2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Sola Scriptura

[mackbrislawn]

Moving forward, and since no one is arguing my above statements on 2 Tim 3:16, the Protestant position is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand

Are we in agreement then

Perhaps so, perhaps everything is presented clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand. Yes, that is a nice theory. But, in practice, it hasn’t worked out that way.

For instance, both Catholics and Protestants believe in the Trinity, and we both believe it is taught in the Bible. However, the Trinity must not be taught sufficiently clearly because Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses manage to convince a lot of people that the Bible does not teach it, but just the opposite.

In actual use, no one, no one, uses the scripture alone. An interpretive tradition is always carried along with us when we read the Bible. We might not even be aware of it, but it is always there, and unavoidable.

 

[bnapgh]

what I find most sad about Catholic theology is the lack of hope.

‘‘Hope’’ is relying on God’s almighty power and His infinite mercy and promises.

I seriously doubt that Catholics question this any more than Protestants. That is certainly not my experience.

Now since Catholics generally believe they must act with love through good works (see raison detre in the Timothy cite above), most Catholics know we are sinners and working for love less than we could.

theopneustos. God-breathed…is one of those words that only occurs in one place. hence, the basis for the Protestant “only.” No other source is theopneustos. no other source has the life-breath of God breathed into it.

First, is it logical to say that because any word is used only once, then that word is the only word to be trusted? You said there were other words used only once, please tell us what they are and whether you give them your ‘‘sole’’ reliance.

Second, while the word ‘‘theopneustos ‘‘ might be used only once, the entire concept is used in another place. I am no scripture scholar but didn’t God ‘‘breath life’’ into Adam’s soul in Genesis

Genesis 2:7 ‘‘And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.’’

or if you prefer

7 Formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terræ, et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitæ, et factus est homo in animam viventem.

Hence, if I may, everything else is “dead.”

Wouldn’t that make ‘‘man’’ himself ‘‘alive’’ and, using your logic, wouldn’t it thus mean man’s reason is endowed with those same attributes?

theopneustos. God-breathed…is one of those words that only occurs in one place. **hence, the basis for the Protestant “only.” ** No other source is theopneustos. no other source has the life-breath of God breathed into it.

Using your logic then anything that has God’s breath breathed into it is also reliable. Thus, since man and his reason have God’s breath breathed into it, you must also look to Man and his understanding, no?

Why us(e) anything but the theopneustos Scripture alone?

In logic one should never go from the particular to the universal. Just because Scripture is good, it does not justify excluding other ‘‘good’’ things God made. Shouldn’t we harvest from all God’s good vineyards? Shouldn’t one listen and read how His Apostles’ successors interpret Scripture before making one’s own judgment?

you can’t explain the grammar without using the word “only” somewhere in your explanation.

First, I never heard that rule of grammar, i.e. if a word is used only once then the word ‘‘only’’ must be included in its interpretation. Second, I certainly hope you are not betting your soul on your own skills with grammar.

Since Jesus gave all His ‘‘disciples’’ the ability to rely (without risk to their souls) on the judgment of His '‘Apostles’’ regarding ‘‘sins’’, would it not be prudent, when you are forming your own judgment about sin, to give some extra weight to the Scriptural interpretations made by His Apostles, if you could?

Then, if so, would it not be prudent, when you are forming your own judgment about sin, to give some extra weight to the Scriptural interpretations made by those who personally knew them and heard their interpretations?

Then, if so, would it not be prudent, when you are forming your own judgment about sin, to give some extra weight to the Scriptural interpretations made by those whom the Apostles’ themselves chose to succeed them?

Then, if so, would it not be prudent, when you are forming your own judgment about sin, to give some extra weight to the Scriptural interpretations made by those whom the Apostles’ successors chose to succeed them?

In other words, why ‘‘bet the ranch’’ (your soul) on your own reason and not that of His chosen ones? You wouldn’t do that with your money, you would diversify, not put all of your eggs in one basket.

 

[bnapgh]

As Paul mentored Timothy,he was very aware that what he was writing and teaching young Timothy was Scripture. Timothy was to continue in the things he learned from Paul.

So if I understand you, Timothy gained insights from Paul through not only Paul’s writings but also his teachings?

Timothy was to continue in the things he learned from Paul.

From this it seems you believe , then, that the disciples were to rely on how Timothy interpreted what Paul wrote. Is this correct?

After all, Timothy will take over the pastorate at Ephesus….

Please explain why this is important.

