Sola Scriptura

[Dr. Walter]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Tim. 3:16

Would not the words "all scripture" have to mean the whole body of Scripture or all that is claimed to be scripture since verse 17 says that such is what "thoroughly furnished" the man of God "unto all good works"?

How could one book or epistle be sufficent to provide thoroughness "unto ALL good works"?

The Greek "pasa" translated "all" is anathous construction which may genuinely reflect characterization as in "all that characterizes" scripture, thus emcompassing the WHOLE BODY of scriptures or all that falls under the classification of "scripture."

Would you agree?

 

[Dr. Walter]

The whole body of Scripture is further stated to be "God breathed" as though God Himself spoke the words on to the vellum or parchment as though no human instrument existed.

Peter explains the same thing this way:

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

In context this is an explanation why his readers should "take heed" to the prophetic "scripture" (vv. 19-20) as "more sure" than the apostles personal experience previously explained in verses 14-18.

Hence, this is what God provides for us to "take heed" unto because it "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

The whole body of Scripture is a revelation of God's will, not man's will (2 Pet. 1:21) as it is breathed out of the mouth of God so directly as an expression of His own words/will that human instrumentality makes no difference.

In addition, it is sufficient for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. How can it be denied that God's word and revealed will would not be sufficient for such?????

But how sufficient? Is there something other than the "whole body of Scriptures" that is additionally necessary for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness OR is the scriptures completely sufficient for such so that the "man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"

Paul under inspiration declares that "all scriptures" are sufficient for such. The position of those who deny "sola scriptura" is that the scriptures are not "thoroughly" sufficient for such?

Is God the author of confusion? For example, is not Isaiah 8:20 in principle applicable to the scriptures of God at whatever point in the history of prophets who provide scriptures?

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. - Isa. 8:20

Would not this principle be applicable to the scriptures before the time of Isaiah, during the time of Isaiah and after the time of Isaiah OR does the will of men take precedence over the inspired revealed will of God at any point in history?

Does not this mean that Scriptures are the inspired revelation of God's Will and as such, they are the final authority whenever there is conflict between God's Word and man's word? Does not this mean at the very minimum that what man purports to be God's will must first be tested in comparison with what we already have and know to be God's revealed will? Does not that mean the Scriptures are FINAL AUTHORITY in any such comparison or contrast?

Does not the inspired principle set forth by Isaiah mean that the scriptues at whatever point in time are FINAL IN AUTHORITY when it comes to dispute between man's will and the scriptures?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Tim. 3:16

Would not the words "all scripture" have to mean the whole body of Scripture or all that is claimed to be scripture since verse 17 says that such is what "thoroughly furnished" the man of God "unto all good works"?

How could one book or epistle be sufficent to provide thoroughness "unto ALL good works"?

The Greek "pasa" translated "all" is anathous construction which may genuinely reflect characterization as in "all that characterizes" scripture, thus emcompassing the WHOLE BODY of scriptures or all that falls under the classification of "scripture."

Would you agree?

 

[Zenas]

When Paul wrote to Timothy, he obviously had Old Testament scripture in mind because there was not yet a New Testament canon. Why do you think this verse has application to the New Testament?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Chronologically, the time of this epistle is near the very end of Paul's life (2 Tim. 4:6-7). Peter had already told early Christians that Paul's writings were "as other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:15-17). Paul had previously told the Thessalonicans that they were right in receiving his writings as "the word of God" (1 Thes. 2:13).
John introduced the first epistle by the use of the words "we" and "us" in direct reference to the apostles and then in 1 Jn. 4:5-6 claimed that apostolic teaching was the basis for discerning between truth and error. This is a direct claim that apostolic writings were included in Paul's "ALL scriptures" as final authority as the only other option provided by John is "the spirit of error."

