Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

[Eliyahu]

Except, as has already been demonstrated, II Tim 3 does not prove Sola Scriptura




Except - It - Does - Not - Work. "Safely", eh?

What else do you need for the perfection of man of God?
TV? Radio? History Book? Internet? Law Schhool? medicine? or Marijuana?

or Apocrypha? or ECF's writings?

 

[Matt Black]

Argument from silence; you still can't cite II Tim 3:15-16 as a proof-text for SS

[ETA - reply to your first post; re your second post, I note you don't address the epistemological problem. What is your solution to it?]

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Why is it that when I walk into any Christian bookstores there are books upon books regarding doctrine and Christian living? I have a bookshelf full of J. Vernon McGee commentaries and a number study Bibles I’ve collected as a Protestant.

Why do we need all these, when all that is necessary is the Bible?

Why all the Roman Road tracts? Why not just hand out Bibles? What’s the purpose of Seminary? Why preach at all, why not just read the Bible from the pulpit and that be it?

Fact is the Bible cannot be understood alone. Every Protestant sect has its own body of traditions, through they generally will not call them what they are, but its easy to see. Jehovah’s Witnesses all believe the same thing and Southern Baptist ‘generally’ believe the same thing.

So in essence the question becomes which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? Which tradition can be trusted, the Apostolic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, or the muddled, and modern traditions of Protestantism that have no roots beyond the advent of the Protestant Reformation?
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

When Paul wrote 2 Tim 3, Only the OT was taken as Bible.
However, it didn't pre-suppose any exclusion of any further Bible, NT.

OT is the Words of God

NT is the Words of God.

Bible is enough to teach the Believers. to save the unbelievers to the Salvation thru Repentance.

Exactly. So how are we creatimg a logical fallacy? We are not. All Scripture is profitable.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Like I said, I'm merely commenting on what I've observed here. I am quite happy to be disabused of this notion if those who made the numerous earlier statements mutually anathematising each other will retract.

When has calvinism anathematized evangelical arminianism? Certainly past church counsels have condemned pelgianism as heresy, and rightly so. But this we do not see generally among protestant groups against evangelicals. I consider certain groups, who differ on not a few doctrines from me, to still be my brother and sister and mother in Christ.

OK How on earth do you get from "Paul was referring to OT Scriptures [in II Tim 3:15-16]" to "ALL Scripture is sufficient, including the NT"?! Not for one second. I just can't see how you can say that Paul was saying to Timothy that the New Testament was "sufficient".

Quite simply. All Scripture is profitable. OT is Scripture. NT is Scripture. All Scripture is profitable. If God the Holy Spirit didn't inspire more Scripture then All Scripture would be limited to what He did inspire.

A logical fallacy, unfortunately, although I see where you're argument is coming from. I reiterate: at the time of writing of II Tim 3, most of the NT had not been written, therefore it is impossible for Paul to be referring to the rest of the NT; the canon wasn't decided until the end of the 4th century.

The Church does not set the canon of Scripture. NT books are canon not because the church says so, but because those books are God-breathed. Their authority does not spring from the Church, but from God. And the church is under the authority of Scripture not over it. The assertions here to the contrary have placed in all practicallity, those churches over the authority of God. This is an error most grievous.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Why is it that when I walk into any Christian bookstores there are books upon books regarding doctrine and Christian living? I have a bookshelf full of J. Vernon McGee commentaries and a number study Bibles I’ve collected as a Protestant.Why do we need all these, when all that is necessary is the Bible?

This completely misses the principle of Sola Scriptura. Perhaps you should re-read the OP and demonstrate how Sola Scriptura nullifes the preaching of the Gospel, pastors and teachers and evangelists.

Why all the Roman Road tracts? Why not just hand out Bibles? What’s the purpose of Seminary? Why preach at all, why not just read the Bible from the pulpit and that be it?

See above comment.

Fact is the Bible cannot be understood alone. Every Protestant sect has its own body of traditions, through they generally will not call them what they are, but its easy to see. Jehovah’s Witnesses all believe the same thing and Southern Baptist ‘generally’ believe the same thing.

So are you admitting there is more essential unity among Protestants? To compare JWs with Southern Baptists is a gross misrepresentation, if that was your intent. JW is a non-Christian cult. The SBC is not. I may disagree as a calvinist with my non-calvinist SBC brethren (and there are many calvinists in the SBC) but they are still BRETHREN. The JWs are not my brethren.