 

[bnapgh]

A scalpel is useful for doing surgery (piercing soul and marrow). But not “only” a scalpel can cut skin, a flint, a hand saw, an ax.

Hmmmm? If ‘‘not ‘only’ a scalpel can cut skin’’ then it is NOT the ‘‘sole’’ option!

Heb 4:12 The Word of God is living and active, sharper than a double edged sword, able to pierce soul and marrow.

Please help me identify which of these words means ‘‘only’’ or ‘‘sole’’ in Greek or Latin or Hebrew.

Only the Word of God can get into the soul to perform its intended work. … You have to use specific tools for specific results.

Now if you went into surgery, would you ask the surgeon to ONLY use a scalpel or would you want him to also use things like clamps and forceps? Did God have ‘‘intended work’’ for his Apostles?

Anything else could be detrimental.

OR it COULD be helpful.

A person would be a fool to use a nail gun to finish furniture, it’d blast it to pieces!

If a doctor used a scalpel to open one’s surgical wound, would a person be a fool to let him use that same scalpel to ‘‘finish’’ or close the surgical wound? It’d cut ‘‘it to pieces’’!

Same with the Scriptures. The Scriptures, and only the Scriptures, can be used to complete the man of God and thoroug(h)ly equip him for every good work.

If you laud the ‘‘man of God’’ being ‘‘thoroug(h)’’, then why would you restrict him from God’s other good sources? How is that ‘‘thoroug(h)’’? How is it ‘‘complete’’?

using anything but the Scripture alone might destroy lives rather than save them.

Have you ever used anything other than Scripture before forming your judgment? Have you ever talked to others? Have your ever read others’ interpretations?

If so, did their advice destroy your spiritual life?

If you have ever consulted others before forming your own judgment, what criteria did you use for choosing them?

 

[bnapgh]

70% of communication is non-verbal.

Hmmmm? If what you say is so, then 70% of Christ’s message to His Church was not written in Scripture. Right?

 

[bnapgh]

Even if this were true, it begs the question of, what is “all scripture”?

This is off-topic, but a personal peeve of mine and a point of clarification. Despite the current media’s misappropriation of the phrase ‘‘begging the question’’, it does NOT mean pleading that someone ask the question.

In Philosophy, ‘begging the question’’ means a fallacy from circular reasoning by restating a proposition in a vain attempt to prove it.

Begging a Question There is an index a few inches from the top. ‘‘Begging a question’’ is in alphabetical order.

Please take this as loving constructive feedback.

Thanks!

 

[Harmony1988]

I didn’t pay attention to this topic as ‘someone’ said that they didn’t want to debate it anymore, now to see it’s resurged. Oh well

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marco, I think I’m done on this one

I agree, I don’t think we were getting anywhere. See you on the forums!

 

[mackbrislawn]

This is off-topic, but a personal peeve of mine and a point of clarification. Despite the current media’s misappropriation of the phrase ‘‘begging the question’’, it does NOT mean pleading that someone ask the question.

In Philosophy, ‘begging the question’’ means a fallacy from circular reasoning by restating a proposition in a vain attempt to prove it.

Begging a Question There is an index a few inches from the top. ‘‘Begging a question’’ is in alphabetical order.

Please take this as loving constructive feedback.

Thanks!

To once again use the phrase incorrectly, this is again begging the question.

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

Sola, I’m not sold on your idea that the term “Scripture” here means anything more than the OT. Here’s why:

1. Why would Paul think he was teaching Timothy scripture? To two educated, Jewish men like Paul and Timothy, “Scripture” meant the Torah, the OT. Period, end of story. Just like when you and I say “Bible” we mean the OT and the NT together. When you say Bible, you don’t mean, for example, the written Bible and the writtings of Billy Grahm appended onto it, right? A good Jew would never dream of adding books onto the Torah, and Paul, while a Christian, still had a strong Jewish upbringing. He believed that Christ fulfilled the Torah, so Paul had nothing against the Torah; no reason to change it.
2. Not all of Paul’s writings are in the Bible. How was Timothy to know which of his writings were “Scripture” and which were not? Paul didn’t know. Neither did Timothy. It wasn’t decided until almost 400 AD.
3. Not all of the NT books were written while Paul was writing. The Gosepls weren’t even done yet. How can Paul mean Scripture is OT + NT when the NT wasn’t even written yet, much less determined?

I’d also like to hear your defense of the argument of Authority that Harmoney quoted of me a few posts ago. but for now I’d like more explanation of why you think Paul is, in the 50’s AD, refering to the Bible that wasn’t in its current form until almost 400 AD?

