition. For example, the tradition of the Roman church teaches that the pope is the head of the church, a bishop over all bishops. But Gregory the Great, pope and saint at the end of the ancient church period, said that such a teaching came from the spirit of Antichrist:

I confidently affirm that whosoever calls himself sacerdos universalis, or desires to be so called by others is in his pride a forerunner of Antichrist.⁷

The evident tension in tradition about the value of reading the Bible can be seen in The Index of Forbidden Books of Pope Pius IV in 1559:

Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men, the judgment of the bishops and inquisitors is to serve as guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety. The permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession without this permission cannot be absolved from his sins until he has turned in these Bibles.⁸

In marked contrast

Easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. . . Since the word of God should be available at all times, the Church with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. - II Vatican Council⁹

Does tradition believe that the Bible is dangerous or helpful? Scripture teaches that it is the revelation of God, and is therefore true in all that it teaches. Moreover, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." (I Cor 14:33). We know where that comes from. That notwithstanding, and nevertheless, nowhere does Scripture say that the church is true in all it says. Rather, although the church as a whole will be preserved in the faith, wolves will arise in the church (Act 20:29, 30), and even the man of lawlessness will sit at the heart of the church teaching lies (II Ths 2:4).

At one point in his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” Augustine did not bow to the authority of the bishop of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the teaching of Rome.

The Bible tells us that the Word of God is the light that enables us to walk in the ways of God.

I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on Thy statutes. I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey Thy precepts. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light for my path. The unfolding of Thy words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. - Psa 119:99, 100, 105, 130

Roman apologists object to an appeal to Psalm 119 on the grounds that it speaks of the Word of God, not of the Bible, and therefore could include in its praise tradition as well as Scripture. But their argument is irrelevant because it proof-text to the clarity, not the sufficiency of Scripture! The Psalmist clearly states that the light of the Word shines so brightly and clearly that if one meditates upon it, and obey it, they are wiser than any teacher or elder. The simple can understand it. The Word is like a strong flashlight in a dark forest. It enables me to walk on the path without tripping.

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. - Mat 11:25

Adam Clarke's Commentary: The scribes and Pharisees, vainly puffed up by their fleshly minds, and having their foolish hearts darkened, refusing to submit to the righteousness of God (God's method of saving man by Christ) and going about to establish their own righteousness, (their own method of saving themselves,) they rejected God's counsel, and God sent the peace and salvation of the Gospel to others, called here babes, (his disciples,) simple-hearted persons, who submitted to be instructed and saved in God's own way. Let it be observed, that our Lord does not thank the Father that he had hidden these things from the wise and prudent, but that, seeing they were hidden from them, he had revealed them to the others.

Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God...And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. - Rom 2:17,19-20

Adam Clarke's Commentary: Ye believe the Gentiles to be babes and fools when compared with yourselves; that ye alone possess the only true knowledge; that ye are the only favourites of Heaven; and that all nations must look up to you as possessing the only form of knowledge, the grand scheme and draught of all true science, of every thing that is worthy to be learned: the system of eternal truth, derived from the law. If, therefore, ye act not as becomes those who have such eminent advantages, it must be to your endless disgrace and infamy.

How is the the dogma proclaimed by contemporary Rome any different than the attitude held by the Jews of Paul's day? Contrast Rome's dogma with Paul's exhortation to Timothy, "from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Consider the account of Paul preached in Berea in the synagogue and many Jews responded to his preaching with eagerness (Act 17:10-12). We are told that after they listened to Paul each day they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. Did Paul respond by declaring the Scriptures to be unclear, and that only he as an apostle or the rabbis or the Sanhedrin were of sufficient caliber to interpret Scriptures for them? Did Paul say that they should not expect to find the truth in the Scriptures because they were incomplete and needed to be supplemented by tradition? Or did he say that they were insulting his apostolic authority, and that they should simply submit to him as the infallible interpreter of the Bible? Or did Paul say that they should defer to Peter - as the purported first pope - as the only one capable of interpretion of Scripture with authentic veracity? None of that was proclaimed. Instead the practice of the Bereans was praised; they Bereans were called noble because they evaluated everything on the basis of the written Word of God.

...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. - I Cor 4:6b

===============
Notes:

1) Cited in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge,: University Press, 1849) P. 637
2) Augustine, On Christian Doctrine trans. by D.W. Roberston, Jr. (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958) 11:9.
3) The Documents of Vatican II, ed. waiter M. Abbott (New York: Herden and Herden, 1966) p. 116. Dei Verbum, 8.
4) Ibid., p. 118.
5) John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) P. 13.
6) Jesef Rupert Geiselmann, The Meaning of Tradition (Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1966)p. 16, note on pp. 113,114.
7) Cited in Cambridge Medieval History, section written by W. H. Hutton, edited by H. M. Gwatkin and J. P. Whitney,(New York: The MacMillan Co., 1967) 11:247.
8) James Townley, Illustrations of Biblical Literature, Vol. 2 (London: printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1821) p. 481
9) Documents of Vatican II, PP. 125,126.

