Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

[ReformedBaptist]

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.
-

It rings no bell. Our unity is not based in outward ecclesiastical uniformity. Our unity is in Christ Jesus. Perhaps an illustration will help clear up your confusion.

When I visit my Dad in Florida with my family and the visist stretches over the Lord's Day, we attend their church with them. This church is not a Reformed Baptist church, it is not a Calvinist church, nor do they operate under the regulative principle of worship. According to you, my family and my father are worshipping different Gods for this reason. I can't help but chuckle. When I hear the message preached there what do I hear? That Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah, that He was crucified according to Apostolic Tradition..err..sorry, according to the Scriptures, that He was dead and raised according to the Scriptures; And, whosover shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved.

This is the ground of our unity. These Christians are born again and thus the children of the Living God. If this does not make sense to you, then I and all such Christians have a fellowship you do not know. With such untiy with those Christians with joy and thanksgiving I share in the Lord's Table with them. I do not share in their beliefs regarding some particular points of doctrine, but in the body and blood of Christ we have communion. And it is not forbidden to me, because they have the same mind in these things as me.

This unity I can share with all manner of protestants and evangelicals. I have rejoiced with many brethren nationwide and worldwide since I have been a Christian. Some I would continue in ecclesiastical separation, but they are my brethren and I love them.

What Truth do we share in common Angus? THE Truth, Christ Jesus the Lord, the Son of the Living God.

Do you love them Angus? Do you love them as your brethren in Christ?

 

[Eliyahu]

What can be equivalent to Words of God?

Which writings can be comnparable to Words of God ?

Who throughout the history could write anything comparable or equivalent to Words of God?

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks Bob; I'd say the same about the Bereans in Acts 17

I agree - they were reading the OT.

Paul's NT had to be "validated" against the "scripture" and it had to "stand the test" or it would be dumped EVEN by these non-Christian reviewers.

The practice was approved.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

It proves that "scripture" is sufficient to lead you to salvation that the "man of God may be adequately equipped for every good deed".

Never - (not EVER) do we see Bible writers proclaiming "Scripture is insufficient! Scripture is insufficient!" .

Not in any age.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Could you just kindly answer the questions I raised?

What? That Tyndale was burned at the stake for his interpretave notes on the NT?
-

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Amen!

Preach it!

But the main point is that the Bible is the RULE the judge the AUTHORITY for all faith and practice as we see in Acts 17:11.

The teaching of Paul had to stand the test of scripture. He may have a revelation as we see in 2Cor 11 but that does not invalidate scripture OT or NT nor does it negate the principle of sola scriptura seen in Acts 17 and Isaiah 8:19-20 "To the Law and the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Zenas]

ReformedBaptist, this is in response to your Post No. 15.

This reasoning does 3 things. 1. It denies the Spirit of Christ as the author of Scripture and thereby denies Christ and the Father as the author of Scripture. I am certain this is not your purpose. Yes, Jesus by the hands of His own flesh did not pen the Scriptures, yet by His Spirit he moved holy men to write, according to the Scriptures. 2. It denies our present Bibles are in doubt as being Scripture. 3. It adds to Scripture tradition.

1. You're right this is not my purpose, and my reasoning here does not deny the Spirit of Christ. Go back and read carefully what I said. I said, "There is no record that He told anyone to preserve His teachings in writing." This doesn't mean Jesus or His Spirit did not direct that these writings be made. I know He did but there is no such record. So why do I know it? Tradition.

2. I believe you meant to say that my reasoning places our present Bibles in doubt as being Scripture and that you're talking about my reference to the original manuscripts. I think most of our present Bibles are Scripture, one notable exception being the New World Translation. However illiterates like myself are at the mercy of learned men, perhaps like you, who understand Greek, Latin and Hebrew. I believe the Spirit guides Bible translators but I also know that the great majority of us wouldn't recognize error if it were staring us in the face. So what do I do? Two things. (1) I have faith that what I am reading is truth. This is Tradition. (2) I listen to my leaders. This is Scripture. Hebrews 13:17.

3. Guilty as charged here.

While I know you will wish to respond to the Scriptures, and I could provide a defense for why these Scriptures teach what we call Sola Scriptura, it is sufficient for now to post them: 2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 15:1-6

More could be added, but these two are clear, the first by precept and the second by example, the first by an Apostle, and the second through our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture" not "Scripture alone." Moreover, when read in context, it is clear that Paul was talking about Old Testament Scripture.