These were some great points. I’ve been formulating a response for a few days…here’s my thoughts as promised

1. Why would Paul think he was teaching Timothy scripture? To two educated, Jewish men like Paul and Timothy, “Scripture” meant the Torah, the OT. Period, end of story. Just like when you and I say “Bible” we mean the OT and the NT together. When you say Bible, you don’t mean, for example, the written Bible and the writtings of Billy Grahm appended onto it, right? A good Jew would never dream of adding books onto the Torah, and Paul, while a Christian, still had a strong Jewish upbringing. He believed that Christ fulfilled the Torah, so Paul had nothing against the Torah; no reason to change it.

First, I believe the apostles, including Paul, were fully aware of their apostolic authority, and aware that what they communicated was prophetic and carried divine authority. Paul knew he was writing Scripture…the thing is…you, as a Roman Catholic (as indicated in your profile), should believe this too!! You should not be asking the question, “why would Paul think he was teaching Timothy Scripture,” for its just as much the basis of your beliefs that Paul spoke/wrote revelation as it is mine. Catholics believe in apostolic authority . Catholics believe in apostolic revelation. Catholics even affirm biblical inspiration. Our difference is not inspiration, but how that revelation is transmitted down through the ages and what is authoritiative for the church today.

Here are a few verses indicating the apostles awareness that they were speaking on behalf of God:

1 Thes 2:13 “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, becuase when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.”

Rom 2:6-7 “I was appointed a preacher and an apostle- I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying- a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”

Gal 1:8 “Even if we , or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”

The apostles knew they were speaking God’s Word and that it was authoritative. The difference is, Protestants believe this authority was transmitted only scripture, not scripture and oral tradition. We believe this b/c Paul says

“If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor 14:37).

“Learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.” (1 Cor 4:6-7)

The written word is the only authoritative truth. It is necessary for God’s truth to be preserved in written form, because of the inability of sinners to preserve oral tradition without corruption. Malfunctions of memory, observation, or reasoning can impact the integrity of divine revelation.

1. Not all of Paul’s writings are in the Bible. How was Timothy to know which of his writings were “Scripture” and which were not? Paul didn’t know. Neither did Timothy. It wasn’t decided until almost 400 AD.

Peter knew!
2 Pet 3:15-16 “Our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles…which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”

Peter’s reference to the rest of the Scriptures indicates Paul’s epistles were already viewed as Scripture by the time Peter wrote in 67 ad. 2 Timothy was finished around the exact same time, so possibly within months we have Peter affirming Paul’s epistles as Scripture.

Also, the fact that distorting Paul’s writings leads to eternal damnation proves taht Paul’s writings were inspired of God.

Peter knew that the NT writers brought the divine truth that completed the Bible. 1 Pet 1:10-12

1. Not all of the NT books were written while Paul was writing. The Gosepls weren’t even done yet. How can Paul mean Scripture is OT + NT when the NT wasn’t even written yet, much less determined?

Fascinating point…Let’s do this on the next post

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

Continued from previous post

1. Not all of the NT books were written while Paul was writing. The Gosepls weren’t even done yet. How can Paul mean Scripture is OT + NT when the NT wasn’t even written yet, much less determined?

After researching this, I think your question here goes deeper than I think you might realize. It centers on the term “graphe.” For the sake of faithful exegesis, I think I must accept your point, and agree that “Scriptures” (graphe) here refers to the OT, which is probably a slight shift from the position I took very early on this thread.

However, there is an important caveat. I think we can still teach NT inspiration from this passage. This will require a linear argument.

All Scripture is God-breathed.
The OT is Scripture (as taught here in 2 Tim 3:16)
The OT is God-breathed.

so if I can prove the NT is Scripture, the same logic should apply, right?

In 2 Pet 3:16 (quoted in previous post), Peter shows not only an awareness of the existence of written epistles from Paul, but also a clear willingness to classify “all of his [Paul’s] epistle” with “the other Scriptues.” This is an indication that very early in the history of the church all of Paul’s epistles were considered to be God’s written words in teh same sense the OT texts were.

Similary, in 1 tim 5:18, Paul quotes Jesus’ words as found in Luke 10:7 (the laborer is worthy of his wages) and calls them “Scripture”

SO during the time of the writing of the NT there was an awareness that additions were being made to this special category of writings called “Scripture.”

So…
If the NT writings were considered Scripture
And if all Scripture is God-breathed,
then the NT is God-breathed.