From evidence in the New Testament, it is obvious that the Jews had a canon—a group of accepted scriptures—that included the Law and the Prophets (see Mat 5:17-18; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luk 16:16-17; Jno 1:45; Act 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Rom 3:21). In one passage, Jesus mentioned the Law, the Prophets, and Psalms (part of the Writings) together (Luk 24:44), showing that at some point before the time of Christ, the Jews had codified a group of literature into Scripture. History supports this view. Flavius Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, wrote (c. A.D. 90) of twenty-two books “which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine….” Five of these were written by Moses (the Torah), thirteen books were written between Moses and Artaxerxes, King of Persia (the Prophets and part of the Writings using a different order and enumeration), and four books contained hymns and moral precepts (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon) [Against Apion, 1:38-40].

Josephus considered everything written after the time of Artaxerxes to be non-canonical, because prophetic messages had ceased. It is highly probable, since Josephus was a historian, that this was not his own idea, but reflected an earlier Jewish tradition (see Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 1988, pp. 32-34). The most interesting evidence concerning the Hebrew canon comes from tractate Sanhedrin: “The rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit has left Israel…” (Rodkinson VII/VIII:24). Thus, Jewish oral tradition held that Malachi was the last inspired book of the Old Testament.

Around A.D. 90, a group of Jewish rabbis gathered at Jamnia in western Judea to discuss the established canon. Testing for books that “defile the hands” (i.e., were prophetically inspired), they debated including certain apocryphal books and removing some disputed books. However, the conclusion was that only the books that comprised the Hebrew Bible were the inspired, canonical books (Bruce, pp. 34-36; McDowell and Wilson, 1993, p. 37). These books which were stamped with the "seal of approval" had been in wide use for centuries before, and in fact had been translated into Greek 200 years before these councils met. They in no sense "created" the Old Testament. And they completed their work two centuries before Constantine.

The fact behind the councils being convened was for the very purpose of dealing with the issue of flawed and false doctrines that were being promulgated at that time. This was becoming especially rampant with the emergence of Gnosticism and moreover, especially critical after the desctruction of the second temple. All the councils established was what the people had already been using for generations. They didn't affirm, but confirmed the canon of Hebrew Scripture.

It is clear from the evidence that the Jewish people accepted the thirty-nine Old Testament books as their canon—no more, no less. The New Testament refers to an established division. Josephus said that Malachi, as the last inspired author, completed the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The rabbis at Jamnia, who had access to apocryphal writings, did not include them in the canon of Scripture. Moreover, the ancient oral tradition of the Jews held that the thirty-nine books in our Old Testament are the only Scriptures.

"There are a vast number of false and spurious writings that deserve mention at this point; not because anyone would seriously contend for their authority, but because they do represent the religious lore of the Hebrews in the inter-testamental period. The New Testament writers make use of a number of these books… Of course, it should be remembered that the New Testament also quotes from the heathen poets Aratus (Acts 17:28); Menander (1 Cor.15:33); and Epimenides (Titus 1:12). Truth is truth no matter where it is found, whether uttered by a heathen poet, a pagan prophet (Num 24:17), or even a dumb animal (22:28). Nevertheless, it should be noted that no such formula as “it is written” or “the Scriptures say” is connected with these citations. It should also be noted that neither the New Testament writers nor the Fathers have considered these writings canonical" - (Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix (1986), A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody),p. 262, emp. added)."

Nowhere does the biblical text state that Jude and Paul equated pseudepigraphal writings with those of Scripture, so any reference to them in the biblical account was merely inspired use of an uninspired source. The first, and most obvious, explanation for the exclusion of any book from canon is that they contain false information about their respective authors. If a book lies about its origin, then its contents most likely contain falsehoods. If a book requires a false attribution in order to be canonical, then it must have characteristics that make its inspiration and canonicity suspect.

The early Christians quickly developed four criteria for accepting a book as Scripture. First, it must have been written by an apostle or based on his eyewitness testimony. Second, the book must possess merit and authority in its use. For instance, The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ tells of a man who is changed into a mule by a bewitching spell but converted back to manhood when the infant Christ is put on his back for a ride (7:5-27). In the same book, the boy Jesus causes clay birds and animals to come to life (ch. 15), stretches a throne his father had made too small (ch. 16), and takes the lives of boys who oppose him (19.19-24). It was easy to dismiss such fiction.

