Reformers:1) SS is right, 2) The Bible is wrong...

[cazayoux]

Not exactly. We do not believe that it is the sole authority of the faith, but that it is the supreme authority to which all other authorities must defer.

Why do you believe this?

michel

 

[kcmekim]

I agree … I was being facetious.
Luther did not believe that every individual had the right to interpret the bible.

Actually, he did. In “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation”, he strongly defended the priesthood of the believer, which teaches, among other things, that all born again believers have the right to interpret scripture.

It was one of the chief tenets that led to his 95 Theses.

 

[kcmekim]

Why do you believe this?

michel

Because the Bible says so.

 

[cazayoux]

Because the Bible says so.

Where?

michel

 

[kcmekim]

Where?

michel

2 Tim 3:16 states that it is the very word of God and is given by God to instruct us in doctrine and discipline. There is no higher authority than God.

 

[cazayoux]

Actually, he did. In “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation”, he strongly defended the priesthood of the believer, which teaches, among other things, that all born again believers have the right to interpret scripture.

It was one of the chief tenets that led to his 95 Theses.

Maybe that’s what he said, but in practice people didn’t have to wait long before being denied that right to interpretation.
Just ask Zwingli.
Luther realized quickly the fault of ‘everyone is an interpreter’.
He complained about those in congregation ‘knowing more than’ all those that taught them.
Luther did not continue to give the freedom of interpretation to his followers.

michel

 

[kcmekim]

Maybe that’s what he said

…and practiced.

Luther realized quickly the fault of ‘everyone is an interpreter’.

Source?

He complained about those in congregation ‘knowing more than’ all those that taught them.
Luther did not continue to give the freedom of interpretation to his followers.

Source?

 

[michaelsmth626]

I dont see the point in demanding a universal interpretation of scripture.
Scripture is simply the recorded words spoken. You dont have to read very far into any of the four gospels to realize that the actual words spoken were perceived differently by people who understood all the grammar and usage of the language. Why is it now that all must accept the interpretation of one that heard or read? The true knowledge of the intended message is known by the speaker and the speakers inspiration, that being the Spirit of God.

 

[cazayoux]

2 Tim 3:16 states that it is the very word of God and is given by God to instruct us in doctrine and discipline. There is no higher authority than God.

Let’s take a look at the verse and compare it to what you say it means.

2 Tim 3:16-17
[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.

This verse simply doesn’t say ‘scripture alone’.
The apostles in Acts 15 via council instructed the faithful, and you would agree that it was binding wouldn’t you?

This verse says scripture is ‘profitable’, not solely sufficient.
My son wanted to play basketball. I tell him, “Son, drink plenty of milk, it has protein and calcium for growing strong bones and making you heathly, that you may be complete, equipped for a basketball career.”
Do you understand me to be telling my son that milk ALONE will make him a good basketball player, or do you understand me to be stating the important and profitability of milk?

Now … context … we must look at context.
When this verse uses the word ‘scripture’, they can’t be talking about the new testament, which wasn’t even finished being written yet …much less canonized (recognized) for quite a while.
What scripture is meant here?
Let’s step back a couple of verses to get the context.

2 Peter 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.

Two points … Paul is telling him that is important that he knows WHO he learned from. Paul has the authority to teach. What Paul teaches is binding, even before it might ever get written down.

Second point … Paul is talking to Timothy about the scriptures that Timothy has known since childhood! What scripture is this?
Timothy was a young man, but it is unlikely that he had more than one or two Christian writings from childhood. This is mainly talking about the OLD testament.

You read this verse, initially, to say that the bible you hold in your hand is the ultimate sole and highest authority for all things Christian.
However, what you hold in your hand does not match the ‘scripture’ that Timothy has known since his childhood.

1 - Paul is talking about the profitability of scripture, not the sole sufficiency of it.
2 - Paul is talking about the scripture of Timothy’s youth, which is not the same bible you hold in your hand today.

From what we’ve seen so far, your definition of sola scriptura is not supported in scripture.

michel

 

[JRKH]

The Christian Church did not have the authority, or the right, to decide Old Testament Cannon. The Old Testament is not a Christian collection, it is a Jewish collection. Thus, your premise question is erroneous.