As for Matthew 15:1-6, Jesus was condemning the practice of "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." Matthew 15:9. Mark 7 also relates Jesus' condemnation of holding to the traditions of men. The Pharisees had twisted the law of Moses to suit their own purpose without regard to the purpose of God's commandments. Elswhere He said: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." Matthew 23:2-3. These are the same people Jesus soundly rebuked; we can assume they mixed Tradition with Scripture in their teachings, yet Jesus told the people to obey their teachings.

Actually, we can find Tradition throughout the Bible. For example, consider Matthew 2:23: "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" No such prophecy is recorded in the Old Testament. So we have two possibilities. We can give this a twisted obscure meaning or we can accept that Matthew was aware of prophesies that had been handed down by Tradition. I'm sure you are aware of other such examples of the use of Tradition by New Testament writers relating Old Testament events that are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.

This is confusing the use of the term tradition. A tradition of a practice, Sunday school to use your example, is not equivelant to what Orthodox and Roman Catholics mean by tradition. They mean authoritavtive interpretation, the RCC taking it to the extreme of infallbility and equality with Holy Scripture. I does make sens to compare the practice of a Sunday school class to that.

Those were not the best examples, and the examples I have used in this post are probably better. However, Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not equate Tradition with authorative interpretation. To them, tradition refers to doctrines and events outside the Scriptures that have been handed down by oral teaching, usually since the time of the Apostles. To be sure, they eventually got written down, but after the canon of Scripture had been written. For example, Tradition relates that a woman wiped the brow of Jesus as He bore the cross to Calvary. Do I believe this? Why not?

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17:11 "The studied THE SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO" is the most devastating text to those who reject this method entirely.

2Tim 3 DOES show that "Scripture" is sufficient to lead one to salvation.

But we have many teachers and prophets in the NT that are "not writing scripture" so we can not conclude that "they did not exist" from these texts.

What we CAN conclude is that they all had to be TESTED by the Scriptures to see IF those things they taught "were so".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1. You're right this is not my purpose, and my reasoning here does not deny the Spirit of Christ. Go back and read carefully what I said. I said, "There is no record that He told anyone to preserve His teachings in writing." This doesn't mean Jesus or His Spirit did not direct that these writings be made. I know He did but there is no such record. So why do I know it? Tradition.

If we were alive in the days of the Aposltes we would give heed to their teaching as the Word of God because the words of Christ came through them. We do nothing less knowing that such teaching was committed to writing. And even if we were living under the Apostleship of Paul, if he did not preach the Gospel then let him be anathama, as he himself said. Even the Apostle is subordinate to the Word of God.

Therefore, when a so-called successor of an Apostle or Church claims to speak on the same level of authority as the Apostles of Christ their teaching ought to to be compared to the Scriptures, both of the OT and NT, to see what sort it is and if it is in agreement with them. If not, we conclude they are teaching their own ideas and not the Word of God. For example, when the RCC teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary we look to the Scriptures to see if these things are so. Finding the Lord Jesus had brothers and sisters we conclude the RCC teaching as doctrine the precepts of men. The major concern with this is that not only this teaching, but many others which are idolatrous they teach upon their feigned authority. Pull the plug on their Sacred Tradition in one area, and the whole boat will sink.

2. I believe you meant to say that my reasoning places our present Bibles in doubt as being Scripture and that you're talking about my reference to the original manuscripts. I think most of our present Bibles are Scripture, one notable exception being the New World Translation. However illiterates like myself are at the mercy of learned men, perhaps like you, who understand Greek, Latin and Hebrew. I believe the Spirit guides Bible translators but I also know that the great majority of us wouldn't recognize error if it were staring us in the face. So what do I do? Two things. (1) I have faith that what I am reading is truth. This is Tradition. (2) I listen to my leaders. This is Scripture. Hebrews 13:17.

This amounts to sticking our heads in the proverbial sand. We should rather study to show ourselves approved unto God, not give ourselves blindly to tradition and leaders. Remember, it is from within the church, from its leaders, that false brethren rise to lead away God's elect. Therefore, let us be as harmless as doves, but wise as serpents. Americans have no excuse for a lack of knowledge. There is so many resources available to us that while not becoming fluent in the ancient languages, we can become familiar enough with them so as to benefit obejectively from those languages, especially Greek. And this is all the more incumbant on those who teach and preach.

3. Guilty as charged here.

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture" not "Scripture alone." Moreover, when read in context, it is clear that Paul was talking about Old Testament Scripture.