So in essence the question becomes which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? Which tradition can be trusted, the Apostolic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, or the muddled, and modern traditions of Protestantism that have no roots beyond the advent of the Protestant Reformation?

That may be your question, but it is not mine. The Scriptures are my Tradition. You have Scriptures as your Tradition PLUS your oral Tradition.

But you raise a good question. It's quite comical to me that the Orthodox Church argues for THEIR Traditions the same way the papacy argues for theirs! So are you judging papal Sacred Tradition by Orthodox (so-called) Apostolic Tradition? huh??? Who becomes the Final Authority???????

As for reformers before the Reformation history is chok-full of them. Would you like to know who?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So are you admitting there is more essential unity among Protestants? To compare JWs with Southern Baptists is a gross misrepresentation, if that was your intent. JW is a non-Christian cult. The SBC is not.

Here’s where you fail to grasp the logic of this whole Sola Scriptura mantra. You might consider the JW’s a cult and I’d agree, but here’s something you need to let settle on your mind…

Both the JW’s and S. Baptists are using Scripture to base their theology from…Both can quote Scripture after Scripture proving the other wrong. So in a deadlock, who's going to pervail? Labeling one a "cult" isn't going to solve it.

I may disagree as a calvinist with my non-calvinist SBC brethren (and there are many calvinists in the SBC) but they are still BRETHREN.

You disagree and therefore there’s a division, if not, why don’t you and your non-Calvinist ‘Brethren’ reconcile with each other and form a Church together?

In the case of the above, the Lord said: …every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a bad tree bringeth forth evil fruit.(Matt 7:17). Therefore, if we judge the above scenario by its fruits, then we are left with no other conclusion than that this tree needs to be …hewn down, and cast into the fire (Matt 7:19).

It's quite comical to me that the Orthodox Church argues for THEIR Traditions the same way the papacy argues for theirs! So are you judging papal Sacred Tradition by Orthodox (so-called) Apostolic Tradition? huh??? Who becomes the Final Authority???????

Not one man, so let’s not confuse Catholicism with Orthodoxy…I suggest you study what initiated the Schism and then compare to what initiated the Reformation…keep in mind RB, the Reformers were protesting the West, not the East…
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Argument from silence; you still can't cite II Tim 3:15-16 as a proof-text for SS

[ETA - reply to your first post; re your second post, I note you don't address the epistemological problem. What is your solution to it?]

Read 2 Tim 3:17 as well.
Scripture makes the man of God perfect.
It is enough. All the other literatures are contaminated with human ideas.
Not the human epistemalogy but the Inspiration of Holy Spirit brings us the discernment!

What is the reason for the objection to SS?

What else will you bring to compare with Scripture?

 

[Eliyahu]

Fact is the Bible cannot be understood alone.

True to the blindmen like most of the RC. But untrue to the Born Again Belieivers anointed with the Holy Spirit.

So in essence the question becomes which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? Which tradition can be trusted, the Apostolic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, or the muddled, and modern traditions of Protestantism that have no roots beyond the advent of the Protestant Reformation?
-

We need NO Tradition for the interpretation of the Bible.

Only the Heretic people need their heretic tradition for the interpretation of the Bible so as to maintain the Heresy by Brainwash. They are scared to confront the Truth because they become shaky if they depart from the Brainwash.

You have never experienced the working of Holy Spirit in you when you read the Bible for yourself. Try to read it for yourself, Holy Spirit will start to tell you in your heart. Are you scared to experience it?
What for are you believing ? in order to show yourself to the human beings or to God?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Here’s where you fail to grasp the logic of this whole Sola Scriptura mantra. You might consider the JW’s a cult and I’d agree, but here’s something you need to let settle on your mind…

Both the JW’s and S. Baptists are using Scripture to base their theology from…Both can quote Scripture after Scripture proving the other wrong. So in a deadlock, who's going to pervail? Labeling one a "cult" isn't going to solve it.

This grossly misunderstands the real theology of the JWs. I assume you have studied that cult and learned that its not Scirpture by which their conscience is bound--its their prophets as expressed through the Watchtower organization. Same principle is found in Mormonism. There is a man, or group of men, that act ast he interpretor of Scripture for them. JWs and Mormons are led out of that mindcontrol by leading them to the princle of Sola Scripura. There is more in common between mormonism and JWs with the RCC and EO in that respect.

You disagree and therefore there’s a division, if not, why don’t you and your non-Calvinist ‘Brethren’ reconcile with each other and form a Church together?