And Jesus Said to Peter, (and to the other Apostles) Whatever you Bind on Earth Shall be Bound in heaven and Whatever you loose on earth sahll be loosed in Heaven.
“Whatever” is pretty Broad
And Jesus said, The Father will sen the Comfortor who will lead you into ALL truth.
He did not say that he would do this by way of some error
St Paul Said, “All Scripture is Useful…”
Note that St Paul taught primarily in the Greek Speaking World, who would have been using the Septuigent version of the OT.

Do you believe that Jesus meant what He said when He said that no one comes to the father but by me? Do you also believe that Mary is the mediatrix of salvation? These two statements are diametrically opposed and cannot both be true.

This is off topic. If you wish to start a seperate thread on this please let me know.

What makes sense is that God wanted those books, which while not Cannon and not of the same weight as Cannon, preserved and the only way to preserve them in the 4th century was to have man view them as Cannon. However, later, once man had developed more and gained a better understanding and ability to preserve ancient texts, those books need not be viewed as Cannon to be preserved. Similar to the way the Catholic Church says it can refine beliefs but not change them.

You are really reaching here my friend. You may want to believe that this makes sense, but it doesn’t hold up to even mild scrutiny.
There are a great many documents that have been preserved from the early Church until now without being included in the canon of Scripture. These documents include both Secular AND religious texts. Otherwise how would we know what Socrates or Aristotle wrote? How would we know about the Roman History of Josephus? How would we know of the many extrabiblical books such as the Shepard of Hermas, and the Protevengeium of James? How about All of the Writning so the Early Church Fathers that have been preserved and passed down without EVER being included in the canon of the Bible?

Next time you feel like firing a bunch of questions in order to make a point you might do well to allow the other person time to respond to those questions before you assume they will not.

I apologize if I seem over the top sometimes. Please accept my apology.

Peace
James

 

[cazayoux]

Source?

Luther by the creation of his “universal priesthood of all Christians”, by delegating the authority “to judge all doctrines” to the “Christian assembly or congregation”, by empowering it to appoint or dismiss teacher or preacher, sought the overthrow of the old Catholic order. It did not strike him, that to establish a new Church, to ground an ecclesiastical organization on so precarious and volatile a basis, was in its very nature impossible. The seeds of inevitable anarchy lay dormant in such principles. Momentarily this was clear to himself, when at this very time (1525) he does not hesitate to make the confession, that there are “nearly as many sects as there are heads” (De Wette, op. cit., III, 61).

A “scientific discussion was not to be conducted with Luther, since he attributed every disagreement with his doctrine to the devil” (Hausrath). This poisoned the controversy at its source, because, “with the devil he would make no truce” (Hausrath, op. cit., II, 188-223).

“What Luther claimed for himself against Catholic authority, he refused to Carlstadt and refused to Zwingli. He failed to see that their position was exactly as his own, with a difference of result, which indeed was all the difference in the world to him” (Tulloch, “Leaders of the Reformation”, Edinburgh and London, 1883, 171).

michel

 

[kcmekim]

This verse simply doesn’t say ‘scripture alone’.

Doesn’t have to. The fact that it doesn’t say “all scripture and so and so is God-breathed”, but only “all scripture” means scripture alone.

The apostles in Acts 15 via council instructed the faithful, and you would agree that it was binding wouldn’t you?

Inasmuch as it is into submission and obedience to scripture, sure.

When this verse uses the word ‘scripture’, they can’t be talking about the new testament, which wasn’t even finished being written yet …much less canonized (recognized) for quite a while.
What scripture is meant here?

The fact that the Apostle Paul referred to his own New Testament Epistles as God-breathed scripture aside, you’re overlooking one very important thing: the verse very clearly says “all scripture” so in order for your claim to be true, you have to deny that the New Testament is the word of God.

1 - Paul is talking about the profitability of scripture, not the sole sufficiency of it.

And I disagree.

2 - Paul is talking about the scripture of Timothy’s youth, which is not the same bible you hold in your hand today.

Again, I disagree. Paul specifically says “ALL scripture”, not merely “all scriptures written up to a certain point”.

From what we’ve seen so far, your definition of sola scriptura is not supported in scripture.