Methinks the RCC and Orthodox are teaching this apologetic to all their disciples. lol It comes up every time! It is not the "All Scripture" part that teaches Scripture is sufficient (that is the meaning of Sola Scriptura) but the rest of the passage. All Scripture is the subject of what is sufficient.

As for Matthew 15:1-6, Jesus was condemning the practice of "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." Matthew 15:9. Mark 7 also relates Jesus' condemnation of holding to the traditions of men. The Pharisees had twisted the law of Moses to suit their own purpose without regard to the purpose of God's commandments. Elswhere He said: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." Matthew 23:2-3. These are the same people Jesus soundly rebuked; we can assume they mixed Tradition with Scripture in their teachings, yet Jesus told the people to obey their teachings.

Are you saying the Lord Jesus Christ told His disciples to follow the teaching of the Pharisees even if it was in error? God forbid. In another place He warns His disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees. Your teaching here seems to miss the fact that Israel was, in our terminology, a "Church-State" where the religion and state were one. The Lord is not telling us to follow leaders in error.

And you are correct, they did mix Scripture and Tradition where the Tradition was in error and even against the commandments of God. How would a good Jew know which was error and which was not? He would know by listening to the Scriptures read in synogogue and obeying God rather than men. The RCC and Orthodox have done the same. They both say, here take this image of God (Christ) and use it in your devotion and worship of Christ. But I read that God commanded no image to made of Him and that I ought not to use them in His worship. I will obey God rather than men.

Actually, we can find Tradition throughout the Bible. For example, consider Matthew 2:23: "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" No such prophecy is recorded in the Old Testament. So we have two possibilities. We can give this a twisted obscure meaning or we can accept that Matthew was aware of prophesies that had been handed down by Tradition. I'm sure you are aware of other such examples of the use of Tradition by New Testament writers relating Old Testament events that are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.

Gee, only two choices you offer me: A twisted obsure meaning, or the sacrifice of my conscience to a sect. Where's the third choice? lol I assume you know how we understand this prophesy so I won't repeat our understanding of it unless you want me to. If this understanding draws the condemnation of being twisted and obscure, then so be it. To me it is straight, Christ-centered, and biblical.

Those were not the best examples, and the examples I have used in this post are probably better. However, Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not equate Tradition with authorative interpretation. To them, tradition refers to doctrines and events outside the Scriptures that have been handed down by oral teaching, usually since the time of the Apostles. To be sure, they eventually got written down, but after the canon of Scripture had been written. For example, Tradition relates that a woman wiped the brow of Jesus as He bore the cross to Calvary. Do I believe this? Why not?

When I disregard the notion of transubstantiation of the Roman Catholics after reading their interpretation of the Scriptures finding no such teaching in the Scriptures, then I am told that I don't understand it correctly and should accept Rome's position based on their authority, how am I misunderstanding this church's (or what the Orthodox church has in its teaching not in Scripture) as not equal? Perhaps you can help my understand how these groups put a difference between their interpretations and their Traditions.

Concerning Christ's brow being wiped by Tradition and its acceptance is one of an entirely personal nature. I judge that as long as it does not contradict the Scriptures it is acceptable to believe, but the teaching itself being of tradition, and not Scripture, is NOT binding on the conscience of all believers. Only Scripture is binding on the conscience of men, tradition is not, being judged of the Scriptures and not being the Word of God.

 

[Eliyahu]

Do we need a tradition in interpreting the Bible?

What kind of Tradition do we need for our spiritual life?

Waking up at 6 a.m. every morning?

 

[Bro. James]

Only One source of Truth

When one suggests that there is something lacking in the ability of God to reveal His will without the intervention of the opinions of popes, bishops and theologians, one is subject to grievous error in things spiritual. Ever wonder why most of the so-called holy fathers are not included in the canon? Some would say: Which canon? Whose got the right canon? Study the origins of the English Bibles. Also read about the ones who translated the canon into the common vernacular. There is something spurious going on here--the problem is not with the AV. Satan is still trying to hide the Truth.

"You shall know the Truth, the Truth shall make you free."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Zenas]

It is difficult to discuss the pros and cons of sola scriptura without also looking at tradition, and to a lesser extent, looking at the role of ecclesiastical authority in interpreting scripture. As seen in the posts in this thread, we can debate these issues ad nauseam and doing so convinces no one but it does provide insight into various schools of thought. What I have not seen on this thread is a clear statement concerning the underpinnings of this doctrine of sola scriptura. We have 2 Timothy 3:16, a strong statement concerning the authority of scripture, but that verse is not going to ring the bell for advocates of sola scriptura. So who will step up and give us solid reasoning, based on scripture or otherwise, why we should bind our conscience with scripture alone?