Third, a book must come to be accepted by the entire church, not just a single congregation or area. And lastly, a book must be approved by the decision of the larger church, not just a few advocates.

Here is how this process unfolded. In the first century, a number of books were soon produced in response to the ministry of Jesus. As an example, Peter told his readers, "[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). Thus Peter considered Paul's writings to be "Scripture."

F. F. Bruce was one of the world's foremost authorities on the creation of the Bible canon. "One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. . . . what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities."

In order to qualify as inspired, a text must pass all the tests for inspiration:

Be spoken from, and in the name of, the Lord (Jer 30:2, II Pet 1:21).
Exalt and glorify God (Jno 5:39; 17:4-10; Eph 1:13-14).
Directs the love of men toward God (Col 3:16; Rev 19:10).
Draw men to repent of their rebellion against God and to submit fully to Him (Psa 19:17; II Tim 3:16).
Prophecies come to fulfillment with 100 percent accuracy (Deu 18:20-22).
Support the laws, precepts, and principles set forth in the rest of Scripture without contradiction (Isa 8:20; Matw 5:17; Jno 10:35).
Communicate only truth, in all disciplines of knowledge (Psa 119:160; Heb 6:17-18). Concerning the last point, it should be pointed out that the non-canonical writings consistently fail to meet the tests for historical reliability.
- Most of them, like the Gospel of Thomas were composed a century or more after the events they supposedly record.
- These writings are typically falsely attributed to apostles or other important church leaders, though these persons had been long dead by the time the books were composed. In other words, the non-canonical writings often contain obvious deceits right from the start.
- Their distribution was so limited that in many cases we do not have even a single full manuscript. Consequently, we have no way of affirming the accuracy of their transmission over time.
- There is little or no corroboration of their factual claims by any other ancient sources.
This is true for both Old Testament scripture and New Testament canon. It is for the foregoing reasons that certain books are not considered to be canonical.
Furthermore, divine providential preservation of The Word is explicitely promised in scripture:
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." - Psa 12:6-7
"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." - Isa 59:21
"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." - Deu 29:29
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Mat 24:35
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." - Mat 5:18
Scholars taking a naturalistic approach to Bible preservation, support a critical text approach. To be consistent, they are forced to deny and/or misrepresent a literal interpretation of many of God's promises of Bible preservation.. Having rejected God's supernatural preservation of His Holy Scriptures, they are open to believe the scholarship claims of textual errors in the Bible. Having replaced God's promises of divine preservation with the theories of 19th century naturalistic scholarship their future hope is to correct and restore what they now believe to be a corrupted Bible. Such a Biblical philosophy of preservation is totally inconsistent with the eternal salvation of God's saints. For if God cannot, or did not keep His Holy Scriptures intact as He promised, what assurance do we have that we can trust His promises to keep our souls for all eternity? A generation without faith in God's promises to keep His holy Scriptures on earth will surely reproduce a new generation without faith in God's promises to keep their own souls in Heaven.

the Solas don't make any sense either:

let's take one, Sola scriptura

first point: Every Protestant interprets sola scriptura differently! it's sola sola interpretura

None of the various types of those outside orthodoxy can agree on what they interpret by sola scriptura. so, the self-interpretation extends to the very meaning of sola scriptura!

Sola scriptura by simple translation is Scripture alone -- nothing outside scripture allowed. This is the logic of those who rejected the Oral Gospel of Jesus Christ brought by Paul+Silas. This was not the philosophy of the Bereans
Many Presbyterians and other Calvinists among others hold to the meaning that only things directly in scripture should be acknowledged. This was outright rejected by the Berans

Others hold that it must be directly derived from Scripture -- but never elaborate how directly. If one says directly, then the nature of Christ is strongly hinted at in the Septuagint, but not in the Tanakh --> this writing by a Jew with a view :) outlines the Jewish point that the Tanakh does not have the same references as the Septuagint. Hence if there are Protestants who disclaim the Septuagint in favor of the Tanach then they must hold to this person's point of view which elaborates as

From the site: ajewwithaview (link above): The Jewish G-d never, ever takes human form – and certainly doesn’t pop in to planet earth to impregnate a Nice Jewish Girl...Above all, though, Jesus did not fulfill any of the Jewish messianic prophecies

--> so, if one says that the Church is wrong to take the works like Maccabees etc. from the Septuagint as all should be derived from the Tanakh, then must agree with the author of the above

Some say that sola scriptura is that that's the ONLY place to derive the truths for salvation -- again something that goes against what the Bereans did with their OT scripture (see points 1 and 2 above)
Others say that only truths needed for salvation must be SOLA scriptura

Second: Sola scriptura itself is not in scripture!

