A sarcastic response to a sincere question. In fact, there is no scriptural basis for sola scriptura. Metmom cited 2 Timothy 3:14-17. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17).
Everything we need to come to Christ for salvation is found in Scripture. For that matter, the gospel of John is enough.
John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;but 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.
...nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ.
Well, there you have it. Catholics don't even believe you need to believe in Christ to be saved.....
On the contrary, it does say that faith in Christ is needed. See the previous verse.
In addition, these....
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 3:21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
In regard to *sacred tradition*, answer these questions then......
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
Preaching is not oral tradition.
Preaching is preaching, the word of God going forth. It's not the Word being passed down from one generation to the next orally, with no written record of it.
“Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later.”
The problem is that there is ZERO indication that ‘Sacred Tradition’ involves some oral teaching passed down from Pope to Pope. Even the Catholic Church has long since admitted that its traditions evolve, and are NOT something handed over from the Apostles. Transubstantiation is not a doctrine handed down from Peter to someone else to someone else for a thousand years before it was leaked to the Press!
Paul did NOT hand down an oral teaching that Peter was responsible for all the churches, nor did he suggest that there was future revelation needed for the church. Instead he wrote:
“Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern?” 2 Cor 11
““And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face. 26 Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. 28 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. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them...” - Acts 20
“the whole purpose of God”
There was nothing left to reveal, nothing left to develop. The whole purpose of God had been revealed before the Apostles died. But there wasn’t a secret list of thing passed on, Peter to Pope to Pope, particularly since there is no indication Peter - the Apostle to the Jews - had any authority over the other Apostles.
But as both Paul and Peter revealed, after them would come wolves to attack the flock and “draw away the disciples after them...”
A sarcastic response to a sincere question
Actually it is not, as Rome herself must have a basis for presuming to be the supreme authority on Truth, on what Divine revelation consists of and assuredly means.
So what is your instrumental basis (the weight of Scripture?) for assurance of Truth, including that Rome is that infallible church?
In fact, there is no scriptural basis for sola scriptura.
In fact there is, as it is indisputable that the fact, as said, Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus what was written provides for additional conflative complimentary writings being added, and a canon of Scripture being recognized.
Meanwhile, the sufficiency aspect is either formal, so that for instance one could read Acts 10:36-43 and be saved, or material, and explicit or implicit, by precept and or in principal, including the principal that what God provides is always sufficient for what He calls man to do, so that (for instance) Adam did not need the Law, but once given, that was the standard pointing to Christ.
Meanwhile, the fact that the Lord first sent the disciples to preach, and some of the NT first was that of oral preaching does not at all militate against SS, since that was a fulfillment of Scripture which provided for it, it was upon Scriptural substantiation that the Truth claims of this preaching were ultimately established.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures [not tradition], nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures [not tradition], (Luke 24:44-45)
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures [not tradition]..) (Romans 1:1-2)
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures [not tradition], (Acts 17:2)
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written [not tradition], (Acts 15:15)
And in which appeal was made to writings which also were not originally commanded to be written, but which complemented that which God did command to be written, which henceforth was the standard for testing Truth claims.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
And even the innate morality of the Gentiles is judged by the written word. (Rm. 1,2)
But the oral form of Tradition is inherently inferior to the written as a transcendent standard, as not only does Rome herself hold that the words of Scripture are all Divinely inspired, in contrast to the words which express her tradition, but amorphous oral tradition is supremely susceptible to corruption, and thus its veracity rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
Thus while oral providence and transmission of Truth is valid, it depended upon the written word, and but which we know of this oral preaching, but the written word is the standard for Truth, and sufficient in its formal and material senses respectively.