John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Tomster]

And the pleasure of sinning with perceived impunity no matter how delusional that perception may be

You know, Benedictus, our esteemed adversaries really lack knowledge of what the mystery of perseverance is.

Among the Canons of the Council of Trent there is one ( # 16 on justification ) visiting anathema on the claim of absolutely certain knowledge of final perseverence, unless it be imparted by a special divine revelation. Meantime, in a previous explanation of this dogma, the Council combines with it the obligation of the HOPE of salvation, which is to be firm and courageous, resting upon the divine promises and the actual movements of grace shown in good works of both the interior and exterior life of a Christian.

Ah, the infallible teaching Church.

 

[benedictus2]

You know, Benedictus, our esteemed adversaries really lack knowledge of what the mystery of perseverance is.

I think it is more a lack of knowlege of what mystery is - full stop. To an extent, Protestant theology is materialistic theology for the very reason that it craves the mystical.

 

[Tomster]

As to the question of Sola Scriptura

It is not a Catholic concept, never was, never will be.

We, as Catholics, can only discuss what it is NOT. It is NOT the sole rule of authority in the Catholic Church. Jesus is. And His plan is to give us all the
Tradition He taught to the Apostles,
The Scriptures which the Church shares with the world, and the
teaching authority (Magisterium) which will guide us (if we let them) into the Truth.

So I invite our few non-Catholic friends here to suggest what they understand as SS… and see if even they all totally agree on something they seem to think is so critical and important to their salvation.

.

I sincerely hope that “our few non-Catholic friends” will accept your invitation. I am very interested to see if they “all totally agree on something they think is so critical and important to their salvation.”

However, the most serious problem that faces anyone who writes on Protestant beliefs and practices is where to find authentic information. When a cynic remarked that “trying to describe Protestantism is like trying to describe the United States, one can say almost anything about it,” he was exaggerating. But the fact remains that Protestants have no united voice with which to give authoritative answers on what they believe and how their people worship. They are disunited as denominations, and further disunited as sects, and still further as churches within the sectarian divisions.

Protestantism in America is not only a glomeration of conflicting opinions, it has features that are quite different from those of other religious bodies in the country, and even distinct from from Protestantism outside the United States.

Again, I am very interested in reading their “suggestions” as you say. For they can only be “suggestions” since they absolutely reject any type of authority over their “suggestions.”

 

[Tomster]

I think it is more a lack of knowlege of what mystery is - full stop. To an extent, Protestant theology is materialistic theology for the very reason that it craves the mystical.

Well said ! Very well said.

I could extend this thought and get into materialism, relativism, determinism and pantheism, some of the consequences of Protestant theology, but I don’t think our esteemed adversaries are ready for it just yet.

 

[Tomster]

I sincerely hope that “our few non-Catholic friends” will accept your invitation. I am very interested to see if they “all totally agree on something they think is so critical and important to their salvation.”

However, the most serious problem that faces anyone who writes on Protestant beliefs and practices is where to find authentic information. When a cynic remarked that “trying to describe Protestantism is like trying to describe the United States, one can say almost anything about it,” he was exaggerating. But the fact remains that Protestants have no united voice with which to give authoritative answers on what they believe and how their people worship. They are disunited as denominations, and further disunited as sects, and still further as churches within the sectarian divisions.

Protestantism in America is not only a glomeration of conflicting opinions, it has features that are quite different from those of other religious bodies in the country, and even distinct from from Protestantism outside the United States.

Again, I am very interested in reading their “suggestions” as you say. For they can only be “suggestions” since they absolutely reject any type of authority over their “suggestions.”

UNLESS EACH PERSON IS SUGGESTING THAT THEIR PERSONAL SUGGESTION IS INFALLIBLE.

That would be chaos, indeed !

 

[ppasa316]

Ah, but since it is a Protestant/Evangelical assertion that Sola Scriptura is the foundational rule for authority in the Faith, then it is up to them to prove using nothing but the Scriptures that this is the case. Which has yet to be done. The best that can be asserted is that Sacred Scripture is a useful guide in the Faith, which no one argues.

Ahh so you can’t answer the questions and scriptures that I provided. Then why post a reply. I posted scriptures for sola scriptura. Now if you don’t believe what I posted then show me scriptures against it. Help me to understand your point.

 

[guanophore]

Ahh so you can’t answer the questions and scriptures that I provided. Then why post a reply. I posted scriptures for sola scriptura. Now if you don’t believe what I posted then show me scriptures against it. Help me to understand your point.

Benedictus2 has already done a great job of this in post # 686. None of the Scriptures you cited validate the extrabiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, no matter how it is defined!