Nowhere in scripture do we see anyone saying that all should be from scripture ALONE. On the contrary we read Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 to hold fast to all traditions -- oral or written
There is nothing in Scriptura that teaches that Scripture should be held in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
Sola scriptura also fails that it can't even be derived

2 Tim. 3:16–17 says

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It nowhere says SOLA scriptura. It just says "all scripture" -- not defining scripture, not saying what is outside is wrong, just saying "if it's scripture it be good" In fact it is building words into scripture by claiming that it says sola scriptura so Sola Scriptura contradicts itself!

Now Sola Scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 3:14 which says

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

--> nowhere does it say that this learning was SOLA scriptura, in fact it was mostly ORAL teaching as with the Bereans.

Also, Sola scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 1:13–14 which says

13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.;

--> note, words heard.... not scriptura.

And sola-scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim 2:2 which says

2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ;

"Has HEARD" what you have heard, commit and teach to others. No sola scriptura here either

Third: Ephesians 4:11-15 says something quite contrary to sola scriptura

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, all are for the "perfecting of the saints" and to prevent being "carried about with every wind of doctrine"

The problem is reading too much into 2 Thess 2:15 --> if one holds by that as saying ONLY scripture, then the same sola scriptura-type would have to say that Ephesians 4:11-15 says ONLY pastors, etc., --> this is the contradictory nature of the ONLY doctrines -- on the contrary the Church holds to AND, Scriptura AND the Church, Water AND Spirit

Fourth: Sola scriptura -- so which one?

Let's see --

does sola scriptura say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
Does sola scriptura say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
Does sola scriptura say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
Does sola scriptura say that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
Does sola scriptura say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
Does sola scriptura say that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
Does sola scriptura say that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
Does sola scriptura agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
Does sola scriptura believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
Does sola scriptura agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
Does sola scriptura say that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
Does sola scriptura say that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
Does sola scriptura say that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
Does sola scriptura say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

So, in conclusion, the basic point is that there are conflicting definitions of sola scriptura and it itself is unbiblical

The Bereans as an example of the errors of Sola Scriptura

The Bereans Acts 17:11 "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.[1]", and many of them believed. --> these "scriptures" were the Septuagint only and maybe the Gospel of Mark and Matthew. The Gospel of John wouldn't be written for some more decades, and Acts hadn't been written yet, and neither any of the epistles.

So, in short, these folks were OT alone -- and nothing else. Is that only what's in your bible?

Furthermore, context, context, context, read the preceeding and following lines

10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

So, they did rely on a man's word initially -- two men, Paul and Silas who spread the Good News amongs them. Then they checked the OT to see if the references to the Christ were correct. And also, the Berean Church included GREEKS -- who wouldn't have read the scriptures as they were not of Jewish origin, they took the Gospel for what Paul and Silas preached, tradition alone, not scripture.

Furthermore, note what happened before -- in Thessalonia. There, "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" --> THESE THESALLONIANS were sola scriptura folks who disagreed with Paul and Silas' interpretation of scriptures (the OT) on the Christ.

Remember, both the Thesalonians in the passages before this and the Bereans were Jews who studied the OT for the references of Jesus being the Christ. Why did they study this? because of the ORAL TRADITION that Paul and Silas brought, claiming Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

The Thesalonians rejected this as "it weren't in scripture, sola scriptura", while the Bereans accepted Holy Tradition, i.e. ORAL teaching by Paul and Silas.

if anything, the tale of the Bereans shows the error of SOLA scriptura.

The Thesalonians

The key point about the jealousy of the Thesalonians is this:

along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women

It's clear that that was the reason for the "jealousy" -- yet also note that only "some" of the Jews were persuaded -- the others rejected the ORAL Gospel as being outside scripture. These were the early sola-scriptura-types. In contrast we have the Bereans who accepted non-SCRIPTURA information, namely the ORAL Gospel --> something that the sola-scriptura folks of today would reject.

The Bereans

As this article says

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul's new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded-not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

And, as the article points out

From the perspective of sola scriptura types, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.

From http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html you can see that these books are referred to in the NT (note that books like Obadiah are not referenced in the NT at all)

Scripture

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.
Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.
John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.
John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.
Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.
Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.
Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.
1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.
1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.
1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.
Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.
Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.
Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.
James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.
James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.
James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.
James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.
1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.
1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.
2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.
Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.
Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.
Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.
Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.
Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.
Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.
Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.
Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.
Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.
Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.
1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.
2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.
2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.
Sirach and 2 Maccabees – some Protestants argue these books are not inspired because the writers express uncertainty about their abilities. But sacred writers are often humble about their divinely inspired writings. See, for example, 1 Cor. 7:40 – Paul says he “thinks” that he has the Spirit of God.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.