 

[Dan V.]

Matt:
This leads me to a rather obvious conclusion: if relying on the Bible alone plus the individual inspiration of the Holy Spirit leads to this doctrinal anarchy, then clearly either the Holy Spirit isn't doing a very good job...OR there is the need for some kind of singular teaching authority to interpret scripture...

The problems don't come from the Holy Spirit, but we must admit that there are lots of things to be corrected in the human minds even after the Salvation, and therefore we have a lot of disagreement.
However, can we see the disagreement about the Sola Scriptura itself among the Evangelical Believers?

What if any writings disagree with the Scripture ? If Apocrypha differs from the Bible, would you desert the Bible and follow AP? If AP has nothing over Bible,why do we need the AP? If the exegeses of the people are erraneous, why should we accept it over the Bible?

The Bible is to be believed over the AP because of it's self-attesting authority and internal evidence. As such, there are no contradictions within it.

Or, you could say we believe the scriptures alone because of the impossibility of the contrary. All other basis for belief systems collapse.

Dan V.

 

[BobRyan]

It is difficult to discuss the pros and cons of sola scriptura without also looking at tradition, and to a lesser extent, looking at the role of ecclesiastical authority in interpreting scripture. As seen in the posts in this thread, we can debate these issues ad nauseam and doing so convinces no one but it does provide insight into various schools of thought. What I have not seen on this thread is a clear statement concerning the underpinnings of this doctrine of sola scriptura. We have 2 Timothy 3:16, a strong statement concerning the authority of scripture, but that verse is not going to ring the bell for advocates of sola scriptura. So who will step up and give us solid reasoning, based on scripture or otherwise, why we should bind our conscience with scripture alone?

Acts 17:11 SHOWS the blessed practice of Sola Scriptura used by NT saints.

What more do you ask?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

ECF errors exposed for Agnus to be warned off that ground - and turn to the Bible -- the pure teaching of the Word of God --


Augustine is the unique source of the humorous errors of Barlaam the Calabrian who was accused of heresy by St. Gregory Palamas and was condemned as a heretic by the Councils of Constantinople New Rome held in 1341, 1347 and 1351 for his teaching that God reveals his will to humans by means of creatures which He brings into existence to be seen and heard and which He passes back into non existence when the revelations have been accomplished.

Augustine describes these positions in great detail which he repeats over and over again in the earlier books of his DE TRINITATE.

Augustine Taught only Catholics will Inherit Eternal Life

Sara said: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of a bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” And the Church says: “Cast out heresies and their children; for heretics shall not be heirs with Catholics.” But why shall they not be heirs? Are they not born of Abraham’s seed? And have they not the Church’s Baptism? They do have Baptism; and it would make the seed of Abraham an heir, if pride did not exclude them from inheritance. By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the Catholic Church.
Augustine Persecuted Heretics

Augustine’s aforementioned view led to his persecution of heretics:
After the proscription of the Donatists by law in 412, Augustine added to his arguments justifying persecution the statement that coercion in this world would save the heretics from eternal punishment in the next. “No salvation outside the church,” a doctrine preached by Augustine in 418 in his sermon addressed to the people of the church of Caesarea (chap. 6), implied a right to convert forcibly or otherwise the church’s opponents. The precedents established in the Donatist controversy by Augustine passed into the armory of the catholic church through the Middle Ages and into Reformation times. The Albigensian crusades of 1212 and 1226-1244 witnessed terrible massacres in centers such as Béziers and Carcassonne where the heresy flourished. In 1244 the defenders of the last Abigensian [sic] stronghold, Mont Ségur, were burned alive by their victorious enemies. [See Cathari.] More than a century and a half later, in 1415, the same punishment was inflicted on Jan Hus at Prague.


As a Catholic theologian of the fifth century, we should not be too surprised by Augustine’s other views either:
Baptismal Regeneration
... he does not shrink from consigning unbaptized children to damnation itself, though he softens to the utmost this frightful dogma, and reduces the damnation to the minimum of punishment or the privation of blessedness.
St. Augustin [sic] expressly assigns all unbaptized children dying in infancy to eternal damnation ....
Augustine said that infants are “regenerated by baptism apart from their faith.”

