Do these verses prove Sola Scriptura?

[tobias]

The last paragraph is not accurate. Jesus quoted from O.T.
SCRIPTURE which was already written Jesus quotes from
DEUT.8:3 , DEUT.6:16 AND 6:13. EVERY ORAL TRADITION
IS BASED ON THE WRITTEN SCRIPTURES.

I’m sorry, I was refering to ALL of Christ’s use of scripture in His teaching. i.e. ‘Have you not read that “the two shall become one flesh”, therefore what God has joined together let no man seperate.’ (paraphrase)
You may argue that most of Dueteronomy was written and then proclaimed, which is minority opinion, but it is incontravertable that Genesis was oral tradition before it was inscripturated, as Geneisis clearly notes that the patriarchs passed tradition on orally.

And I think you miss how the passing on of authority happened. ‘As the Father has sent me, so now I send you.’ How did the Father send Jesus; forgiving, healing, preaching, speaking with authority, with the Holy spirit, making disciples, making and commisioning apostles, teaching, instructing, rebuking.

I think your puttiing the chicken before the egg. First, revelation was made, then revalation was inscripturated. not the other way around.

 

[po18guy]

I love the ‘all, not only’ distinction, it had escaped me, I’m glad to learn it.

The demon is in the details!

May I also point out that most of the New Testament hadn’t been written when Paul offered this advice: by ‘scripture’, he would have meant the Hebrew scriptures, what we call ‘Old Testament’.

We frequently see evidence of “sola Pauline” theology. They very conveniently ignore the other inspired works.

So if he meant what the Sola Scriptura people claim, it would mean the New Testament isn’t needed, the ‘Old’ is enough without it.

You nailed it! Christ never quoted from the New Testament! Then, let’s throw it out, like the non-Cs do with the Deuterocanon!

 

[po18guy]

PETER 1-19-20 is about interpreting the scriptures privately w/o
the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT.

OK. So, why didn’t Peter say that? Even so, how can you possibly be certain which spirit you are listening to, since “many have gone out into this world”? Joseph Smith, Charles T. Russell, Jim Jones et al have claimed to have been lead by the spirit. And, they were all predicted as false prophets by Christ.

A person through prayer and
sincere intention can be guided to the truth. Jesus did not leave
any book because the HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME to inspire the
apostles (4) to** write the GOSPEL**. and teach them everything they need to know, to fulfill their mission.

Excuse me, but I cannot locate “Go forth and write scripture for all nations to read” in even my Protestant bible. Help me out here. This is pure Protestant error. The bible does nowhere say this! If you are going to rely on the bible, you cannot add meaning (interpretation) to it.

Christ placed Peter in charge. Christendom ever since has benefitted from his successor. Without the office of Pope - the stability and consistency that it brings, Christianity and scripture as we know it would no longer exist. Due to man’s ego, it would have been added to, taken away from, and re-interpreted by millions of individual “spirit-lead” individuals. I must be convinced of Protestant unity before I will ever consider sola scriptura.

Remember Jesus said Ask and it shall be given

Wasn’t this relating to graces, not scripture? Even if Christ was referring to “asking” for scripture (again, not in the bible), it was not to be dropped into a vacuum. It still needed an appointed leader to interpret and maintain unity.

The error of believing the bible to interpret itself is proved 30,000+ times in Protestantism. They all disagree, to varying extents, on the truth. Impossible! The demon delights in division.

Your profile says 'catholic" However, you appear to reject the authority that Christ gave solely to His Church. The bible came from that very authority. First the authority, then the scripture. If you are Protestant, and the evidence points that way, please say so! We love to teach them. We call them to unity, which is not found in sola scriptura.

 

[po18guy]

EVERY ORAL TRADITION
IS BASED ON THE WRITTEN SCRIPTURES.

100% backward! Every scripture is based on the oral tradition. Which came first?

The oral tradition is actually preferred: 2 John 1:12 “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”

**3 John 1:13-14 **“I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.”

I know that John is not a favorite of Protestants. He was only the favorite of Christ.

 

[po18guy]

Perhaps you are not aware of this but Curtis plans to become Catholic as soon as he can complete RCIA. He is going through it right now. So please pray for him.

Well, praise God! Will intercede on his behalf before Christ in the Blessed Sacrament this evening.

 

[lofktis14kr]

All Scripture is inspired by God(theopneustos)God-breathed. It is as if Paul is saying that the writers of the Scriptures were so inspired by God, it was as if God had breathed out the Words Himself. And as such, Paul is commending the divine authority of them. There is such a majesty and loftiness of their style, which in many places cannot be imitated by man. There is such granduer in them which so transcends human understanding that we can but barely grasp the meaning and profundity of its revelations.