Other places in the NT indicated that the apostles knew they were writing Scripture, like 1 Cor 14:37.

 

[Harmony1988]

No biggie on the Greek, but weren’t you the one accusing me for not knowing Greek earlier? On “the biggest leap of logic”…what about evolution? nobody + nothing = everything. easy on the superlatives

I didn’t say I didn’t know any Greek, so your conclusion is faulty, due to you misinterpreting the premise. Also your conclusion has nothing to do with the actual Greek term.

The point of this statement in Jn 20:30 is to emphasize the superiority and greatness of Christ. It says NOTHING about tradition.

Does scripture say this? To indicate the ‘greatness’ of Christ? I think scripture has already done this many, many times before John. You adhere to sola scriptura, stick to that, that line says nothing about ‘greatness’ - what it does say though is ‘there are other things’ - so other things not in the Bible.

However, the very next verse does emphasize that “these are WRITTEN that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Yea so how does this indicate specifically about greatness? It doesn’t mean the word great, so therefore don’t use it. Sola scriptura. By SCRIPTURE ALONE

In fact, you’ve just pointed out a verse that makes the Protestant point quite clearly.

Incorrect, especially when the verse says nothing about ‘greatness’ - I agree Christ is great, but it doesn’t say that in the verse, you added, you.

What John is saying is that, yes, Christ did a ton more than what he has recorded, but what He has recorded is sufficient for “belief” and “life” in Christ, the purpose of His gospel.

Therefore he did a lot more other stuff, then there are things not written down, pointing to things which the disciples have known but not necessarily in scripture, but things they passed down through tradition.

If I may use your term “leap,” the statements in bold are quite a leap. The Scriptures were Scripture when they were written. They were written to churches (Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome). They were just as much Scripture the moment the churches received and circulated them as they were 370 years later at the councils. SUre, the original recipients may not have possessed leather-bound Bibles, but they still had the theopneustos Scriptures.

It’s not scripture when it’s not written down, it’s a teaching, it’s a tradition until it’s written down. The fact that scripture itself indicates that other things happened indicates there is revelation external to scripture.

I’m not sure I get your point. Are you saying the Scriptures were inspired when they were penned, then for a while they went stealth, then they were inspired Scripture again when the councils waived their magic wand?

No…you do realize that from 33 A.D to 370 A.D. meant that all the disciples were dead by then? How did the bishops work out what to include and what not to include? Yes, they waved their magic wand, that must have been it. Good one.

The Word of God (written, incarnate, and preached by the Apostles) begat the church, not vica versa. As the apostles, with their unique gifts and authority, faded out, the Canon faded in as our sole rule of authority and faith.

Yes, but scripture is when it was written down, that didn’t come abotu until later. Infact even what Paul wrote was about 20 years after Christ, until something takes physical manifestation such as scripture, it remains oral tradition. 1 Timothy 3:15 - ‘the pillar and bulwark of the truth is scripture’? NO, it says the CHURCH, why? Because it’s the church that interpreted what was to be scripture by the guidance of the holy spirit.

For further clarity, not chapter 1, article 1 of the Westminster Confession here

I’m not going to go reading through documents worth of material, point out the important bits here.

 

[Harmony1988]

These were some great points. I’ve been formulating a response for a few days…here’s my thoughts as promised

“If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor 14:37).

Fascinating point…Let’s do this on the next post

I’m not going to respond to your post as a whole because I haven’t been in touch with this thread for a while so I have no idea what you are going on about, however I did catch this little bit. Funny you use Paul here, since Paul ‘wrote’ this stuff before the gospels were written, he was obviously talking about the OT.

Therefore he is only referring to the commandments of the Lord from the OT, a lot of which doesn’t exist anymore for Christians under the new covenant, issues such as tatooing, so this is a very vague verse to prove your point. Especially since he was referring the OT.

 

[Harmony1988]

I think the best bit with sola scriptura is the man that brought this movement going was angry with the gospel of James. i.e. martin luther.

Some quotes from him from a protestant source:

“God does not work salvation for fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin vigorously… Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice; sin must be committed.”

“Sin cannot tear you away from him [Christ], even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders.”

SO you see guys, what we are dealing with here?

There is more:

“I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist.”

“I maintain that some Jew wrote it [the Book of James] who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.”