I disagree. I’ve already shown scripture that supports it. But I do understand that, as a Catholic, you’re bound to deny that.

michel

 

[kcmekim]

Luther by the creation of his “universal priesthood of all Christians”, by delegating the authority “to judge all doctrines” to the “Christian assembly or congregation”, by empowering it to appoint or dismiss teacher or preacher, sought the overthrow of the old Catholic order. It did not strike him, that to establish a new Church, to ground an ecclesiastical organization on so precarious and volatile a basis, was in its very nature impossible. The seeds of inevitable anarchy lay dormant in such principles. Momentarily this was clear to himself, when at this very time (1525) he does not hesitate to make the confession, that there are “nearly as many sects as there are heads” (De Wette, op. cit., III, 61).

OK. Nothing to do with your claim there.

A “scientific discussion was not to be conducted with Luther, since he attributed every disagreement with his doctrine to the devil” (Hausrath). This poisoned the controversy at its source, because, “with the devil he would make no truce” (Hausrath, op. cit., II, 188-223).

OK. No quote or source from Luther there.

“What Luther claimed for himself against Catholic authority, he refused to Carlstadt and refused to Zwingli. He failed to see that their position was exactly as his own, with a difference of result, which indeed was all the difference in the world to him” (Tulloch, “Leaders of the Reformation”, Edinburgh and London, 1883, 171).

And no quote from Luther there, either.

 

[JRKH]

Doesn’t have to. The fact that it doesn’t say “all scripture and so and so is God-breathed”, but only “all scripture” means scripture alone.

Inasmuch as it is into submission and obedience to scripture, sure.

The fact that the Apostle Paul referred to his own New Testament Epistles as God-breathed scripture aside, you’re overlooking one very important thing: the verse very clearly says “all scripture” so in order for your claim to be true, you have to deny that the New Testament is the word of God.

**And I disagree. **

Again, I disagree. Paul specifically says “ALL scripture”, not merely “all scriptures written up to a certain point”.

I disagree. I’ve already shown scripture that supports it. But I do understand that, as a Catholic, you’re bound to deny that.

I assume that you believe that we are ALL bound to obey the direct commands of Christ as contained in the Gospels Correct?

If so, then I suggest that, one of us is sinning by preaching a false doctrine (different Gospel), We should invoke the Process outlined by Jesus in Matthew Chaper 18 verses 15-18.
It appears that more than one person has weighed in on each side of this discussion, so me may suppose that we have completed steps one and two of the Christ’s instructions. That leaves only the last one. We should, “Tell it To The Church”, and then we must listen and submit to what The Church decides is the correct interpretation of this passage.

Peace
James

 

[cazayoux]

Doesn’t have to. The fact that it doesn’t say “all scripture and so and so is God-breathed”, but only “all scripture” means scripture alone.

Saying that “all scripture” is profitable is not the same as saying “only scripture” is profitable.

Inasmuch as it is into submission and obedience to scripture, sure.

Do tell. What scripture did the apostles use in Acts 15 to define authoritatively that gentile converts did not need to receive circumcision.
In fact, the apostles make this decision, write a letter to the faithful, and state that “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). No mention of scripture.

The fact that the Apostle Paul referred to his own New Testament Epistles as God-breathed scripture aside, you’re overlooking one very important thing: the verse very clearly says “all scripture” so in order for your claim to be true, you have to deny that the New Testament is the word of God.

We agree that Paul’s writings are inspired.
We agree that the New Testament is the inerrant Word of God.

This verse isn’t the support for our beliefs here.

I don’t see how Paul could tell Timothy that the scripture he’s known since childhood included, say, John’s Revelation. How can Paul, at the time of the writing of this letter, have the power to see the future and know what writings, that haven’t been written yet, would be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
It would be impossible for Paul’s definition of ‘all scripture’ to match your definition, because he didn’t know about ‘all’ the scripture that you know about now.

[Michel] 1 - Paul is talking about the profitability of scripture, not the sole sufficiency of it.

And I disagree.