Consider the trinity of persons in the Godhead; the incarnation of Christ; the death and resurrection, etc…

They are the holy and pure Words of the One who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. Since these are the Words of the only infallible and inerrant Being, these are to be esteemed as such. And since these claim exclusivity as the only writings so inspired by God, all other writings, are subservient to their scrutiny and judgment. Which means that all human tradition, which includes Church tradition, ought to be scrutinized by the most holy and perfect standard of Holy Script. The Scriptures alone are the Church’s ultimate rule of faith and practice, which does not mean that tradition is useless, but rather, when it is revealed by the scrutiny of God’s righteous standard that certain traditions fail to meet that standard, then the church, regardless of how much authority is vested to her by God, is duty-bound to submit herself to the rule of her Lord, Jesus Christ, and reform accordingly.

 

[po18guy]

All Scripture is inspired by God(theopneustos)God-breathed. It is as if Paul is saying that the writers of the Scriptures were so inspired by God, it was as if God had breathed out the Words Himself. And as such, Paul is commending the divine authority of them. There is such a majesty and loftiness of their style, which in many places cannot be imitated by man. There is such granduer in them which so transcends human understanding that we can but barely grasp the meaning and profundity of its revelations.

Consider the trinity of persons in the Godhead; the incarnation of Christ; the death and resurrection, etc…

They are the holy and pure Words of the One who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. Since these are the Words of the only infallible and inerrant Being, these are to be esteemed as such. And since these claim exclusivity as the only writings so inspired by God, all other writings, are subservient to their scrutiny and judgment. Which means that all human tradition, which includes Church tradition, ought to be scrutinized by the most holy and perfect standard of Holy Script. The Scriptures alone are the Church’s ultimate rule of faith and practice, which does not mean that tradition is useless, but rather, when it is revealed by the scrutiny of God’s righteous standard that certain traditions fail to meet that standard, then the church, regardless of how much authority is vested to her by God, is duty-bound to submit herself to the rule of her Lord, Jesus Christ, and reform accordingly.

You can speak of sola scriptura when it produces Protestant unity. Until then, the demon uses the bible to divide. No? Satan quoted scripture to Christ, but failed. He quotes it to man and succeeds.

Tradition, established by God, preceded and produced the bible. The bible tells you in several places that it is incomplete, and that face to face contact via the oral tradition was preferred to scripture. Now, what?

You’ve been cheated by “sola”.

 

[knightfall]

I agree with the first part of your reply,simply because christ commissioned 12 apostles to spread the Gospel. Matthias is simply a replacement.

Yes, Matthias is a replacement, but a replacement into what?

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. (KJV)

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take. (RV)

Scripture tells us that Matthias was a replacement into an office. It is reasonable to infer that if there was one replacement into that office, there may be others. You may disagree, but I would then ask you to cite the scripture reference which disproves the inference.

EVERY ORAL TRADITION IS BASED ON THE WRITTEN SCRIPTURES.

Really?

Mat 23 (KJV)
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Jesus here refers to an oral tradition that the Jews are familiar with. Could you point out where in the OT this is written? I couldn’t find this written anywhere in the OT. Incidentally, see this link for an interesting comparison between the Chair of Moses and the Chair of Peter.

Kind regards,
AJ

 

[lofktis14kr]

You can speak of sola scriptura when it produces Protestant unity. Until then, the demon uses the bible to divide. No? Satan quoted scripture to Christ, but failed. He quotes it to man and succeeds.

Tradition, established by God, preceded and produced the bible. The bible tells you in several places that it is incomplete, and that face to face contact via the oral tradition was preferred to scripture. Now, what?

You’ve been cheated by “sola”.

In 2 Tim. 3:16-4:3, Paul is using sola scriptura to promote unity as he charges Timothy to preach the Word. And the extent to which Timothy was to carry out this charge was, “in season and out of season.” Timothy was to have that Word which is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness always at the ready. So that he would be able to impress that Word upon his hearers at every opportunity.
And why? 4:3-4, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine…and they shall turn their ears away from the truth…” Timothy was to preach the Word in order to promote the unity of the Church. Paul isn’t addressing protestant versus catholic. He is addressing Truth versus fables.