I believe if you are objective with the scriptures and really seeking to know the truth it can be easily demonstrated that Isaiah 8:14-20 is prophetic of Jesus Christ and the Apostles and the prediction that the Scriptural Canon would be completed under their direction before their death. Jesus explicitly promises the Holy Spirit would lead them into "all" truth and bring to remembrance those things of Christ and the future and it would be through THEIR WORDS that future Christians would be sanctified by God's Word and believe in Christ:


17 ¶ Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

The last living apostle purposely used the very same word that Isaiah included in his promise in Isaiah 8:20 "the testimony" to describe the last epistle written (Rev. 1:2 "the testimony") and then obeyed Isaiah's prophecty to "seal" it with the words found in John 22:18-19.

When you read the Bible it reads as a finished revelation as the first book reads as you would expect the beginnng of a book to read and revelation reads as you would expect the scriptures to end that had begun with a book like Genesis because everything begun in Genesis is directly mentioned as being completely fulfilled in Revelation.

If objectivity is the guide of a moral conscience seeking truth, I personally believe the evidence is staggering for the completion of the Biblical cannot with the book of Revelation and thus including all the apostolic writings and those writings completed under their superivision.

When Paul wrote to Timothy, he obviously had Old Testament scripture in mind because there was not yet a New Testament canon. Why do you think this verse has application to the New Testament?

 

[DHK]

When Paul wrote to Timothy, he obviously had Old Testament scripture in mind because there was not yet a New Testament canon. Why do you think this verse has application to the New Testament?

When Paul wrote to Timothy at that time it was his last epistle. He was waiting death. All of his previous epistles had already been written and were in existence. Books like Matthew and James were written as much as 17 years previous to that. Both Luke and Acts had already been written as well as Mark. Only Jude, and the writings of John were left to be written. Thus Jude could write: "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints." "The faith," is a term that is used for a written body of doctrine. Jude was written about 70 A.D. when almost all the canon had been completed, and was in existence. They were to contend for it. It wasn't just a simple gospel message that they were to contend for; but for the faith--that which had already been written. We can say with a fair amount of certainty that 85-90 % of the NT canon had been written by the time Paul had written those words to Timothy, and that Timothy had read most of it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Scriptures do proclaim themselves as FINAL AUTHORITY over all other expressions of the will of man.

 

[Zenas]

When Paul wrote to Timothy at that time it was his last epistle. He was waiting death. All of his previous epistles had already been written and were in existence. Books like Matthew and James were written as much as 17 years previous to that. Both Luke and Acts had already been written as well as Mark. Only Jude, and the writings of John were left to be written. Thus Jude could write: "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints." "The faith," is a term that is used for a written body of doctrine. Jude was written about 70 A.D. when almost all the canon had been completed, and was in existence. They were to contend for it. It wasn't just a simple gospel message that they were to contend for; but for the faith--that which had already been written. We can say with a fair amount of certainty that 85-90 % of the NT canon had been written by the time Paul had written those words to Timothy, and that Timothy had read most of it.

I agree with your time line, and your assumption that Timothy had read most of Paul's writings. But where did you get the idea that "the faith" is a term that is used for a written body of doctrine?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I agree with your time line, and your assumption that Timothy had read most of Paul's writings. But where did you get the idea that "the faith" is a term that is used for a written body of doctrine?

I won't answer for the moderator but as for myself the term "faith" when accompanied by the definite article "the" in contexts of doctrine denotes that body of doctrine and practice delivered by Christ in the Great Commission that is called "the apostles doctrine" in Acts 2:42.

In I Tim. 4:1 it is something a person can "depart from" due to false doctrine originating from demons.

There are a variety of synonyms with the definite article that are used by New Testament writers for this body of doctrine other than "the faith." There is "the doctrine" in Roman 16:17 which is given as a standard of othodoxy against false teachers. There is "the tradition" in 2 Thes. 3:6 which is the apostolic body of teaching that had been "handed" down to the churches by the apostles from Christ (2 Thes. 2:13) that they were to stand firm.