I do understand that, as a non-Catholic Christian Sola Scripturist, you’re bound to deny that.
How can you deny that Paul is talking about profitability, the word is in the verse.
How can you claim that Paul is talking about sole sufficiency when the verses do not contain either the word ‘sole’ (or any variation) or ‘sufficiency’ (or any variation).

It’s not me you’re arguing with here, it’s the text of scripture.

[Michel]2 - Paul is talking about the scripture of Timothy’s youth, which is not the same bible you hold in your hand today.

Again, I disagree. Paul specifically says “ALL scripture”, not merely “all scriptures written up to a certain point”.

I don’t see anything in scripture that tells me Paul can see the future, specifically to know what yet-to-be-written texts will be considered inspired.
We know what scripture Paul is talking about by looking at the previous verses.
Look again at verses 14 and 15.

2 Tim 3:14-15
[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.

Verses 16 and 17 just don’t say what you really, really want them to.
The scripture is not supporting what you claim it does.

I disagree. I’ve already shown scripture that supports it.

2 Tim 3:14-17 does not contain the wording that you would like it to.
It speaks of scripture, but not to the rejection of all else, Acts 15 being case and point.

But I do understand that, as a Catholic, you’re bound to deny that.

Is this your standard response to a well-read, deep-thinking, long-studying, bible-believing, daily-praying, Catholic?
C’mon … give me a little credit here.
I wasn’t always a practicing Catholic.
I’ve done the research, tested the teachings, and studied my way back into the Catholic Church.
Don’t speak to me as if I haven’t read for myself, because that just isn’t true.

michel

 

[SteveGC]

Not exactly. We do not believe that it is the sole authority of the faith, but that it is the supreme authority to which all other authorities must defer.

Correction noted. Still does not change the concept of the SS view of Scripture’s role. Whether it is the “sole” authority, or the “supreme” authority over all other authorities, it is still the erroneous concept that the pages of Scripture (without an outside authority) is where all debate ends. The bottom line is that books do not wield authority on their own. Authority on earth is a human exercise…always has been, always will be.

Straw men usually are.

So you are saying I invented the idea that SS means that the sole authority is the Bible, and then claimed it is false? Just to be clear then…I’ll restate it for you: SS is not a proclamation that the Bible is all we need. It is a proclamation that the Bible is the “supreme” authority of the faith. Both claims are false. There ya go, no more “straw men”. Again…sole authority, supreme authority…makes no difference how you view it…Scripture is elevated to a role it was never intended to have.

Not even remotely what sola scriptura teaches.

So, SS doesn’t remove the necessary outside authority needed to authenticate and interpret it? Or…is it that SS doesn’t officially “teach” this reality? Either way, SS removes this necessary element, subsequently making Christianity a world of chaos and disunity.

This mini-debate over whether or not Luther allowed people to interpret Scripture for themselves is pointless. The end result of that debate changes nothing of the gross error that is Sola Scriptura. Neither individuals, NOR Luther, are authentic interpreters of Scripture…because for anyone to attempt to do so while divorcing themselves from the apostolic tradition and authority which produced it, is an exercise in futility and fallacy. Scripture is never to be separated from the apostolic tradition. Never. This apostolic tradition was, and IS, Catholic…and Luther’s dismissal of the Church effected that utterly disastrous separation.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Let’s take a look at the verse and compare it to what you say it means.

2 Tim 3:16-17
[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.

This verse simply doesn’t say ‘scripture alone’.
The apostles in Acts 15 via council instructed the faithful, and you would agree that it was binding wouldn’t you?

This verse says scripture is ‘profitable’, not solely sufficient.
My son wanted to play basketball. I tell him, “Son, drink plenty of milk, it has protein and calcium for growing strong bones and making you heathly, that you may be complete, equipped for a basketball career.”
Do you understand me to be telling my son that milk ALONE will make him a good basketball player, or do you understand me to be stating the important and profitability of milk?

Now … context … we must look at context.
When this verse uses the word ‘scripture’, they can’t be talking about the new testament, which wasn’t even finished being written yet …much less canonized (recognized) for quite a while.
What scripture is meant here?
Let’s step back a couple of verses to get the context.

2 Peter 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.

Two points … Paul is telling him that is important that he knows WHO he learned from. Paul has the authority to teach. What Paul teaches is binding, even before it might ever get written down.