The most important scripture “against it” is the one you posted yourself from Gal.1. Since the doctrine of SS did not come from the Apostles, it constitutes " a different gospel". Catholics cannot accept it, any more than we can accept that Jesus is not Divine.

 

[Protestant101]

Benedictus2 has already done a great job of this in post # 686. None of the Scriptures you cited validate the extrabiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, no matter how it is defined!

Bendictus has not done a great job - and you are following his example closely. He has misquoted all of those scriptures, and wrested his own church’s private interpretation from them.

Four pages of posts agao; I asked if one Catholic could give a definition of what they think Sola Scriptura is. Not a single one of you have done anything other than flimsy excuse-making, and making it quite clear that you cannot answer the question. None of you really know for sure what you are opposing, just as I thought.

Benedictus even felt compelled to characterize one poster as “not being able to read;” and this is the kind of thing that proves you do not have one iota of truth concerning your opposition to Sola Scriptura. As my grade six teacher would have said if I made such an accusation to someone: “That was just downright nervy!”

Lets narrow it down a little more. How would you define MacArthur’s take on Sola Scriptura? If you were to explain his view to someone; what would you say?

 

[guanophore]

Bendictus has not done a great job - and you are following his example closely.  He has misquoted all of those scriptures, and wrested his own church's private interpretation from them.

I would apprecitate if you could go back and reply to post 686, and explain 1) how were the scriptures “misquoted” and 2) how any of them demonstrate Sola Scriptura (feel free to use any of the myriad of definitions)

  Four pages of posts agao; I asked if one Catholic could give a definition of what they think Sola Scriptura is.  Not a single one of you have done anything other than flimsy excuse-making, and making it quite clear that you cannot answer the question.  None of you really know for sure what you are opposing, just as I thought.

I think I was clear that the Catholic Church opposes this heresy in all of its forms.

Benedictus even felt compelled to characterize one poster as "not being able to read;" and this is the kind of thing that proves you do not have one iota of truth concerning your opposition to Sola Scriptura.

Well, in this case I agree with Benedictus. I did read the verses offered, and I cannot see any evidence for the doctrine of SS in any of them, and some of them have nothing whatever to do with the Scriptures!

As my grade six teacher would have said if I made such an accusation to someone: "That was just downright nervy!"

Well, we feel the same about SS.

Lets narrow it down a little more.  How would you define MacArthur's take on Sola Scriptura?  If you were to explain his view to someone; what would you say?

I did go to the website, but I confess, being on it and searching it gives me the willies. It is like walking through a field of contaminated water. There is so much misinformation about Catholism on that site that it turns the stomach. Anyway, this is what I could find:

The Sufficiency of Scripture

First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19). Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That–no more, no less–is what sola Scriptura means.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture–and we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency–and nowhere more clearly that 2 Timothy 3:15-17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: “The sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God “for every good work.”

The link cited in the OP seems to indicate that he believes anyone who does not embrace it is “not biblical”.

The Catholic Church also teaches that Scripture is sufficient.

 

[Mickey]

It is like walking through a field of contaminated water. There is so much misinformation about Catholism on that site that it turns the stomach.

Indeed.

 

[rtconstant]

I would apprecitate if you could go back and reply to post 686, and explain 1) how were the scriptures “misquoted” and 2) how any of them demonstrate Sola Scriptura (feel free to use any of the myriad of definitions)

I think I was clear that the Catholic Church opposes this heresy in all of its forms.

Well, in this case I agree with Benedictus. I did read the verses offered, and I cannot see any evidence for the doctrine of SS in any of them, and some of them have nothing whatever to do with the Scriptures!



Well, we feel the same about SS.

I did go to the website, but I confess, being on it and searching it gives me the willies. It is like walking through a field of contaminated water. There is so much misinformation about Catholism on that site that it turns the stomach. Anyway, this is what I could find:

The Sufficiency of Scripture

First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19). Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That–no more, no less–is what sola Scriptura means.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture–and we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency–and nowhere more clearly that 2 Timothy 3:15-17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: “The sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God “for every good work.”

The link cited in the OP seems to indicate that he believes anyone who does not embrace it is “not biblical”.

The Catholic Church also teaches that Scripture is sufficient.

I’m very interested in the response to this. Many of the Protestants that come here don’t like the Westminster Confession, even though it was the standard for years.

It often seems like Protestants instictively know that Sola Scriptura is self defeating so the murkier they can keep it the better.

 

[MrS]

I’m very interested in the response to this. Many of the Protestants that come here don’t like the Westminster Confession, even though it was the standard for years.