Yes, the Devil does use Scripture to divide, and the reason He failed wasn’t because Jesus corrected Him by a face to face contact via the oral tradition. No, Christ rebuked the Devil as He said, “IT IS WRITTEN.” and used the Scriptures to expose Satan’s deceptive suggestions. Satan takes the Scriptures out of context, and we are to follow Jesus’ example to rebuke Satan with the Truth.
Christ rebuked the Pharisees for their ungrounded esteem of human tradition. “teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”(Mark 7:7)

The church’s responsibility is first and foremost to preach God-breathed Scripture.

 

[AlegreFe]

All Scripture is inspired by God(theopneustos)God-breathed.

Of course “All scripture is inspired by God.” No one is arguing that fact. But it does not say that ONLY Scripture is inspired by God.

Sola Scripture is a LIE. It does not exist in the bible. The bible does NOT teach Sola Scriptura.

It is as if Paul is saying that the writers of the Scriptures were so inspired by God, it was as if God had breathed out the Words Himself. And as such, Paul is commending the divine authority of them.

Neither is anyone denying the authority of Sacred Scripture. BUT the bible is NOT the ONLY authority. God is our ultimate authority and He sent His Son Jesus Christ not only to die for our sins but to also establish His Church, which is the Pillar & Foundation of Truth. 1 Timothy 3:15

Paul wrote all those letters/epistles to expound, explain, clarify on what he already PREACHED with his lips. Whatever was not in any of his letters just meant that those issues did not need any clarification. So it stands to say that all that was preached is called Sacred Tradition which is also inspired by God. The scriptures is NOT the ONLY thing inspired by God.

God revealed His Word in three parts/ways;

• 1. Sacred Scripture
• 1. Sacred Tradition
• 1. Sacred Teaching through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[savedsinner]

All Scripture is inspired by God(theopneustos)God-breathed. It is as if Paul is saying that the writers of the Scriptures were so inspired by God, it was as if God had breathed out the Words Himself. And as such, Paul is commending the divine authority of them. There is such a majesty and loftiness of their style, which in many places cannot be imitated by man. There is such granduer in them which so transcends human understanding that we can but barely grasp the meaning and profundity of its revelations.

Consider the trinity of persons in the Godhead; the incarnation of Christ; the death and resurrection, etc…

They are the holy and pure Words of the One who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. Since these are the Words of the only infallible and inerrant Being, these are to be esteemed as such. And since these claim exclusivity as the only writings so inspired by God, all other writings, are subservient to their scrutiny and judgment. Which means that all human tradition, which includes Church tradition, ought to be scrutinized by the most holy and perfect standard of Holy Script. The Scriptures alone are the Church’s ultimate rule of faith and practice, which does not mean that tradition is useless, but rather, when it is revealed by the scrutiny of God’s righteous standard that certain traditions fail to meet that standard, then the church, regardless of how much authority is vested to her by God, is duty-bound to submit herself to the rule of her Lord, Jesus Christ, and reform accordingly.

We all agree that the words of Scripture are inerrant, but what I am questioning is the interpretation of these words.
Shouldn’t there be one correct interpretation of these words so that the body of Christ will remain one?
Who is to say that the Seventh Day Adventist are not the ones interpreting these words correctly? or what of the Jehovah Witness, or the oneness Pentecostals, or the Baptists, or the Lutherans, or the Presbyterians, or the Catholics?

We all agree that everything that a Christian need to hold to are found in scripture, but they are not all clearly written as to not to confuse the reader, even if he prays to be led by the Holy Spirit to understand.
That is why St. Peter warns us that the writings of St. Paul can be misinterpreted and twisted to give the reader an understanding that St. Paul didn’t intend.

 

[lofktis14kr]

Part of recognizing the sufficiency of the Scriptures is by interpreting Scripture with Scripture. This is called exegesis. It means to interpret the text from its context, letting the Scriptures interpret themselves. Isogesis is what happens when the interpreter tries to make the text fit his preconcieved notions.ie tradition which doesn’t square with the whole of Scripture.
This is why cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses need the Watchtower association, and the Mormons need the Book of Mormon. They say that the Scriptures are an insufficient to guide in all matters of faith and practice.

Again, this does not mean that it is wrong for the church to hold to creeds and confessions. No, they are very useful. But if we discover that our understanding of Scripture is wrong, whether doctrine or practice, then we need to reform accordingly. That is why Protestants(in the true sense of the term) say that a reformed church is always reforming. Our commitment to the will of God as revealed in the Scripture constrains us. We repudiate the notion that the church has the liberty to teach traditions which contradict the Word.

