Does 2 Tim 3:16-17 support Sola Scriptura?

[Ginger2]

So is this the official, authoritative definition of sola scriptura that all Protestant communities believe?

How would I know what every non-catholic believes? To claim that would be un-biblical.

I derive my definition from Scripture - several verse, not just one.

 

[DarkMark]

No. I only quote Church Fathers because Catholics hold them in such high regard. It is obvious that they didn’t always agree with each other - nor always interpret a specific verse in the exact same way. But they loved each other despite minor differences of opinion.

Too bad Catholics and Protestants can’t do the same.

If we both believe the same basic and essential Christian doctrines, what difference does it make if, for example, I don’t believe in praying to the saints in heaven, but prefer to speak with God directly?

If that is the case you would have not try to prove Sola Scriptural, since it is not a basic and essential Christian doctrine (only 500 years old). It was you who responded to my post trying to prove something, which you fail to do.

Second, most Catholic and Protestants do not hate each other. I know I do not hate Protestants.

 

[HailMary]

How would I know what every non-catholic believes? To claim that would be un-biblical.

I derive my definition from Scripture - several verse, not just one.

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical.

For any protestant courageous enough to read this, good for you (yes, it does take courage and humility to admit that you could be wrong).

 

[clmowry]

No. I only quote Church Fathers because Catholics hold them in such high regard. It is obvious that they didn’t always agree with each other - nor always interpret a specific verse in the exact same way. But they loved each other despite minor differences of opinion.

Too bad Catholics and Protestants can’t do the same.

If we both believe the same basic and essential Christian doctrines, what difference does it make if, for example, I don’t believe in praying to the saints in heaven, but prefer to speak with God directly?

Good to know, then noone need to waste any time demonstrating that the ECFs didn’t believe what you claim they believed.

(Since it won’t matter to you any way.)

Chuck

 

[DarkMark]

How would I know what every non-catholic believes? To claim that would be un-biblical.

I derive my definition from Scripture - several verse, not just one.

Sola-Scriptural is also un-biblical and was not taught by the Early Church. . …

 

[Lampo]

How would I know what every non-catholic believes? To claim that would be un-biblical.

I derive my definition from Scripture - several verse, not just one.

That’s just it. There’s no authority in Protestantism for you to rely. Non-Catholics can’t even agree on the definition of one of their core beliefs, let alone agreeing on all doctrines. And I’m not talking about individuals. I’m speaking of the non-existent Protestant authority.

 

[Ginger2]

If that is the case you would have not try to prove Sola Scriptural, .

You misunderstand my intent. I am not trying to prove Sola Scripture. You will ultimately believe what you want to believe.

I am making conversation. I disagree that God cannot reveal everything I or anyone else seeking Him needs to know to be saved or to do the will of God here on Earth.

In the thread, “Protestants:If you don’t pray to Saints, do you pray to Angels?”

MariaG, a devote Catholic said, “I used scripture alone and was led by the Holy Spirit. And later found my personal conclusions matched that of the Catholic Church”

MariaG didn’t need the Catholic church to explain Scripture. She understood from reading Scripture and then chose the church that matched her understanding! And I believe she is where God wants her to be right now.
DarkMark;2943858:

Second, most Catholic and Protestants do not hate each other. I know I do not hate Protestants.

I didn’t say they are hating each other.

As for Sola Scripture…

Matthew 4:4 Jesus said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’”

7 Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

10 At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’” 11 Then the devil left him and, behold, angels came and ministered to him.

If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.

 

[DarkMark]

I used scripture alone and was led by the Holy Spirit

. And later found my personal conclusions matched that of the Catholic Church"

MariaG didn’t need the Catholic church to explain Scripture. She understood from reading Scripture and then chose the church that matched her understanding! And I believe she is where God wants her to be right now.

I didn’t say they are hating each other.

As for Sola Scripture…

Matthew 4:4 Jesus said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’”

7 Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

10 At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’” 11 Then the devil left him and, behold, angels came and ministered to him.

If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.

First, Jesus words does not prove Bible alone. You are adding your opinions. Apostolic Traditions did not exist yet.

Here is Paul own words:

In 1 Corinthians 11:2, for instance, we read, “Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.”