It often seems like Protestants instictively know that Sola Scriptura is self defeating so the murkier they can keep it the better.

Thus a reason - not the only one - for the thousands of different opinions of non-Catholic faith communities which they all claim comes to them from the same Scripture, guided in multiple and conflicting theologies by the Holy Spirit.

Satan is so happy with the Reformers for their efforts at enlightenment.

.

 

[Protestant101]

I think I was clear that the Catholic Church opposes this heresy in all of its forms.

I did go to the website, but I confess, being on it and searching it gives me the willies. It is like walking through a field of contaminated water. There is so much misinformation about Catholism on that site that it turns the stomach. Anyway, this is what I could find:

The Sufficiency of Scripture
First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19). Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That–no more, no less–is what sola Scriptura means.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture–and we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency–and nowhere more clearly that 2 Timothy 3:15-17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: “The sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God “for every good work.”
The link cited in the OP seems to indicate that he believes anyone who does not embrace it is “not biblical”.

The Catholic Church also teaches that Scripture is sufficient.

In the quote you provided; what did MacArthur state that is “wrong?” The Catholic Church does not teach that Scripture is “sufficient,” and I think you are well aware of that.

 

[Protestant101]

Thus a reason - not the only one - for the thousands of different opinions of non-Catholic faith communities which they all claim comes to them from the same Scripture, guided in multiple and conflicting theologies by the Holy Spirit.

Satan is so happy with the Reformers for their efforts at enlightenment.

.

Satan is even happier when we think he is busy in someone elses back yard

 

[M0nkey]

In the quote you provided; what did MacArthur state that is “wrong?” The Catholic Church does not teach that Scripture is “sufficient,” and I think you are well aware of that.

Only the holy spirit can help you “see” that; scripture is sufficient in so far we do not presume and arrogantly declare our own authority to properly state doctrine.

 

[benedictus2]

Bendictus has not done a great job - and you are following his example closely. He has misquoted all of those scriptures, and wrested his own church’s private interpretation from them.

Hey P101, we have known each other for some time and I have been in your group and you still don’t know that I am her/she?

Since in my post I have written down the text (from the NAB) would you care to put the KJV or whateve bible version you use, next to it and let us discuss where the NAB may have erred in its rendition? Are you up to this challenge?

Four pages of posts agao; I asked if one Catholic could give a definition of what they think Sola Scriptura is. Not a single one of you have done anything other than flimsy excuse-making, and making it quite clear that you cannot answer the question. None of you really know for sure what you are opposing, just as I thought.

I have not read the post you mention but I will give it an off the top of my head answer:
SS, Scripture Alone is sufficient. From the way I understand it, you need no other guide to live a Christian life other than the Bible hence you are free to interpret it yourself. Which means that the Bible is self explanatory in whatever language it is written. If I got that wrong, would be very happy to be corrected.

Benedictus even felt compelled to characterize one poster as “not being able to read;” and this is the kind of thing that proves you do not have one iota of truth concerning your opposition to Sola Scriptura. As my grade six teacher would have said if I made such an accusation to someone: “That was just downright nervy!”

Yes I did say ppasa316 is not able to read because when he said “Very well put Protestant. Sola Scriptura is in the scriptures!” ,the post of yours that he was replying to did not even cite any scripture passages to support SS.

 

[benedictus2]

In the quote you provided; what did MacArthur state that is “wrong?” The Catholic Church does not teach that Scripture is “sufficient,” and I think you are well aware of that.

Depends on what you claim Scripture is “sufficient” for. We cannot say that “sufficiency” is intrinsic to scripture by the very simple reason that the canon of scripture was decided by the Church. And that canon was always refered back to the traditions of the church. As a matter of fact, the very first time the word canon was used in reference to scripture was by Pope Clemet and he said " the venerable canon of our TRADITIONS".

 

[guanophore]

Thus a reason - not the only one - for the thousands of different opinions of non-Catholic faith communities which they all claim comes to them from the same Scripture, guided in multiple and conflicting theologies by the Holy Spirit.

Satan is so happy with the Reformers for their efforts at enlightenment.

The invention of Sola Scriptura may be the best of all, since it has functioned to continually splinter and divide Christendom for centuries after it was coined. You know them by their fruits, and separation and division has been the constant fruit of the Reformation.

 

[guanophore]

In the quote you provided; what did MacArthur state that is “wrong?”