When the very roots of Protestantism got it wrong, you can be sure that the conclusion will follow suit. All that results is conjectural notions, contradicting 1500 years of theology. A contradiction that Christ would be with the Church always. Protestantism implies that Christ was with the Church from the year 1500 onwards.

sullivan-county.com/id3/luther1.htm

 

[bnapgh]

Our difference is …how that revelation is transmitted down through the ages and what is authoritiative {sic} for the church today.

Agreed!

Here are a few verses indicating the apostles awareness that they were speaking on behalf of God:

1 Thes 2:13 “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, becuase when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.”

Rom 2:6-7 “I was appointed a preacher and an apostle- I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying- a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”

The apostles knew they were speaking God’s Word and that it was authoritative. The difference is, Protestants believe this authority was transmitted

only (by) scripture, not scripture and oral tradition. We believe this b/c Paul says

“If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor 14:37).

You said they were ‘‘speaking’’ not ‘‘writing’’ on behalf of God.

The verse speaks of ‘‘the word of God which you heard from us.’’ ‘‘Heard,’’ not ‘‘read’’.

Now I must take some issue with your translation of (1 Cor 4:6-7). You wrote:

“Learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.” (1 Cor 4:6-7)

I am attaching a link to the original Latin and the early translation:

1 Corinthians Chapter 4
1 Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. 2 Here now it is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful. 3 But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you or by man’s day. But neither do I judge my own self. 4 For I am not conscious to myself of anything. Yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5 Therefore, judge not before the time: until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall every man have praise from God. 6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes: that in us you may learn that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written. 7 For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received, and if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
8 You are now full: you are now become rich: you reign without us; and I would to God you did reign, that we also might reign with you. 9 For I think that God hath set forth us apostles, the last, as it were men appointed to death. We are made a spectacle to the world and to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ: we are weak, but you are strong: you are honourable, but we without honour. 11 Even unto this hour we both hunger and thirst and are naked and are buffeted and have no fixed abode. 12 And we labour, working with our own hands. We are reviled: and we bless. We are persecuted: and we suffer it. 13 We are blasphemed: and we entreat. We are made as the refuse of this world, the offscouring of all, even until now.

This says his disciples should trust Apollo, Timothy and the other ‘‘ministers’’ and, like them, the disciples should not be ‘‘puffed up versus another’’, putting themselves {as laymen} above the writing.

The written word is the only authoritative truth. It is necessary for God’s truth to be preserved in written form, because of the inability of sinners to preserve oral tradition without corruption. Malfunctions of memory, observation, or reasoning can impact the integrity of divine revelation.

The Church is not some rag-tag group of corrupted ‘‘sinners’’. Most of the Scriptures you rightly revere were in fact preserved by that Church for dozens, if not hundreds, of years in ‘‘oral’’ form before they were carefully transcribed and faithfully preserved. In fact, much of what the Church uses as ‘‘tradition’’ was also transcribed either soon afetr it was originated or about the same time as the very Scriptures were and, therefore, are no more liable to ‘‘malfunctions of memory’’ or ‘‘corruption’’ than what you revere now.

To be continued below.

 

[bnapgh]

Continued from post above

Peter knew!

2 Pet 3:15-16 “Our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles…which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”

Again I must take issue with your purposeful omission of the phrase ‘‘in which are certain things hard to be understood’’
newadvent.org/bible/2pe003.htm

15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. 18 But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity, Amen.

Peter is emphasizing that there are certain things in the writings that can be hard for the untrained to understand, and so the disciples must be careful of the ‘‘unlearned and unstable’’ (i.e. those not in the line of Apostolic succession) who could easily get it wrong.

Finally, I enjoyed your link to the Westminster Confession.

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I. Although … nature… and providence manifest the … wisdom,…yet are they not sufficient {ed: not ‘‘not necessary’’} to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation… it pleased the Lord, at sundry times… to reveal Himself, and {ED: i} to declare that {ED: this?} His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving … of the truth, and for the more sure … comfort … against … corruption {ed: ii} to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary ; …God’s revealing …being now ceased. …

I confess, like most Catholics I suspect, this is the first time I have seen the Westminster Confession of Faith. Is this the basis for your position? I found its history interesting. bible-researcher.com/wescon01.html Who among these Parliamentary appointees do you suppose authored this? Did the author(s) claim to be Divinely inspired? I don’t think he/they were within the line of Apostolic succession, do you? Was the Scottish parliament the authority by which it was promulgated? Wouldn’t you have preferred a synod or a council? Why do you suppose the Church of England condemned it?

Whoever wrote The Westminster Confession of Faith, it does not seem to preach * Sola Scriptura * but *prima Scriptura * as does the Catholic Church. The wording here is a little cumbersome, but it is still clearly comparative, not absolute in its dictum.