 

[Eliyahu]

ECF errors exposed for Agnus to be warned off that ground - and turn to the Bible -- the pure teaching of the Word of God --


Augustine is the unique source of the humorous errors of Barlaam the Calabrian who was accused of heresy by St. Gregory Palamas and was condemned as a heretic by the Councils of Constantinople New Rome held in 1341, 1347 and 1351 for his teaching that God reveals his will to humans by means of creatures which He brings into existence to be seen and heard and which He passes back into non existence when the revelations have been accomplished.

Augustine describes these positions in great detail which he repeats over and over again in the earlier books of his DE TRINITATE.

Augustine Taught only Catholics will Inherit Eternal Life

Sara said: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of a bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” And the Church says: “Cast out heresies and their children; for heretics shall not be heirs with Catholics.” But why shall they not be heirs? Are they not born of Abraham’s seed? And have they not the Church’s Baptism? They do have Baptism; and it would make the seed of Abraham an heir, if pride did not exclude them from inheritance. By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the Catholic Church.
Augustine Persecuted Heretics

Augustine’s aforementioned view led to his persecution of heretics:
After the proscription of the Donatists by law in 412, Augustine added to his arguments justifying persecution the statement that coercion in this world would save the heretics from eternal punishment in the next. “No salvation outside the church,” a doctrine preached by Augustine in 418 in his sermon addressed to the people of the church of Caesarea (chap. 6), implied a right to convert forcibly or otherwise the church’s opponents. The precedents established in the Donatist controversy by Augustine passed into the armory of the catholic church through the Middle Ages and into Reformation times. The Albigensian crusades of 1212 and 1226-1244 witnessed terrible massacres in centers such as Béziers and Carcassonne where the heresy flourished. In 1244 the defenders of the last Abigensian [sic] stronghold, Mont Ségur, were burned alive by their victorious enemies. [See Cathari.] More than a century and a half later, in 1415, the same punishment was inflicted on Jan Hus at Prague.


As a Catholic theologian of the fifth century, we should not be too surprised by Augustine’s other views either:
Baptismal Regeneration
... he does not shrink from consigning unbaptized children to damnation itself, though he softens to the utmost this frightful dogma, and reduces the damnation to the minimum of punishment or the privation of blessedness.
St. Augustin [sic] expressly assigns all unbaptized children dying in infancy to eternal damnation ....
Augustine said that infants are “regenerated by baptism apart from their faith.”

Thanks for this post. Do you have any sources for this?

Agustine didn't wake up from the dreams that he had with many prostitutes before when he claimed many heresies in favor of Catholicism.

 

[Eliyahu]

I already asked the questions about "what tradition we need for the interpretation of Bible?"

What kind of Tradition can help us in interpreting the Bible?

I already explained the Fundamental Truth underlying Sola Scriptura.

God is the Word
Bible is the Book of Words of God
Nobody, Nothing can teach God.
No human writings are equivalent to Words of God.
The Bible is sufficient for the Salvation, for the Education of the Believers to the Perfection.( 2 Tim 3:15-7)

All human beings are corrupted and human thoughts are wrong.

What kind of tradition or anything else is needed for the interpretation of Bible?

The most controversial area where the Born Again believers disagree mostly may be Eschatology. Do we need the tradition in understanding the Eschatology? What did ECF's say about the time when the State of Israel should be revived ? Do we have to follow their interpretation ? We can definitely refer to their understanding. But it is the same as we read some commentaries, which may help us save time. However, this doesn't deny the Sola Scriptura because even such commentaries were written on the basis of Sola Scriptura, and it strengthens the stance of Sola Scriptura.
EVery godly believer wrote the books within the frame of Sola Scriptura, and such book may help the believers, but they are not essential for the Believers. They don't deny Sola Scriptura, and if the books deny Sola Scriptura, that is not the book written by the True Believers.

They who don't believe that the Bible is perfect teaching must not be the Believers in Jesus Christ, but are bound to go to the Lake of Fire.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What? That Tyndale was burned at the stake for his interpretave notes on the NT?
-

I guess your orginal reply to my post was just a rebut without regard to content. You seemed to indicate some knowledge of these men's writings in regard to how I expounded the Scritpure, as if I received it from them. I replied asking what you knew of their notes and where copies could be obtained.

I intend to learn more about such a great man and martyr of Christ. One of my favorite accounts of his life is this:

A clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted Tyndale with the statement, “We are better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s”. Tyndale was infuriated by such Roman Catholic heresies, and he replied, “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!”

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

What a great man of God. I would to God that I would be counted as worthy to suffer such things for my writings and love of the truth.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I guess your orginal reply to my post was just a rebut without regard to content. You seemed to indicate some knowledge of these men's writings in regard to how I expounded the Scritpure, as if I received it from them. I replied asking what you knew of their notes and where copies could be obtained.

