I do not need to remind you that this doctrine does not come into forceful existence until sometime after 1517---well over a millennium after Christ's ascension. This doctrine was not the foundation of the church during this time, and it is certainly not an objective or "Ecumenical" position, but is taken straight from the core of Protestant tradition.
This comment was made in the midst of a debate two of my facebook friends were having and is grossly false. My hope in this post to briefly clarify a few things regarding the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, before I get to the statement above I must make some other clarifications first.
One claim many make to negate this doctrine is to say that it too derives from tradition. This is in fact true. However, the question that should be asked is “Whose tradition?” R.C. Sproul states, “The apostolic tradition begins with God the Father. The Father is the one who first commissioned an apostle.” Thus, we see that the tradition comes from the Father not man because the Father sent apostles out with authority to speak on his behalf. Therefore, the written words of the apostles are the very words of God himself. As the very words of God, they were recognized as authoritative from the onset, not 300 years later, when the council of Nicea met. The organization of the canon was an acknowledgement of the books that were already considered authoritative, not an imposition.
So then, if we are to believe that the scriptures are the very words of God, who can pit the apostolic tradition against human tradition? The tradition the canon is based on is one that is divinely inspired and cannot be considered equal in authority to other forms of tradition. To claim that the scriptures are based on human tradition is to deny the divine authorship of them, which destroys any basis for scripture to have any authority.
This then is a definition of the Sola Scriptura position given by Robert Godfrey, “All things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible with enough clarity that the ordinary believer can find them there and understand.” The unstated implication is that the scripture is the ultimate authority on all things pertaining to salvation and the way a believer ought to live. No other form of authority, like teachers, is necessary for understanding the scripture because of its clarity. (Consider Deut. 31:9,12; 32:46-47) This, does not mean, however, that they are not helpful.
When we consider all of these things, and statements made by church fathers regarding the authority of scripture, as well as their use of scripture to argue against heresies, one is hard pressed to say this doctrine comes “straight from the protestant tradition.” The reformation might have defined it more clearly, but it is false to say this was not the understanding of theologians throughout the history of the church, and especially of the church fathers. I cannot give the many quotes to demonstrate this for sake of length, but I shall give one. Augustine of Hippo states,
Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from the divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents, but by divine oracles.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura was in fact the foundation of the church, in that only the words of God spoken through the apostles were given credence by the early church; words which formed the canon.
My hope and prayer is that this post has clarified some things , but more than that, that it challenges one to think more critically about what one believes and why.