In Ephesians 4:16 this is "the faith" that maintains the stability of the membership which was given the elders at Ephesus by Paul in Acts 20:27 or "the whole counsel of God." It is the standard to examine those who would be ordained in Titus 1:13-15. It is what New Testament churches were commanded to "contend for" in Jude 3. The New Testament Scriptures contain more than this essential body of faith. The essentials can be identified quite clearly by applying three basic principles:

1. Every teaching the Bible demands is non-negotiable in character.

2. Every teaching essential to distinguish basic Christianity from other world religions and predicted apostate Christianity.

3. Every teaching essential to define and defend the above two principles.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yes, I agree the above Scriptures are teaching the complete sufficieny of the Scripture. Also:

2 Timothy 3:14-16 (King James Version)

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

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This passage speaks plainly the ability of Scripture to make wise "unto salvation" through faith in Christ Jesus in verse 15. Not only is the passage teaching that the Scripture is sufficient for all things, it itself is able to make a person wise unto salvation.

Sorry if I am repeating what you said already Dr. Walter. But these passages do clearly and plainly refute and rebuke and condemn the papal lie that Scirpture is not sufficient...and do wholly uphold the idea of Sola Scriptura.

 

[BobRyan]

When Paul wrote to Timothy, he obviously had Old Testament scripture in mind because there was not yet a New Testament canon. Why do you think this verse has application to the New Testament?

More than this - in Act 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

Clearly as you point out - this could only be the OT.

The term "sola scriptura" does not imply that NT writers could not continue writing scripture even as the "sola scriptura" test method was being used as we see in Act 17:11.

And if the OT was "sufficient" to establish the Gospel as Bible proven fact - how much more so the OT and the NT.

Now beyond that - it is interesting that the Catholic church itself does not claim to have authored more "Scripture" after the writing of John.

So I am not convinced that the idea that scripture ends with the writing of John - is something that the Catholic church would need to object to -

in Christ,

Bob

 

[lori4dogs]

The Catholic Church teaches that the bible is not only a "standard of truth but a preeminent one'. It just does not 'rule out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition.'

From Catholic Answers: 'Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.'

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Catholic Church teaches that the bible is not only a "standard of truth but a preeminent one'. It just does not 'rule out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition.'

From Catholic Answers: 'Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.'

The question is Lori how can the catholic church determine what is actually the deposit of faith? Scriptures are easy Paul says this in his letters etc. Its been written down. But the rest of the deposit. How do you verify it? By what authority can Tradition be verified against? For scriptures its easy. It its not cannon by the measurement established then its not scriptures. How do you do that with the rest of your deposit. And how do you verify it?

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Catholic Church teaches that the bible is not only a "standard of truth but a preeminent one'. It just does not 'rule out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition.'

From Catholic Answers: 'Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.'

Lori, what do you do with the exposition of 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:21 and Isaiah 8 that were given at the beginning of this thread? A simple exposition of these texts in an exegetical fashion proves the scriptures do make the claim they are final in authority in all areas of faith and practice.

If you disagree, then please show where our exposition is based upon eisgesis instead of exegesis.

 

[DHK]

The Catholic Church teaches that the bible is not only a "standard of truth but a preeminent one'. It just does not 'rule out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition.'

From Catholic Answers: 'Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.'

"But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages."

How authoritative is "Church and Tradition" and how can you verify it?
What makes it any more authoritative than the Book of Mormon, the writings of Ellen G. White, the writings of Charles Taze Russell, Benny Hinn Theology (his divine revelations), the writings of William Branham (prophet of the Branhamites), Jim Jones, etc.
--All of these claim to have "sacred writings." Why should we believe that your "Tradition" is more authoritative, accurate, or even sacred than the above writings, which claim to be just as sacred?

 

[lori4dogs]

Lori, what do you do with the exposition of 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:21 and Isaiah 8 that were given at the beginning of this thread? A simple exposition of these texts in an exegetical fashion proves the scriptures do make the claim they are final in authority in all areas of faith and practice.

If you disagree, then please show where our exposition is based upon eisgesis instead of exegesis.