I intend to learn more about such a great man and martyr of Christ. One of my favorite accounts of his life is this:



http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

What a great man of God. I would to God that I would be counted as worthy to suffer such things for my writings and love of the truth.

When I started looking objectively at Church History, I started at the beginning instead of the present backwards on. Even though my original frame of thought was that Catholicism was the true Church, the closer I got to the great schism of 1054, the more weary I became of the Catholic Church. So I really don’t blame those men of the reformation era for protesting the Catholic Church.
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It is difficult to discuss the pros and cons of sola scriptura without also looking at tradition, and to a lesser extent, looking at the role of ecclesiastical authority in interpreting scripture. As seen in the posts in this thread, we can debate these issues ad nauseam and doing so convinces no one but it does provide insight into various schools of thought. What I have not seen on this thread is a clear statement concerning the underpinnings of this doctrine of sola scriptura. We have 2 Timothy 3:16, a strong statement concerning the authority of scripture, but that verse is not going to ring the bell for advocates of sola scriptura. So who will step up and give us solid reasoning, based on scripture or otherwise, why we should bind our conscience with scripture alone?

I would be glad to take up this challenge, God willing. However, I am not going to indulge your desire to remove one jot or tittle of Holy Scripture that supports our confidence that Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the final and sufficient rule of faith and practice for all Christians--namely, 2 Timothy 3:16. So it will be used in my defense.

As such, I will will make it my first line of defense because I find it to be the strongest. I will use the KJV for its quote:

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

Observations:

1. All Scripture is inspired. theopneustos literally, "God-breathed" which the NIV and ESV properly translate. It is regretable that it is often translated "inspired" as the word means "to breath into" which does not convey the meaning of the Greek here. All Scripture is "breathed-out" or "God-breathed" and not as if men had a divine epiphany and wrote their thoughts down.

This point cannot be emphasized enough, espeically in light of subject of Sola Scriptura. Scripture is not merely an inspired set of human writings. They are "..the creation of God, the breath of God, His very speaking." *1

2. The Scriptures are profitable. We do have a good translation of ophelimos, meaning profitable, able to give advantage, and valuable. And Scripture is profitable for...something...in order that..something. As one author remarked, "To put the matter formally, Scripture is profitable for x, in order that y. The variable x refers to “teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.” The variable y refers [to] adequacy and equipping believers. It is the y that Protestants point to as a clear declaration in Scripture of its own sufficiency." *2

3. The Scriptures are sufficient. I want to note that it is in this part of the verse that sufficiency is proved. Therefore, it is an erroneous rebut to say "The text says 'All Scripture' not 'Scripture Alone'" That portion of the text is not proving sufficiency, but the latter part does, the "y" if you will.

God is speaking to us and tells us that all Scripture is profitable THAT the man of God may be thoroughly furnished--exartizo. Most Greek dictionaries (Thayers, TDNT) provide words like "to complete, finish, to furnish completely, to accomplish" Webster defines sufficient as "enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end." *3 The proposed end for the man of God in 2 Tim 3:16-17 is that he may be complete "unto all good works."

We see then that our word/idea of sufficiency is present in the text--in the very speaking of God. God is telling us that His words are profitable to correct, rebuke, for doctine to instruct us in righteousness so that we may be fully furnished, equipped, for every good work.

This text doesn't simply imply sufficiency to the Scriptures, it SCREAMS it. God is telling us dear Christian, that His Word is enough!

Final thoughts.

1. This refutes the erronous notion that "Sola Scriptura" is no where to be found in Scripture.

2. The postitive declaration of 2 Tim 3:16-17 gives the Christian comfort and hope that he has all he needs in Scripture.

3. That the text does not say Scripture is the only sufficient guide is a false argument. It is an argument from silence. Also, it supports the Protestant position rather than destroys it. Such an argument tells a Protestant that he has every thing he needs in Scripture and does not need another sufficient guide. i.e. Tradition. In other words, I am in no danger by disregarding anyone's sacred tradition, papal or otherwise, since they have admitted that the Scripture is, indeed, sufficient.

4. I do not mean by this one post for it to be the only place of Scripture or reasoning in defence of Sola Scriptura, or that this is the sum of it. I may add more posts after this one upon other Scripture.

Edit: Forgot the references

*1. http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1193&catid=18
*2. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/SurprisedbyWhat.html
*3. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sufficient