It may seem odd to you that I can have a disagreement with a brother or their fellowship of churches and my own because we do not visible meet together. We have fellowship and love in the Spirit.

In the case of the above, the Lord said: …every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a bad tree bringeth forth evil fruit.(Matt 7:17). Therefore, if we judge the above scenario by its fruits, then we are left with no other conclusion than that this tree needs to be …hewn down, and cast into the fire (Matt 7:19).

Now, let me demonstrate Sola Scriptura to you. You have made and interpretation and application of Scripture. I can only assume your sect would agree with this application and interpretation of the passage. This is what you are telling me the Scripture means. Perhaps your right. So what do I do? If I were without a Bible I would not have much I could do. But since men like Tyndale and Wycliffe faced persecution and death to get us common folk the Bible in our language I can turn to the Scriptures and read what God says to me.

In the context the exhortation is to walk a narrow path because the wide path leads to destruction. I am also told that false prophets come to me in sheep's clothing, but inside are ravenous wolves. Interesting imagery. Jesus tells me His sheep know His voice, therefore these must be false Christian teachers who say they are believers but inside, in their hearts, are murderers.

Then my Lord Jesus tells me I will know them by their fruits. A man who hates his brother in Christ is a murderer, and this one does not know the Father or the Son. Someone who does not love the brethren is not of God, but are like these ravenous wolves. Them God will cut down and throw into the fire.

Only those known of God will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Not everyone who says to Jesus "Lord, Lord" will enter, "but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

The will of God the Father I know from Holy Scripture is to believe on Him whom He has sent. This same one hears the words of Jesus and keeps them. They know His voice

But what did you teach me? That if I have a theological disagreement with another Protestant, or if there is disagreement with several denominations over baptism or some other point of doctrine, that we are false teachers, ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing, unsaved and unregenerate, destined for the fires of hell. That's quite the anathema!

So what am I supposed to do. Come venerate images with you? Come submit my conscience to your church when mine is bothered by your church's teaching and practice because when I read Holy Scripture I find it opposed to it? This is neither safe nor right. Am I to pray to the dead with you? Not in 1,000 lifetimes if God were to give them to me. I am to follow the voice of Jesus. I am to follow Him according to His words. These words I have from Him because He recieved them of the Father and gave them to those whom the Father gave to Jesus. Jesus gave them His words and they have given them freely to the world. This is what we have in NT writings. But the RCC and Orthodox church assume for themselves feigned authority in their bishops and priests and seek to lord over God's heritage. I will not give submission to either one, not even for 1 minute. To do so would be treason against my King.

Not one man, so let’s not confuse Catholicism with Orthodoxy…I suggest you study what initiated the Schism and then compare to what initiated the Reformation…keep in mind RB, the Reformers were protesting the West, not the East…

The East looks and smells so much like the West, I imagine we protest both. But it was not the East that rose to the place of Antichrist, that Man of Sin, spoken of in Scripture. This was and is the papacy. There are striking differences between the East and West, and one that I rejoice with--namely that the East recognizes no head over itself except the Lord Jesus Christ. This the papacy has usurped and arrogantly and blasphmously appropriated to themselves saying their pope is head over all Christians. Terrible, terrible sin! And many dear Christians suffered horrible persucuation under papal rule denying the popes their pretended position.

But do you think we are in any less protest against Rome's false Tradition than yours? God forbid. Are we any less offended by your icons than the popish one? God forbid. May God be pleased according to His great and mighty will to work a work of Reformation among the Orthodox church. And if that lamp has already had its lampstand removed then may God be pleased to call many out of its darkness into His marvelous light.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Now, let me demonstrate Sola Scriptura to you. You have made and interpretation and application of Scripture. I can only assume your sect would agree with this application and interpretation of the passage. This is what you are telling me the Scripture means. Perhaps your right. So what do I do? If I were without a Bible I would not have much I could do. But since men like Tyndale and Wycliffe faced persecution and death to get us common folk the Bible in our language I can turn to the Scriptures and read what God says to me.

Of course, just you, the Bible and the Lord and let’s not forget Tyndale and Wycliffe’s most excellent commentary notes to help you along…
-

 

[TCGreek]

Of course, just you, the Bible and the Lord and let’s not forget Tyndale and Wycliffe’s most excellent commentary notes to help you along…
-

1. What do you mean by "Tyndale and Wycliffe's most excellent commentary notes"?

2. What do they have to do with sola scriptura, a claim which the Scriptures make of itself (2 Tim 3:14-17).

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Of course, just you, the Bible and the Lord and let’s not forget Tyndale and Wycliffe’s most excellent commentary notes to help you along…
-

I have not read Tyndale's commentary notes or Wycliffe's on this passage. Did they come to the same conclusion?