The Sufficiency of Scripture
First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

Scriputre now where says of itself that it is a “supreme authority in all spritual matters”. On the contrary, Jesus gave this authority to his Apostles. Authority is an activity that can only be engaged by persons. The exercise of authority requires an act of the will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility. Scripture, though Holy, inerrant, and inspired, does not have these qualities. In ascribing these to scripture what results is that the person doing so engages his own personhood in these acts, becoming the “authority”. Usually persons believe that it is Scripture that is the authority, and that they are guided by the HS.

SS ascribes to Scriptures qualities it does not posess.

If all truth that were necessary for aour salvation and spiritual life were in scripture, then it would be pointless for Jesus to appoint pastors and teachers. On the contrary, scripture states that scripture is profitable for the duties that Jesus appointed to those he authorized to teach.

Eph 4:11-14
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

Basically what the doctrine of SS says is that these gifts are unnecessary, since all that is needed is found in scripture.

Jesus was pretty much wasting His time training the Apostles, and creating these offices in His church, since they are really not needed to equip the saints. All the saints need to do is go to the scriptures.

Scripture is a "more sure Word," standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty.

This statement is based upon a misunderstanding of the Apostles’ writing. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19).

In fact, Peter is saying the opposite. He is testifying that his witness, and that of others who were present at the Revelation of God are a confirmation to what He has revealed.

2 Peter 1:16-19
17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure.

What makes the prophetic word more sure is the Apostolic witness of those who were present with Him on the Holy Mountain. This passage is about the Revelation of the Divine person to the Apostles. It is not about scripture.

 Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks.[/qutoe]

This is an erroneous conclusion, based upon an erroneous premise. Scripture cannot wield authority. This is an activity that requires a person.
Protestant101;5248562:

There are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.

This by itself contradicts the entire doctrine. If everything we need is contained in it, how can many important questions not be answered? If it is not in there, then how can it be important?

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

If this is true, then how did the Church survive for the first four centuries before the NT was formed? Did all the Apostles have poor conscience formation? How did they figure out what God required of them?

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

This is a misapplication of the passages cited, because there was no bible when they were written. Furthermore, if we are forbbiden to “add”, then we have to throw out the whole NT, since the church added all 27 books. If we are forbidden to take away, how can any Protestant sect justify jettisioning the deuterocanonicals, which were used by Jesus and the Apostles?

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God.

This is basically a statement admitting Bibliolatry, replacing Christ as our standard with the book. Furthermore, Scripture cannot be “infallible”. Fallibility is a quality that requires the ability to act, again, a quality of humans, not writings, however Holy. In order to be infallible, it must be possible to make a mistake, which the Scriptures cannot. Scripture is inspired, and inerrant, but cannot exercise acts of the will.

 

[guanophore]

That–no more, no less–is what sola Scriptura means.

I cannot find very much in here that rises to the level of even being considered for debate. There is so much misinformation, ignorance, and falsity asserted with bold opinion that it just does not even seem worth the effort. However, for you, 101, because I respect you for hanging in here for so long, and putting up with us rigid minded Catholics, I have done my best to answer your question.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

What can I say? It is just a false statement. Scripture itself refutes this statement.

Col 2:9-10
9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

Jesus is the whole counsel of God, and He cannot be replaced with writings, however holy. Statements like this are evidence of bibliolatry. Jesus is replaced by the written word.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

It was necessary to invent this idea, in order to justify jettisoning the authority appointed by Christ.

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura.

LOL



I think this statement speaks volumes. That Jesus did and taught is “wholly irrelevant”. So is the authority that He trained, appointed, and gifted to the Church.

 The fact that most of the apostles' actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture--and we are forbidden "to exceed what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).

This is another example of a passage being taken out of context. Paul writes an example based upon his own life experience. He then refers back to the example he has just given to give a framework of boundaries to the believers he is writing. Although the NT did not exist at the time, people such as MacArthur seem to find it possible to ignore the context of the phrase, and apply it to something entirely different.

Worse still, it is being blamed on an Apostle who explicitly stated the opposite:

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Paul seemed to believe that his teaching was authoritative not matter what form it was.

Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency–and nowhere more clearly that 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Why is it important where Timothy learned? If the Scriptures are sufficient as an only source, why mention this?

This passage is often used as if it is the scripture that conducts all these duties, but this is not the case. Teaching and shepherding of the flock is a duty that Jesus gave to people, since these duties require qualities that scripture does not posess. Scripture is profitable in the fulfillment of these duties, but Scripture is not what accomplishes them.

A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: “The sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

This statement is self contradictory, again. Scripture cannot save us, that is not the function of sCriputre. Scriptuer is not “sufficient for salvation”. It is only Christ who is sufficient for salvation. The scriptures lead us to Christ. This another case of replacing the person of Christ with the written word.