Do these passages prove Sola Scriptura?

Good post, Stan.

 

I agree the Mark 7 and Acts 17 case is overwhelming proof of the sola-scriptura case of scripture TESTING both the good and the bad doctrines put forward by religious leaders.

Impossible to miss.

 

Wrong.

Your argument is a classic "Bible translators don't render the Bible the way my tradition needs them to" - argument.

Clearly the text IS saying the very thing you oppose. It says ALL Scripture IS inspired JUST when you needed it to say "PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH Scripture you will trust but even then it is INSUFFICIENT for the man of God to be adequately equipped for EVERY good work".

The stark "contrast" between the text DOES say and what the man-made-tradition guys "needed" it to say is impossible to miss.

The Text does NOT say "EACH and any VERSE is SUFFICIENT all by itself and is ALL you need - no need for ALL scripture to be read"

Your entire argument fails on the first reading of 2Tim 3.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Classic "rabbit trail".

Paul does NOT argue in 2 Tim 2 that these are "for correction, instruction, reproof". By setting these qualifiers in 2Tim 3:16-17 Paul EXPLICITLY shows the context and scope for the sufficiency of scripture - ALL scripture.

Your attempt to equivocate notwithstanding.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The key is "Sufficient for what".

2Tim 3 says FOR EVERY good work for instruction, correction, etc -- you say "oh no it is not!" you are wrong sir. Context is the core of exegesis but seems to be totally foreign to your methods so far.

But in James 1 we DO see a CONTEXT that that DOES lead to the conclusion that to "endure" to "REMAIN in the faith" to REMAIN in Christ is to COMPLETE the journey and to become complete IN Christ. By REMAINING faithful and steadfast we are those who CONTINUE to rely on the scritpures the Word of God! Your efforts to spin these texts as if to contradict each other REQUIRES that the listener/reader have almost NO INTEREST AT ALL in the details of the text/chapter other than reading your own quote and spin of it.

How do you expect that kind of argument to survive on "this" board?

Is this simply a post to those that already ignore the text of scripture?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan,

Somehow people manage to miss it.

It is so very sad, in light of...

1) The testimony of God is so crystal clear regarding the scriptures alone being our truth standard, and...

2) The imperical evidence before our very eyes showing what happens when Gods truth concerning the scriptures is rejected.

Jehovahs Witnesses
Jim Jones
Mormonism
Catholicism
David Koresh
Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)

...etc etc etc.

Sadly,

Mike

 

Notice that this is full complete and UNRESEVED APPROVAL of the sola scriptura methods of the Bereans?

Obviously.

Now lets see if there is a way to turn a blind eye to the obvious - to completely gloss over it!

Wrong!

Luke is showing unreserved APPROVAL. This is not a banal statement of fact of the form "Bereans were wearing red hates and the Thessalonians were wearing blue hats" as you suggest!!

How odd that your revisionism and spin would be so blatant at this point.

The "devastating" points for you to addresss (that you are glossing over) are obvious for all to see.

#1. THESE are NON-Christians able to JUDGE an Apostle using SCRIPTURA ALONE to "SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO"!

#2. They were NOT simply taking Paul as DOCTRINE and PROVEN - they were taking the Scripture ONLY as PROVEN and then judging PAUL's doctrine to "SEE IF those things were SO"!!

Never so blind as those who refuse to see light.

This fact only makes the example WORSE for you - USING LESS Bible than you have today they are APPROVED for doing what you claim you can not do with 27 MORE BOOKS of scripture than THEY Had!!

You argument utterly fails here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Gross circular reasoning!

The TEXT says they used scripture to "SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO"

You spin this around to "THEY ACCEPT PAUL FIRST and THEN try to find whatever text they can to prop up what they heard from Paul".

Not only is your "spin" NOT in the text - and exactly contradictory to the text! IT is also complete nonsense!

These are JEWS and Gentiles -- NOT Christians. Paul is not their Pope, not their Bible teacher NOT EVEN a spiritual leader of their church! He OPPOSES their own "magesterium"! They are going to have to be CONVINCED by something they DO accept (scripture) to then accept something they DO NOT accept "Paul".

That is why the text says "To see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO".

You "needed the text to say" -- "The Bereans magically ACCEPTED the things of Paul as being SO THEN decided to have a little fun and see how much of scripture would be found to support what was already doctrinal fact because after all - Paul said it and they all were used to following along with anything Paul said!"

Your argument fails every test of scripture AND reason.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Stan,

Take heart...

Even this stupid scripture twisting ninth grade dropout understood what you were saying.