2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

Pretty simple. Sacred Scriptures+Sacred Traditions. This was taught by all Church Fathers and its still taught today by Christ’s Church.

You said, “I am not trying to prove Sola Scriptural”

But you started the conservation, therefore you must have wanted to prove something. First, you made a incorrect statement concerning the Church Fathers and Bible alone, and then you give Scriptures that has nothing to do with the Bible alone theory. And then when I corrected you, you just ignored my posts and now you saying “I am not trying to prove Sola Scriptural”.

Second, what MariaG did is not my concern. The good thing is that her information matches that of the Catholic Church. She notice that the Catholic Church had authority, otherwise she would have not match her conclusions with that of the Catholic Church. Ask yourself, which of her conclusions matched the Catholic Church?

Ginger 2, you will believe whatever you desire, I am not going to force you to believe what the Bible saids, but you do not have any facts to back you.

 

[DarkMark]

I am only responding to your post directed towards me. If you did not want to get into this type of conservation and if you do not care what I believe, then you should not have reply to my post in the first place.

God Bless!

 

[Ginger2]

It proves the Bible is sufficient.

Paul and the other Apostles taught orally while they were alive. But they also wrote down their testimonies so that future generations would have them.

While the Apostles were alive they considered their own writings a Scripture. Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture. Surely Peter’s were considered Scripture, also.

We don’t need the extra Biblical teachings. They are interesting, but not necessary.

The problem is that Catholics insist on defining Sola Scripture in a way that makes it an unstable practice to follow.

Again, Sola Scripture does not mean all knowledge of God is contained in the Bible. If that were what it meant, I would agree with Catholics.

The Bible is one way for God to speak to us and tells us what He wants us to know about Him and His plan for mankind. He left nothing out that we needed to know.

 

[VociMike]

It proves the Bible is sufficient.

Paul and the other Apostles taught orally while they were alive. But they also wrote down their testimonies so that future generations would have them.

While the Apostles were alive they considered their own writings a Scripture. Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture. Surely Peter’s were considered Scripture, also.

We don’t need the extra Biblical teachings. They are interesting, but not necessary.

The problem is that Catholics insist on defining Sola Scripture in a way that makes it an unstable practice to follow.

Again, Sola Scripture does not mean all knowledge of God is contained in the Bible. If that were what it meant, I would agree with Catholics.

The Bible is one way for God to speak to us and tells us what He wants us to know about Him and His plan for mankind. He left nothing out that we needed to know.

True. He told us, for example, that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood. But because you don’t listen to the Church to understand what that means, you don’t do it. So you don’t do all that you need to do. Knowing alone is nothing without the doing.

 

[HailMary]

We don’t need the extra Biblical teachings. They are interesting, but not necessary.

The Church came before the bible and the Church composed and preserve the bible. The context of the Bible is the Church.

And yes, you need extra biblical sources since the bible does NOT contain of the books that go inside the bible? Who determined that?

The Church, NOT the bible, is the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION, of truth.
1 Tim 3:15

SOLA SCRIPTURA DEFEATED

 

[DarkMark]

It proves the Bible is sufficient.

Paul and the other Apostles taught orally while they were alive. But they also wrote down their testimonies so that future generations would have them.

While the Apostles were alive they considered their own writings a Scripture. Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture. Surely Peter’s were considered Scripture, also.

We don’t need the extra Biblical teachings. They are interesting, but not necessary.

The problem is that Catholics insist on defining Sola Scripture in a way that makes it an unstable practice to follow.

Again, Sola Scripture does not mean all knowledge of God is contained in the Bible. If that were what it meant, I would agree with Catholics.

The Bible is one way for God to speak to us and tells us what He wants us to know about Him and His plan for mankind. He left nothing out that we needed to know.

You need Sacred Tradition because it was passed down to us by the Apostles. The Church holds all the truth not the Bible. The Bible is great for teaching, but no where in Scriptures does it teach that only the Bible is the sole rule of faith. Paul taught the opposite. We need Sacred Scriptures+Sacred Traditions. Bible alone, as proposed by Martin Luther, is a invention of the 1500s. Protestants can not see this.

Paul passed down Traditions. Christ’s Church has faithfully protected those Traditions. The Church told the faithful which books belong in the Bible. Why? The Church has the Authority because Jesus gave it to Her. He promised that the Church will not fall into error.