When it states ‘‘yet are they not sufficient’’, is it attesting to nature and works’ sufficiency or stating that they are not sufficient? Usually in today’s rhetoric when a writer says ‘‘are they not?’’ he is affirming his belief that they in fact are {e.g. ‘‘these are the rules, are they not?’’}.

But either way, the writer is obviously quite sensitive to the differences between the words ‘‘necessary’’ and ‘‘sufficient’’ — unlike some on this board — and the author goes on to state that this Confession ‘‘makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary’’. IMO this gives four proofs of my conclusion the author did not intend Scriptures to be the sole source.
(1) The author did not say that Scriptures are ‘‘sufficient’’ but rather they are ‘‘necessary’’ (even though the author was sensitive to the differences);
(2) The author said that Scriptures were ‘‘most necessary’’ — the superlative — which means there is something less necessary but thereby still necessary;
(3) The author writes that writing is for the ‘‘better preserving’’, which again is comparative, so other things are also thought to be preserving; and,
(4) The author further states that ‘‘to commit the same wholly unto writing ‘‘ was the ‘‘more sure … comfort … against … corruption’’ — again using the comparative ‘‘more’’ not the absolute ‘‘only’’.

Would you agree?

BTW, when you have time I would love responses to my earlier posts #62, #63, #64, #65, #66 above.

#62

Especially #65

#65

Thanks!

 

[Holly3278]

Very good Marco. Excellent, you infact disproved it with their own bible translation

I also noticed quite a bit that Protestants love to randomnly add the words ‘only’ into scripture, it has led many to great confusion.

What exactly are you talking about? I have never seen a Protestant randomly add the word “only” into scripture.

 

[bnapgh]

I must accept your point, and agree that “Scriptures” (graphe) here refers to the OT

This will require a linear argument.

All Scripture is God-breathed.
The OT is Scripture (as taught here in 2 Tim 3:16)
The OT is God-breathed.

so if I can prove the NT is Scripture, the same logic should apply, right?

SO during the time of the writing of the NT there was an awareness that additions were being made to this special category of writings called “Scripture.”

So…
If the NT writings were considered Scripture
And if all Scripture is God-breathed,
then the NT is God-breathed.

Whoa, boy!

First, thank you for conceding the point that most others were trying to teach you: that the quotes you were using were specifcally referencing the Old Testament, then they should not ‘‘literally’’ be applied to the New Testament. This shows two things:

(1) you are willing to learn; and,

(2) a learned man like yourself can make errors in interpretation of writings that (as you, yourself, highlighted) Peter said can be ‘‘hard to be understood’’.

So if one such as you can make errors in interpretation, shouldn’t we follow Peter & Paul’s advice and listen attentively to the interpretations made by those ‘‘ministers of Christ’’ chosen and annointed by these very Apostles, themselves?

BTW I think the term is syllogism, not linear.

I do not believe anyone here disputed that the Gospels were Scripture.

That said, the teachings were added just as the writings were added.

No one is saying one should ever ignore scripture, but rather one should not bet his or her eternal soul that what ‘‘seems to them’’ to be an obvious interpretation of Scripture might not really be the same one God wants you to believe.

The Church does not say that all of its teachings are always infallible, but Jesus did say that this Church’s interpretations are always ‘‘sufficient’’ for Christians to rely on, without fear that any error in doing so is a sin, or at least one that will not ‘‘be forgiven them’’.

God bless!

 

[Harmony1988]

What exactly are you talking about? I have never seen a Protestant randomly add the word “only” into scripture.

I don’t mean literally that they change the scripture to only. But when explaining ‘sola fide’ or ‘sola scriptura’

I heard the word ‘only’ pop up a lot whereas no where in the Bible does it say ‘faith only’ in an assertion to sola fide. Same goes for sola scriptura.

It’s rather contradictory to say ‘by scripture alone’ and then not have the bible actually say it. That’s what I meant.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t mean literally that they change the scripture to only. But when explaining ‘sola fide’ or ‘sola scriptura’

I heard the word ‘only’ pop up a lot whereas no where in the Bible does it say ‘faith only’ in an assertion to sola fide. Same goes for sola scriptura.

It’s rather contradictory to say ‘by scripture alone’ and then not have the bible actually say it. That’s what I meant.

I think you may have been referencing post #12 or other figurative impositions of the word “sola” in that verse by playing with the Greek. Another example.