SMM

 

Yet, Paul commands that they hold fast tradition--whether delivered orally or by epistle--in 2 Thess 2:15. Paul also commands the Corinthians to keep the traditions he delivered to them as well (1 Cor 11:2). The difference is the source of tradition--whether of men (which is condemned) or of God, the Apostolic Tradition. The Greek word in either case is the same ("paradosis--that which is handed over").

 

And as per the Thess. passage, those traditions are none other than the same types of things they were writing. No separate body of teachings that contradict the earlier scriptures, such as leaders using "Father" as a title. (I wasn't sure whether the EOC did this, but on the link Jacob posted on another thread, I see they do) or images (which, BTW are still condemned in Rev.9:20, not specifying whether these were representations of saints or not, and regardless of the Incarnation).

 

What was handed over? It was the truths of Scripture. It was the same things that he had preached to the Bereans in Acts 17:11 that they were able to verify by Scripture (sola scriptura). This had nothing to do with the Catholic concept of tradition which is defined as: tradition handed down over a period of time, generations, throughout the centuries.
There was no such tradition. You are making up a word, applying a modern definition of the English word tradition to a Greek word that has no such definition. How old was the letter to the church at Thessalonica? Perhaps it was written near 65 A.D. at the very latest, but probably earlier. When did Christ die, and when did Pentecost take place? The date was 29 A.D. So you are saying that within 66 years the church, specifically the Thessalonian Church, accumulated all this "tradition"? What tradition does a church collect in 60 some years. Tell me what tradition are you talking about? Paul was simply referring to the truths of Scripture. He had delivered unto them the Word of God, the truths of Scripture, and that is all.
Look at Scripture:

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
--What did Paul "deliver unto them?" That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. These are the truths of Scripture, the traditions, that he is referring to.
DHK

 

We don't say that we don't have any tradition at all, nor that we don't follow the tradition at all.
We follow the biblical traditions as mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2.

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you .

They were delivered by Paul, and I believe that such traditions were biblical.

Is Idol making Biblical?
Is Idol worshipping Biblical?
Is Infant Baptism Biblical?

If they contradict the Bible, they cannot stand.

 

"Same types of things", ie materially the same, yes; formally the same, no. And of course the oral tradition doesn't contradict the written (properly interpreted, of course, in its ecclessial context)...nor vice versa.

 

And what is this "hitorical contex" in which the scriptures are interpreted? What are we "1500 year young" n00bs being chided for not going by? Let's say it again:

"...the oral tradition doesn't contradict the written (properly interpreted, of course, in its ecclessial context [by the oral tradition]...")! See how circular this is? This is the what the whole debate is about.

Same types of things", ie materially the same, yes; formally the same, no. Huh? What does that mean?

 

I'm doing no such thing. Paradosis, the Greek word translated "tradition" means "that which is handed over". Whether it's just from one person to another, or whether it spans several generations, the time is irrelevent. It's the fact that something--whether transmitted orally or by epistle--is being handed over from one person to another. Period.

He was not only handing over the truth of the (OT) Scripture properly interpreted by and fulfilled in Christ, but he was also handing over the New Covenant worship (baptism, breaking of bread, prayers, hymns, etc.) and praxis (manner of living) not spelled out in detail in the Old.

Yes, that is indeed the foundational core of what he handed over, but not the only specific thing. He (and the other apostles) also handed over the New Covenant sacraments (baptism and the Eucharist) and New Covenant moral praxis based on the oral teachings of Christ (and both received their force from the crucified and risen Christ). Sure, much of that was eventually written down or mentioned in the NT writings, but one can't prove from the NT nor history that every specific detail of New Covenant Church order was "inscripturated". The NT writings are not a detailed Church manual nor a systematic theological catechism. They were written within the context of an already existing Church (est.33 AD) which was already living the Apostolic Tradition. Therefore it's within that context that the NT writings are properly understood; not yanked out of their context to have certain 16th century (or later) doctrines of men read back into them.

 

It means that the essential "stuff" was the same, but formally expressed in different ways. Again, the New Testament writings aren't a detailed Church manual nor a systematic cachetical blueprint by which the Church was built; rather, the Church had already existed several decades before these writings--written for various reasons and thus in different genres--began to be penned, let alone collected. The New Testament (and OT for that matter) were interpreted by the earliest Christians according to the "rule of faith" which is formally distinct, as it is a concise summary of the apostolic kerygma, yet materially consistent with the Scriptures. In other words, it was this "rule" (summary of the Apostolic Tradition) by which the Church fathers were able to declare the gnostics (and others) to be heretics, since they were trying to interpret the Scriptures apart from this rule, thus twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction.