 

[AlegreFe]

Part of recognizing the sufficiency of the Scriptures is by interpreting Scripture with Scripture. This is called exegesis. It means to interpret the text from its context, letting the Scriptures interpret themselves. Isogesis is what happens when the interpreter tries to make the text fit his preconcieved notions.ie tradition which doesn’t square with the whole of Scripture.
This is why cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses need the Watchtower association, and the Mormons need the Book of Mormon. They say that the Scriptures are an insufficient to guide in all matters of faith and practice. It IS insufficient as Sacred Tradition is also needed; not their JW ‘traditions’ or Mormon ‘traditions,’ but the Sacred Traditions as passed on by the Apostles & Jesus Christ in HIS Catholic Church.

Again, this does not mean that it is wrong for the church to hold to creeds and confessions. No, they are very useful. But if we discover that our understanding of Scripture is wrong, whether doctrine or practice, then we need to reform accordingly. That is why Protestants(in the true sense of the term) say that a reformed church is always reforming. Our commitment to the will of God as revealed in the Scripture constrains us. We repudiate the notion that the church has the liberty to teach traditions which contradict the Word.

:ehh: You seem to say a lot and you want to sound intelligent with your many words. The first part of your post is true. But it is true of the Catholic Church and how they teach & interpret Scripture. Do you read and take into account the WHOLE Bible? Old and New Testament? ALL books of the Bible? Do you take that into consideration when even reading one little verse? There is no way that a lone man or a lone protestant church can interpret scripture as we all know that scripture cannot be left up to private interpretation.

In the second part of your post you try to skirt your way around the fact that you believe in Sola Scriptura. With that post you are saying something else. Make up your mind. Sola Scriptura or not?

The Catholic Church does NOT teach traditions which contradict the Word. The Word is Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ cannot be limited to words on a page in a book. Without the Church’s teaching the bible is a ‘dead letter.’

As far as my comment in your quote in dark red, the scripture verse says that
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,”
It says “profitable” and some translations say “useful” but none say sufficient. Not only that, it says “All scripture is inspired…” it does not say ONLY scripture is inspired.

 

[po18guy]

The church’s responsibility is first and foremost to preach God-breathed Scripture.

First: Scripture does not say this, so I am wondering why you believe it.

The Gospel is Jesus Christ. He is superior to scripture. Just where does the bible say that everything must be written? It does not. Where did Christ command that anything be written? He did not. Why didn’t Christ write scripture? He had something infinitely better: the Holy Spirit. He breathed the Spirit upon the Apostles, who wrote some things down, but far from everything.

Christ never said “He who hears you reading hears me.” So, why do so many Christians believe this? We are so thankful for Sacred Scripture, but it is not everything. The Catholic Church offers much more - but only to those hearts which are open to follow Christ wherever He leads them.

The demon uses sola scriptura to divide and weaken the Body of Christ. It is the most diabolical, and successful idea that he ever had. He appealed to man’s ego, just as he did at Eden. It worked then, and works to this day.

God bless you for your faith! Just know that there is much more waiting for those who keep seeking.

Christ’s peace.

 

[GailMac]

So, some of this thread has begun to question Apostolic Tradition. Where in the Bible does it say that God didn’t preserve His Church? And who doesn’t want to be in Her?

The “God-breathed” stuff still doesn’t wash with me.

Originally Posted by lofktis14kr
“The church’s responsibility is first and foremost to preach God-breathed Scripture.”

So Lofktis, why do you want to be the person determining what God breathed and didn’t? So you can narrow down the gate you want to walk a few folks away from His Church with and then what happens you keep them from living His Life in favor of your personal excuses for mayhem and madness.

Correction - God breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit whose sins you forgive are forgiven and those you hold bound and held bound. While He’s been building all these years, waiting patiently for some of those in this thread to come home, you have been treating His words as if they’re a personal excuse from living the life He wills for you.

Peace,

Gail

 

[onenow1]

In truth, Sola Scriptura simply is not workable in order to resolve non-Biblical moral questions which are bound to arise from time to time. Holy Scripture is exactly what it says it is in 2Timothy 3:16, ‘All Scripture is useful for teaching’. It is a teaching tool, but it does not say it is the only teaching tool. That is why Scripture is sorely lacking for new issues which arise outside of its scope, and one of the main reasons why Jesus Christ founded an authoritative teaching Church.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[ziapueblo]

In 2 Tim. 3:16-4:3, Paul is using sola scriptura to promote unity as he charges Timothy to preach the Word.

Is he? What about the two previous verses, “But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them;”, St. Paul appeals to Apostolic Tradition before there is an appeal to Scripture.