Second point … Paul is talking to Timothy about the scriptures that Timothy has known since childhood! What scripture is this?
Timothy was a young man, but it is unlikely that he had more than one or two Christian writings from childhood. This is mainly talking about the OLD testament.

You read this verse, initially, to say that the bible you hold in your hand is the ultimate sole and highest authority for all things Christian.
However, what you hold in your hand does not match the ‘scripture’ that Timothy has known since his childhood.

1 - Paul is talking about the profitability of scripture, not the sole sufficiency of it.
2 - Paul is talking about the scripture of Timothy’s youth, which is not the same bible you hold in your hand today.

From what we’ve seen so far, your definition of sola scriptura is not supported in scripture.

michel

Interesting point there the old testament was the evidence for Christ, those that understood it were born of the same Spirit that authored the NT letters. You speak about Paul but infact he is a fine example that Jesus elects and baptizes in the Holy Spirit and not the church or body of believers.

Paul was called and commissioned by Jesus before the actions taken after the fact, like being baptized by Ananius, or receiving approval from the other apostles. His election and mission were secured at the moment of his conversion, the following formalities that are held up as evidence for church authority are of no value in light of Christs choosing. That I believe is the posters implication. The church does not call and appoint teachers and prophets Jesus does. The greatest speaker, teacher of the new testament did not spend three years walking and listening to Jesus personally, he didn’t have the first communion with Him, he did not receive the Spirit at Pentecost, but yet he possessed it, in complete fullness. I doubt the apostles could have added to his knowledge of the scriptures, but the power of the Spirit completely changed everything he ever thought he knew the Torah said.

So if God can call to those outside the body of believers then, as He did Paul why can’t this happen everywhere or anywhere today? The popular world view today is that Christians are narrow minded, by believing that Jesus is the only way to establish a relationship with God, Catholics take it another step, that this Jesus can only be found threw their church. The conversion of Paul is a fine example of, this may not be the case.

The Apostles and Jesus pointed to the OT teachings to teach the NT. Can you show me apostle NT teaching that is not found in the OT or spoken by Jesus Himself?
If you can then there may be evidence to support your theory about oral traditions.

 

[cazayoux]

Interesting point there the old testament was the evidence for Christ, those that understood it were born of the same Spirit that authored the NT letters. You speak about Paul but infact he is a fine example that Jesus elects and baptizes in the Holy Spirit and not the church or body of believers.

Paul was called and commissioned by Jesus before the actions taken after the fact, like being baptized by Ananius, or receiving approval from the other apostles. His election and mission were secured at the moment of his conversion, the following formalities that are held up as evidence for church authority are of no value in light of Christs choosing. That I believe is the posters implication. The church does not call and appoint teachers and prophets Jesus does. The greatest speaker, teacher of the new testament did not spend three years walking and listening to Jesus personally, he didn’t have the first communion with Him, he did not receive the Spirit at Pentecost, but yet he possessed it, in complete fullness. I doubt the apostles could have added to his knowledge of the scriptures, but the power of the Spirit completely changed everything he ever thought he knew the Torah said.

So if God can call to those outside the body of believers then, as He did Paul why can’t this happen everywhere or anywhere today? The popular world view today is that Christians are narrow minded, by believing that Jesus is the only way to establish a relationship with God, Catholics take it another step, that this Jesus can only be found threw their church. The conversion of Paul is a fine example of, this may not be the case.

Catholics do not say that Jesus can only be found through our church.
The Catholic Church does believe their is truth in other faith.
The fact that you are Christian is proof of that.

Be careful to understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches before arguing against it.

Oh, if only we could all have the conversion experience that Paul had, wouldn’t that be something?!

I absolutely believe that God calls EVERY man to him, regardless of their starting point.

The Apostles and Jesus pointed to the OT teachings to teach the NT. Can you show me apostle NT teaching that is not found in the OT or spoken by Jesus Himself?
If you can then there may be evidence to support your theory about oral traditions.

Again, your are assuming a teaching of the Catholic Church that isn’t so.
We do not believe that oral teaching is another set of written words or sentences that were directly spoken by the apostles or Jesus.
Oral Tradition is the understanding of the teachings of the apostles.