So it's really not "circular". The relationship is indeed reciprical, but it's not circular because both the "rule of faith" and the NT Scriptures were known by the early Christians to have been derived from a common source--the Apostles. And it was in the Church that both the "rule of faith" and the Scriptures were given (or "handed over"). Therefore it is legitimate to say that Apostolic Tradition in large part is Scripture properly interpreted. And no non-"inscripturated" apostolic tradition or developing ecclesiastical practice can contradict the Scripture so properly interpreted.

Actually, Eric, the best book I've read on the subject was written by a BAPTIST. It's D.H. Williams RETRIEVING THE TRADITION AND RENEWING EVANGELICALISM. You may want to check it out. He puts it (the relationship between Scripture, Church, and Tradition) in a way that's hard to convey cleary and comprehensively on an internet message board.

[ May 12, 2006, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

 

If the doctrine of sola scriptura is true then we must be able to prove all doctrines from Scripture alone. If that is true, then we must be able to prove sola scriptura from Scripture alone. If we cannot do that then sola scriptura turns out to be self-refuting, an idea that cuts its own basis out from under itself, like the proposition "No generalizations are true."

As a result, there is a great rush to find verses in Scripture which can be used to prove the theory of sola scriptura. These attempts are typically made by one of two kinds of advocates for the doctrine — the careless and the careful. The former are, of course, the great majority. Most advocates of sola scriptura, like most advocates of most ideas, are careless in how they support it and will press even the most tangential of things into service as proof that the idea is true.

Careless advocates of sola scriptura are no different and will assert all kinds of irrelevant passages as if they proved the doctrine.

For example, passages in the gospels where Jesus is being questioned about some doctrine by his enemies and, in answering them, he points their attention to some passage in the Old Testament. This kind of verse can be validly used to prove that the Old Testament has doctrinal authority, but it cannot be used to prove sola scriptura since Jesus does not say that only the Old Testament has doctrinal authority (in which case we would have a sola Old Testament doctrine).

Jesus citing the Old Testament to prove a particular doctrine shows only that Jesus considered that doctrine to be provable by that passage of the Old Testament. It does not show that he considered all doctrines to be provable by the Old Testament or by Scripture in general. And so it is no surprise when we see Jesus sometimes answering his enemies by appeals to his own authority or other extra-Scriptural sources.

The idea that Jesus — the living Word of God who came to bring us new revelation via his oral preaching and teaching — would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved only by the written word of God is absurd on its face, yet this does not stop the careless advocate of sola scriptura from appealing to instances where Jesus uses Scripture to prove an individual doctrine as if they were proof Scripture is able to validate all doctrines whatsoever.

Careful advocates of sola scriptura — those who try to limit the verses they appeal to in support of the doctrine to only those that have some hope of being relevant — are as rare as hen's teeth. But those there are recognize that they have a greatly diminished number of passages to appeal to in support of the doctrine once the obviously irrelevant passages are cut away from the debate. In fact, they recognize that there are really only one or two passages which have any hope of being looked to as support for sola scriptura.

The one which has the best hope is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (Revised Standard Version).

Some who appeal to this passage appeal to the first clause of it — "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching" — were sufficient to establish sola scriptura. Sometimes the appeal takes the form of an emotive appeal to the fact that the text says all Scripture is inspired by God — better translated as "God-breathed" — as if I did not also believe that Scripture is written by the verbal inspiration of God.

Ultimately, however, the appeal to the first clause is fruitless since it merely says that Scripture is profitable or useful (Greek, ophelimos) for teaching, not that it is mandatory for teaching every individual point of theology. A hammer is profitable or useful for driving nails, but that does not mean that nails can be driven only by hammers (as anyone can testify who is lucky enough to have a nail gun or unfortunate enough to have had to drive a nail with a random blunt object which was at hand).

A more careful appeal to this passage would look to other parts of it instead, for example, the last clause, which focuses on the idea that "the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

One person, I know of built his case on the Greek words used in this passage for "complete" (artios) and "equipped" (exartizo), which he interpreted to mean "sufficient." He was able to cite one lexicon that listed "sufficient" as a possible translation of artios and one lexicon which listed "sufficient" as a possible translation of exartizo, but there are major problems with his argument.

The two lexicons that used the term "sufficient" listed it as a third or forth translation of the terms, not as the primary translation, and one cannot appeal to possible meanings of a term as proof that it does mean something in a given text, especially when they are third or fourth string possibilities for its meaning.

All the published Protestant Bible versions (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.) agree that "sufficient" is not the correct translation of these terms in this instance. None of them render the passage "that the man of God may be sufficient, sufficient for every good work." In fact, none of them use "sufficient" as a translation of even one of the two terms.

