Sola Scriptura

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.