An example is the Trinity.
The Arians did not believe that Jesus was God and were very adept at using scripture to support their belief. It was the bishops, the successors to the apostles, that decided on the matter to properly teach truth. (as modeled in Acts 15)

An example.
I know that at Christmas time, I buy a tree, put in the house, decorate it with tensil, top it with a decoration. In my family this has gone on for generations and all without one of my forefathers writing down “at Christmas, you need to buy a tree, put it in your house, decorate it with tensil and top it with an angel or star”.

So while I do not have writings from my great, great grandfather on this, the whole family knows the tradition.

I hope this example helps to clarify what we do and do not mean by Oral Tradition.

In your post, you’ve made two assumptions about the Catholic Church that turned out not to be actual teachings of the Catholic Church.
If you are curious about what we actually believe, feel free to ask.

I’d much rather you disagree with me on something I actually believe rather than something else that, for some reason, you wrongly think I believe. On many issues, we might find that we are on the same side when it comes right down to it.

Cheers!

michel

 

[kcmekim]

Saying that “all scripture” is profitable is not the same as saying “only scripture” is profitable…

I don’t see how Paul could tell Timothy that the scripture he’s known since childhood included, say, John’s Revelation.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say in one case that it must include other sources (which you still haven’t named, by the way) just because it doesn’t say “only scripture” and then turn around and say that it must not include Revelation because it doesn’t specify Revelation. Which is it? Does it have to specify something to include it or not?

How can Paul, at the time of the writing of this letter, have the power to see the future and know what writings, that haven’t been written yet, would be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

First of all, Paul prophesied several times where God did allow him to see into the future.

Second, Paul acknowledged that his current and previous epistles were already considered scripture.

It would be impossible for Paul’s definition of ‘all scripture’ to match your definition, because he didn’t know about ‘all’ the scripture that you know about now.

First, it doesn’t matter what Paul’s definition was. It was the Holy Spirit who inspired him, so it is the Holy Spirit’s definition and the Holy Spirit most definitely does know what is and is not scripture.

Second, again, Paul stated that his current and previous epistles were already to be considered inspired scripture.

How can you deny that Paul is talking about profitability, the word is in the verse.

When did I ever deny that Paul was talking about profitability???

How can you claim that Paul is talking about sole sufficiency when the verses do not contain either the word ‘sole’ (or any variation) or ‘sufficiency’ (or any variation).

Simple for two reasons:

The first is that the Greek uses the singular article.

The second is that the fact that he specified scripture eliminates all other sources.

It’s not me you’re arguing with here, it’s the text of scripture.

And I believe that it is you who is arguing with the text of scripture.

I don’t see anything in scripture that tells me Paul can see the future, specifically to know what yet-to-be-written texts will be considered inspired.

1 Peter 3:15-16. Peter seems to believe Paul’s epistles are scripture. "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Acts 15:22-32 - states that Paul’s epistle is considered on a par with scripture.

1 Thess 2:13 - Paul states that the epistles are scripture

…and Galatians 1:11,12; Ephesians 3:3-5; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; Romans 1:15,16; 15:15-19; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Acts 13:12; 16:32; 1 Cor. 11:23; 2 Corinthians 5:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 5:27; 4:8

Verses 16 and 17 just don’t say what you really, really want them to.
The scripture is not supporting what you claim it does.

I disagree. I believe it does support what we’ve said it does for 2,000 years now.

2 Tim 3:14-17 does not contain the wording that you would like it to.

Doesn’t matter what I’d like it to say. Only matters what it says.

It speaks of scripture, but not to the rejection of all else

It speaks specifically of scripture.

Is this your standard response to a well-read, deep-thinking, long-studying, bible-believing, daily-praying, Catholic?

When I meet one, I’ll let you know.

Don’t speak to me as if I haven’t read for myself, because that just isn’t true.

It certainly doesn’t appear that you have.

 

[kcmekim]

Correction noted. Still does not change the concept of the SS view of Scripture’s role. Whether it is the “sole” authority, or the “supreme” authority over all other authorities, it is still the erroneous concept that the pages of Scripture (without an outside authority) is where all debate ends.

OK. What “outside authority” is greater than the word of God?