There is such a thing as hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point), and it is a common Hebrew idiom and a common feature of Paul's letters. For example, in Colossians 1:20 Paul states that God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself through Christ. But obviously he does not mean absolutely all things or he would have to say that God reconciles Satan and the damned to himself through Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19, Eph. 1:10). Thus Paul's statement that Scripture makes a minister one complete may be no more than a typical Hebraic hyperbole.

Absurdities result if we take the principle that he uses to interpret 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and apply it to other texts. The principle is: "If (X) makes you complete then you don't need anything other than (X)" (hence his reasoning, "If Scripture makes you complete then you need Scripture only"). If we apply this principle to James 1:4, which states, "And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." If we applied the principle to James 1:4 we would have to say that we do not need anything other than steadfastness, including Scripture!

(One might object that James 1:4 the Greek words are not artios or exartizo. This is certainly true; the words in that passage are teleios and holokleros, which are even stronger Greek terms. The objection would also commit a basic translation fallacy by assuming that a difference of term always means a difference of concept — it doesn't — and, in any event, nobody is going to be able to build much of a case for the meaning of either artios or exartizo based on New Testament study since the first term occurs only once in Scripture and the second only twice [the other occurrence being in Acts 21:5], making meaningful Scriptural comparative studies of the usage impossible).

The two terms modify the man of God, not Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:17 says Scripture helps makes the man of God complete and equipped, not that Scripture itself is complete and equipped. In order to prove that Scripture is sufficient, the advocate of sola scriptura would have to argue backwards from the sufficiency of a man to the sufficiency of a collection of documents. This puts an extra layer in the argument and thus an extra layer of exegetical uncertainty.

This layer of uncertainty is even more problematic for the advocate since to say something helps make a man complete and equipped can presuppose that he already has certain other pieces of equipment. For example, if a man is going on a hiking trip and he has all the equipment he needs except a canteen. He then goes into a sporting goods store and buys one. When he does, he says, "There. Now I am complete, equipped for all of my hiking adventures." This does not at all imply that the canteen alone was all the equipment he needed to be completely furnished. It was only the last piece of equipment. The statement that it made him complete presupposed that he had all the other equipment he needed. In the same way, the statement that Scripture works to complete the man of God can presuppose that the man of God already has certain other articles in his possession that pertain to doctrine (such as the oral teachings of the apostles).

Even if a single source does give a person all the equipment he needs, this does not teach him how to use the equipment. He may need training in how to use his equipment. Just because a person has all the tools he will need to survive in the woods on a hiking trip does not mean he knows how to use the tools. In the same way, even if Scripture gives one all the basic equipment one needs to do theology, it may be unclear to the point that one needs to use Apostolic Tradition to arrive at the correct interpretation of it.

There are positive reasons why this passage, no matter what translation of these terms is given, cannot be used to prove sola scriptura...

To begin with, in the opening clause of the passage, the phrase "All Scripture" is normally taken by Evangelicals to mean "All of Scripture" — in other words, a reference to the whole of the canon of Scripture, which coextensive with what a Protestant wishes to make normative for theology. This is natural for a Protestant since he thinks of the term "scripture" in the singular as a reference to the entire Bible and nothing but the Bible. But that is not the way the term is used in the Bible itself.

The ability to refer to the Bible as a unified work is an invention of the age of moveable type. Prior to the existence of the printing press, Scripture was at best a set of individual, bound volumes. In the first century, when Paul was writing, it was a collection of several dozen scrolls. There was no way it was conceived of as a unified literary work, as it is today.

As a result, a study of the way the New Testament uses the term "scripture" reveals that whenever the term is used in the singular —"scripture"— it always refers to either a specific book of Scripture or a specific passage within a book. It never refers to the whole of the corpus of works we today refer to under the unified title of "Scripture." When the Bible wants to refer to the whole of the corpus, it always uses the term in the plural — "the Scriptures," never "Scripture."

Knowing this, we should be clued in to the presence of a mistranslation in the opening clause of 2 Timothy 3:16. Since the singular term "Scripture" is always used for an individual book of passage of the Bible, the phrase "All Scripture" would mean either "All individual book of the Bible" or "All individual passage of the Bible" — neither of which makes grammatical sense.

And when we turn to the Greek of 2 Timothy 3:16, we find that there is, indeed, a mistranslation. The phrase rendered "All Scripture" is pasa graphe, which means "Every Scripture" — they key word being "every," not "all." This is an important distinction, and it makes grammatical sense of the phrase, given our knowledge of what the singular term "scripture" means (for "every individual book of Scripture" and "every individual passage of Scripture" certainly make grammatical sense).