 

[Ginger2]

Knowing alone is nothing without the doing.

True. Faith without works…

But why do you make assumptions about what I do or don’t do when you don’t know. Do you have delusions of being psychic?

 

[Ginger2]

The Church came before the bible

The Bible is the written word of God. God’s word came before it writing was invented.

 

[Ginger2]

The Church holds all the truth not the Bible. .

Then why are there some things that are left to the Catholic to decide whether or not they believe it? Catholics are not required to believe anything until it has been declared dogma. Not everything the Catholic church teaches has been declared dogma.

If the “Church holds allthe truth” There would be nothing left to question.

God holds all the truth and what the church or anyone else, “knows” is dependent on what God chooses to reveal to each.

Also, since the different Catholic churches do not agree on certain doctrines, which one do you think holds all the truth?

 

[HailMary]

The Bible is the written word of God. God’s word came before it writing was invented.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

There was no bible, as we all know it today, before the Church.

            7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks – or at least grossly underemphasizes – the fact that the Church came before the Bible, and not the other way around. It was the Church, in effect, which wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God: the Israelites as the Old Testament Church (or “pre-Catholics”) and the early Catholics as the New Testament Church.

In the pages of the New Testament we note that Our Lord gives a certain primacy to the teaching authority of His Church and its proclamation in His name. For instance, in Matthew 28:20 we see Our Lord commissioning the Apostles to go and teach in His name, making disciples of all nations. In Mark 16:15 we note that the Apostles are commanded to go and preach to all the world. And in Luke 10:16 we see that whoever hears the seventy-two hears Our Lord. These facts are most telling, as nowhere do we see Our Lord commissioning His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing in His name. The emphasis is always on preaching the Gospel, not on printing and distributing it.

Thus it follows that the leadership and teaching authority of the Church are indispensable elements in the means whereby the Gospel message is to reach the ends of the earth. Since the Church produced the scriptures, it is quite biblical, logical and reasonable to say that the Church alone has the authority to interpret properly and apply them. And if this is so, then by reason of its origin and nature, the Bible cannot serve as the only rule of faith for Christian believers. In other words, by producing the Scriptures, the Church does not eliminate the need for itself as teacher and interpreter of those Scriptures.

Moreover, is it not unreasonable to say that simply by putting Apostolic teaching into writing, the Church somehow made that written teaching superior to her oral teaching? Like the teaching organization Our Lord established, His Word is authoritative, but because the word is one form rather than another does not mean one form is to be subjugated to the other. Since God’s one Revelation is twofold in form, to deny the authority of one form would be to deny the authority of the other form as well. The forms of God’s Word are complementary, not competitive. Thus, if there is a need for the Scriptures, there is also a need for the teaching authority which produced them.

            10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.

One historical fact which proves extremely convenient for the Protestant is the fact that the canon of the Bible – the authoritative list of exactly which books are part of inspired Scripture – was not settled and fixed until the end of the 4th century. Until that time, there was much disagreement over which Biblical writings were considered inspired and Apostolic in origin. The Biblical canon varied from place to place: some lists contained books that were later defined as non-canonical, while other lists failed to include books which were later defined as canonical. For example, there were Early Christian writings which were considered by some to be inspired and Apostolic and which were actually read in Christian public worship, but which were later omitted from the New Testament canon. These include The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Didache, among others. (18)

It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. (19) From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.

Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura: A) Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified? B) And if there was a final authority that the Protestant recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible’s canon was established?

 

[HailMary]

            11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.

Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can one know with certainty which books belong in the Bible – specifically, in the New Testament? The unadulterated fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority outside the Bible which can tell him. Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be infallible, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the Bible (20) would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an infallible authority, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura crumbles.

Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final, definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon a the Council of Trent in 1546 – naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong in the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on other matters of faith and morals?

Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it.” (21)

source

 

[Ginger2]

There was no bible, as we all know it today, before the Church.

Yet, people were able to tell whether Paul was telling the truth simply by searching OT Scriptures. The fact that Jesus is God incarnate can be verified by OT Scriptures

Jesus rebuked satan simply by reciting OT Scriptures.

 

[ryanoneil]

John 20:30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

In Matt. 28:20 Jeusus says “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Peace,

Ryan