In a series on "cults," Craig Ledbetter, pastor of Ballincollig Baptist Church, cited, as two examples of the Bible teaching Sola Scriptura, Rom 15:4 and John 17:17 (other texts cited include 2 Tim 3:16-17 [post 1; post 2]; Rev 22:18-19; Isa 8:20, 1 Cor 13:8, Acts 17;11, and Matt 4:3,4 which have been thoroughly refuted on this blog). The former verse reads:
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
Of course, this is yet another example of the eisegesis supporters of this man-made doctrine of sola scriptura have to engage in. Notice, for instance, that not all the books of the New Testament were written when Paul penned these words--for sola scriptura to be true, there must be a "tota scriptura," that is, sola scriptura cannot be operative during a time of inscripturation. If Rom 15:4 is evidence for sola scriptura, we just jettison any text post-dating Rom 15:4!
Robert Sungenis, while interacting with the arguments of another apologist for sola scriptura, James R. White, wrote the following which exemplifies the impossibility of trying to “prove” sola scriptura from the Bible:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [San Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 1997], pp. 106-67, here, p. 128 n. 24).
When one reads v.5 of Rom 15, we see that Paul did not hold to a sola scriptura mentality:
Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus.
Paul's prescription of patience and consolation (alt. "perseverance and encouragement") is not limited to "scripture" (the limits of which are not discussed in this verse!), but instead two sources: (1) enduring through trials and (2) by reading Scripture for one's encouragement.
That Paul did not hold to sola scriptura can also be seen in texts such as 1 Cor 11:23; 15:1ff; 1 Thess 2:13, 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6 where non-inscripturated revelation was privileged as being as authoritative as inscripturated revelation. This is antithetical to sola scriptura which states that the written word alone is the final authority, and all other sources are to be subordinated to it.
As for John 17:17, this is just another example of eisegesis, which is part-and-parcel of Ledbetter's poor interpretive abilities (as with all fundamentalist, KJV-only Baptists). It reads thusly:
Sanctify them through thy faith: thy word is truth.
All this verse states is that the Father's "word" (λογος) is true; there is nothing said about this "word" being limited to the Bible let alone the limits thereof (the canon issue). Again, another classic example of eisegesis. Furthermore, if John 17:17 is "proof" of Sola Scriptura, it proves too much, as we would have to jettison anything that was written after John 17:17, including the book of Revelation, a text "proof-texted" by Ledbetter (and other members of his church). Such shows the utter eisegetical nonsense many (not all; there are some with more intellectual integrity than Ledbetter and his ilk) have to engage in when they are forced to find evidence for this false doctrine!
Ultimately, the doctrine of sola scriptura is a false, man-made tradition, similar to the Korban rule that the Lord Jesus Christ condemned (Matt 15/Mark 7), and anyone who embraces such a belief falls under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9. It is my prayer that any honest Protestant will reassess this doctrine in light of the Bible itself.