Verse 15, “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus,” the Scriptures that St. Paul is appealing to is the Old Testament. All the writings of the New Testament had not even been written at the time that St. Paul is writing to St. Timothy. Are you saying that the Old Testament by itself is sufficient?

And the extent to which Timothy was to carry out this charge was, “in season and out of season.” Timothy was to have that Word which is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness always at the ready. So that he would be able to impress that Word upon his hearers at every opportunity.

You are correct. The written Word of God is useful for all that you had mentioned. The Greek word used in 2 Timothy 3:16 is ophelimos which only means useful, not sufficient, not exclusive.

And why? 4:3-4, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine…and they shall turn their ears away from the truth…” Timothy was to preach the Word in order to promote the unity of the Church. Paul isn’t addressing protestant versus catholic. He is addressing Truth versus fables.

I agree with you. Timothy has to preach the Truth. I do not remember Jesus telling His Apostles to “go out and write the Bible and make sure you hand one out to every single person.” Jesus said, Matthew 28:19-20, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

Christ rebuked the Pharisees for their ungrounded esteem of human tradition. “teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”(Mark 7:7)

That is because the doctrines and commandments here are contrary to the law of God such as neglecting parents, under pretense of giving to God. Sacred Tradition is not contrary to God’s law.

 

[caspianrex]

Okay, I’m going out on a limb here. Even though I consider myself a Protestant, I don’t think Sola Scriptura is a viable doctrine. Yeah, I know, that doesn’t make me a very good Protestant, but there you are.
I don’t believe there is any support for Sola Scriptura in Scripture itself. We read so many accounts of Jesus saying, “but I tell you…” That essentially negates Sola Scriptura. If Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura, wouldn’t he just say, “Hey, it’s all there in the Scripture” and then repeat what the Hebrew Scriptures said? No, he quotes Scripture, and then reinterprets, based on his higher authority.
Many of my Protestant brethren and sistren love to quote the verse from 2 Tim. that opened this thread, but there are a couple problems with that approach. First of all, there was no New Testament when Paul wrote the letter to Timothy, so if it proved anything, it would only be that the OT is authoritative. Furthermore, no one can agree on whether the translation should read “All scripture is God-breathed,” or “All scripture which is God-breathed.” Either is a possibility. Finally, in the same letter, Paul tells Timothy to hold firm to what he has been taught, implying that there is more to that teaching than just what he has read.
No, I don’t think there is any support for Sola Scriptura in the Scriptures. I hope they don’t revoke my Protestant union card…

Cory Howell
Nashville, TN

 

[GailMac]

Dear Alegrefe - You state:"Gail, I realize that Paul meant only the OT because there was no NT at that time. Did you not read that in my comment?

But you cannot say that the NT is NOT God breathed. The New Testament IS God breathed, do you not agree with that? That is the only thing I meant by my previous comment. I did not mean that Paul meant the NT also."

No, Sandy I didn’t read in your post that you meant something other than what you wrote. If you are thinking that both the Old Testament and the New are inspired, you could try enlarging your perspective to include newer letters written - we call them Encyclicals. I’d hope you’d try at least. The Holy Spirit has been writing through the Church for 2000 years, some orally some actually recorded down and handed down and if you can stand it…perhaps He is even writing in your life with you! What will you do? Say yes? His will is kept in His Church.

Perhaps you need this - God made a Promise called a Sacrament. It is found for you in Confession. It is His Mercy coming to your poor soul to help you stratighten out your thinking. Imagine that, Sandy, His Blood washing away all your sins, restoring your soul to it’s Baptismal state. But perhaps you have only partial contrition. Do you think His Blood cannot do the rest for you? Then you need to learn a few more things about the Sacrament of Mercy. All your mortal sins must be confessed. So, sit down and think back over your life and perhaps you’ll find where you are in most need of His Mercy. Write it down and bring it to the Church. If it is your first Confession, trust His priest to help you get it right. It is his sacred obligation to help you. That is what he is ordained to do. Then perhaps in time, you’ll be able to accept another Sacrament called Confirmation. But before then you could receive the Eucharist if your Confessor says you may. Are there others in your life who are trying to stop you from having God’s will in your life? Let me know, if you can.

Peace,

Gail

 

[GailMac]

P.S. Imagine this fact a little bit - All those words made flesh in a miracle we call the Eucharist!
A living breathing Bible! Kept for you in the Church through thousands of Sacraments coming together to give God His will with your poor soul for thousands of years and all you have to do is bring your will into subjection to His!

Peace,

Gail