I would like to read their notes. Do you know where I may obtain them?

 

[TCGreek]

I have not read Tyndale's commentary notes or Wycliffe's on this passage. Did they come to the same conclusion?

I would like to read their notes. Do you know where I may obtain them?

These are fitting questions to one who appeals to the notes of Tyndale and Wycliffe. He must know where they are!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

1. What do you mean by "Tyndale and Wycliffe's most excellent commentary notes"?

2. What do they have to do with sola scriptura, a claim which the Scriptures make of itself (2 Tim 3:14-17).

Then again, the question must be asked and maybe you can give the class some insight.

If Sola Scriptura is all one needs, why then are there commentaries included in certain Bibles? Better yet, why aren’t the commentaries in agreement?

Why do we Protestants fill our bookshelves with books pertaining to doctrine and Christian living? If Sola Scriptura means “all sufficient” then why does it not produce consistent results?
-

 

[TCGreek]

Then again, the question must be asked and maybe you can give the class some insight.

If Sola Scriptura is all one needs, why then are there commentaries included in certain Bibles? Better yet, why aren’t the commentaries in agreement?

1. There continues to be a fundamental flaw at the heart of your argument. You are failing to realize that sola scriptura is an objective reality.

2. Our interaction with the text is where the problems lie; the problem is not with the text. It is with us. Therefore, sola sciptura stands.

Why do we Protestants fill our bookshelves with books pertaining to doctrine and Christian living? If Sola Scriptura means “all sufficient” then why does it not produce consistent results?
-

3. Now you find yourself attacking the all sufficiency of Scripture. It is not up to the all sufficiency of Scripture to produce consistent results. It is up to the interpretaters to arrive at consistent results.

4. And as reflected in all the major creeds, I believe that interpreters have done quite well. But that is not the basis of my argument.

5. You are taking shots at the all sufficient of Scripture because of differences among Christians.

6. If Scripture did not reveal an obvious unity, then I would oblige your criticism. But there's an obvious unity of Scripture, and not only that, but Scripture is all sufficient (Ps 19:7-14).

7. A painter paints a wonderful portrait. He puts it on display. He's conveying a message through it. Observers begin to look and it and offer there interpretation of the portrait. Now the results of the portrait is no the painters problems. The results are based on the observers interpretation.

8. I hope you see that sola Scriptura stands.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." Martin Luther.​

TCGreek, since we're going nowhere here, I just noticed your tag line, as quoted above...Was that Luther's famous quote as he stood courageously before the Diet of Worms?

Interesting if it is, b/c didn't the Anabaptist ask for the same indulgence when they disagreed with the Lutherans on a number of points, but instead were butchered by the thousands? So much for the "right of an individual to read the Scriptures for himself" huh?
-

 

[TCGreek]

I agree with you, We are going nowhere.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I may disagree as a calvinist with my non-calvinist SBC brethren (and there are many calvinists in the SBC) but they are still BRETHREN.

It may seem odd to you that I can have a disagreement with a brother or their fellowship of churches and my own because we do not visible meet together. We have fellowship and love in the Spirit.

Here’s why this mindset seems odd to me and tell me if this rings a bell with you. You say you can for “love of the spirit” minimize those differences between you and a non-Calvinist. Maybe, just maybe, you believe with good intentions that at least you and other conflicting Protestants have a piece of the Truth, but in essence with that reasoning, none has the whole Truth.

This is pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Thus many Christians will not stop their ecumenical efforts at allowing only Christian groups to have a piece of the Truth. Many Christians now believe that all religions have pieces of the Truth.

Obviously the conclusion is that modern Protestants have made it so that in order to find all the Truth each group will have to shed their differences and pitch their piece of the Truth into the pot, and presto, the whole Truth will be found at last.
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Then again, the question must be asked and maybe you can give the class some insight.

If Sola Scriptura is all one needs, why then are there commentaries included in certain Bibles? Better yet, why aren’t the commentaries in agreement?

Why do we Protestants fill our bookshelves with books pertaining to doctrine and Christian living? If Sola Scriptura means “all sufficient” then why does it not produce consistent results?
-

Could you just kindly answer the questions I raised?