The verse says, all inspired scripture 'has it's uses' or profitable. You are saying that ONLY inspired scripture is to be followed. Plus, you are taking this verse out of context. St. Paul says that scripture is but ONE guide, the other is Tradition. What do the two verses before this one say? "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. Sounds like Apostolic teaching (Tradition) to me. He learned it from St. Paul himself. Timothy is to take as his guide both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. A large part of the New Testament had not even been written from 'his childhood'.

Here is what John Henry Newman said in an essay in 1884:

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

 

[Dr. Walter]

Those who taught him from a child were his mother and grandmotther not Paul. What they taught him was the scriptures not tradition. What the apostles passed down to them orally became what the apostles wrote down as scripture and they recognized what they were writing down was the defense of they orally taught the churches.

Last, they regarded all that is called and accepted as scriptures as more authoritative than their own personal SUPERNATURAL claims (2 Pet. 1:15-19 "more sure word") and if it is "more sure" than Apostolic supernatural claims then it is "more sure" than anyone's claim to be a prophet or to produce scripture or oral traditions.

The scriptues claim authority as the final test for anything NEW claiming to be supernatural or from God (Isa. 8:20). Hence, any NEW revelation can only be verified by PREVIOUS inspired revelation or else ANY ONE'S CLAIM cannot be disputed.

The verse says, all inspired scripture 'has it's uses' or profitable. You are saying that ONLY inspired scripture is to be followed. Plus, you are taking this verse out of context. St. Paul says that scripture is but ONE guide, the other is Tradition. What do the two verses before this one say? "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. Sounds like Apostolic teaching (Tradition) to me. He learned it from St. Paul himself. Timothy is to take as his guide both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. A large part of the New Testament had not even been written from 'his childhood'.

Here is what John Henry Newman said in an essay in 1884:

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

 

[HankD]

In addition to examing the Scripture, here is a living example of what happens when there is an hierarchy of authority (The Magisterium of the Church of Rome) which overrides (or "fills in the blanks" of) the Scripture.

Rather than a biased vilification on my part, here in their own words is that example concerning the Marian Dogmae which are so offensive to Baptists and other "Separated Brethren".

Judge for yourselves.

http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

Also, here is an apologetic of "The Magisterium". Do we believe it?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm


HankD

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The verse says, all inspired scripture 'has it's uses' or profitable. You are saying that ONLY inspired scripture is to be followed. Plus, you are taking this verse out of context. St. Paul says that scripture is but ONE guide, the other is Tradition. What do the two verses before this one say? "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. Sounds like Apostolic teaching (Tradition) to me. He learned it from St. Paul himself. Timothy is to take as his guide both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. A large part of the New Testament had not even been written from 'his childhood'.

Here is what John Henry Newman said in an essay in 1884:

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

He makes a good point for scriptures being soley OT in this letter. So if we Follow Newmans view we can then say that the oral tradition that was passed by the apostles to be follwered were compiled in the NT for their prosterity. Or that the NT contains entirely the deposit of faith. What verification do you supply that there is a deposit out side the NT? Else what verifiablity can one place on Sacred Tradition apart from writen text?

 

[lori4dogs]

He makes a good point for scriptures being soley OT in this letter. So if we Follow Newmans view we can then say that the oral tradition that was passed by the apostles to be follwered were compiled in the NT for their prosterity. Or that the NT contains entirely the deposit of faith. What verification do you supply that there is a deposit out side the NT? Else what verifiablity can one place on Sacred Tradition apart from writen text?

The best answer I can supply (for now) is found in an explanation by Vatican 11:

"The 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. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her" (Dei Verbum 8).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The best answer I can supply (for now) is found in an explanation by Vatican 11:

"The 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. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her" (Dei Verbum 8).

So in other words because the holy spririt says so? And how is it verified that the Holy Spirit has spoken thus? Also the promise that bishop to bishop has passed it on unaltered? How can we verify this?
Have you ever played the telephone game? You get a group of people standing next to each other. You start at one end and you tell them a phrase. Then you get to the other end and see what the last person says the phrase was? what do you find? Its entirely different than when first said. How is this a reliable source of verification?