Had Paul wanted to refer to the entire corpus of Scripture, he would have used a different Greek phrase — something like hai pasai graphai ("the whole of the scriptures"), not pasa graphe, which means simply "every scripture" (a fact which even some of the biggest advocates of using 2 Timothy 3:16-17, such as James White, have admitted).

This is important because it makes it totally impossible to use the passage to prove sola scriptura, because if one tries to use it in that way it will prove way too much.

Since the passage says "Every Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, etc.," if this proved the sufficiency of Scripture, it would actually prove the sufficiency of each passage of Scripture for theology or at least the sufficiency of each book of Scripture for theology. This would mean that not only would the Bible as a whole be enough to prove every point of theology, but each individual passage or book would be sufficient. So you could do theology not only by Scripture alone but by Matthew alone or by Mark alone or Luke alone or what have you. You could do theology sola Matthew, sola Mark, sola Luke, or, to go to the shortest books of the Bible, even sola Jude or sola 3 John if you wanted.

But that is clearly absurd. No single passage, and no single book, of Scripture contains all that we needs to know to do theology. As a result, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 cannot be used to prove sola scriptura. If it could, it would prove way more than sola scriptura. Paul is simply saying that each individual scripture contributes to the man of God being prepared for all of his ministerial tasks, not that each individual scripture is sufficient to do all of theology.

Furthermore, the idea that these verses prove that we should look to Scripture alone clearly takes them out of context. Whenever Protestants quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17, they almost always leave the previous two verses out of their citation. This is unfortunate since if we read the passage with the two preceding verses we get:

"14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 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.
16 Every scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Paul tells Timothy to remain in what he has firmly believed and then cites two bases for that belief:

He knows from whom he has learned it. This was the oral teachings of the apostle Paul himself, so right here we have Timothy's beliefs being based on apostolic Tradition.

From childhood Timothy has been acquainted with the holy Scriptures. So this is the second basis for Timothy's beliefs.

Thus, right here in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, we have a double appeal to both apostolic Tradition and apostolic Scripture. So when Protestants come and quote verses 16 and 17, they are only quoting the back half of a double appeal to Tradition and Scripture, clearly something that does not prove sola scriptura.

Finally, all of the points I have listed, simply by virtue of their number, constitute a case against the advocate's basing sola scriptura on 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The fact that I have been able to name so many factors undermining the use of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 — any one of which is fatal to attempts to use the passage — shows that the passage is sufficiently unclear that sola scriptura cannot be proved from it. Even if one were not convinced by anything I have said, if even one of the considerations I have named is recognized as a valid interpretive option then the passage is not sufficiently clear to prove the doctrine and thus cannot be used to do so.

And since, as I noted at the outset, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the passage which has the best chance of being relevant to the issue of sola scriptura, the fact that it is not sufficiently perspicuous to show the doctrine shows that there aren't any passages in Scripture that are perspicuous enough to prove sola scriptura and thus that Scripture is not sufficiently perspicuous for sola scriptura to be true.

 

Wait a minute. Now you're talking about a distinct "summary" called the "rule of faith". By what do you detemine what this is? Because Ignatius mentioned the Eucharist, and Irenaeus and others later said more on it? Or are you referring to the Didache or something?
This "rule of faith" still seems to be something you are hypothesizing as a whole long catcechism of rituals, interpretations, and everything else--the so-called "detailed Church manual" you insist the Bible is not. Now you have a verse or two on "tradition", with one of them plainly telling us what the tradition is, and it is nothing other than a common instruction that can be found elsewhere in scripture; same materially and formally. Where is this "rule of faith" taught? Or is that just another name for "tradition"? You're making it sound like it was something actually formal, now.

I still see no evidence that this rule was anything other than what we see throughout scripture. It may not be an exhuasitve manual, but still, some of these other "deeper" doctrines and practices would be mentioned in there sometimes? Many of them would certainly raise many questions by the churches the apostles taught, with much confusion as we see addressed in there. There is still no reason presented why only this class of teachings and practices that we question were left out. Some clearly were not materially consistent with the scriptures, such as venerating images, and leaders calling themselves "Father". That is "scripture properly interpreted? How allowances for those were possibly interpreted from scripture or Christ's own words forever remains a mystery, that noone can prove, and you are trying to get us to "accept on faith" because your church is older, and you can pull some passages from the ECF that seem to go along with them. This is why perhaps it is good to "take a new look from the old book". Christ's promise for the gates of Hell to not prevail is not contingent on the doctrinal errorlessness of one single religious governemnt. (One which was tied up with and received its later power from the state for centuries).