Sola Scriptura is True

[DD2007]

1. So, God inspired more that one Bible, then.

No God has inspired only one bible. Translating the same bible into many languages is still the same bible communicated in whatever language God needs it communicated in.

 

[SyCarl]

No they are not based on scripture alone (but by this I don’t mean that they disregarded it either), what you’re forgetting is that the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed was put together by a Church (sacred traditions/ecumenical councils) you reject.

But what are the creeds except a summary taken from Scripture?

Cyril of Jerusalem tells us this.

1. But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.

(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, Paragraph 12)
newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

Thomas Aquinas tells us the same thing.

Objection 1: It would seem that it is unsuitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol. Because Holy Writ is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can lawfully be made, since it is written: “You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it.” Therefore it was unlawful to make a symbol as a rule of faith, after the Holy Writ had once been published…

Reply to Objection 1: The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.

Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 1, Article 9.

Notice also that while Aquinas says some of Scripture is obscure it can be understood by study and practice.

 

[Religio71]

No God has inspired only one bible. Translating the same bible into many languages is still the same bible communicated in whatever language God needs it communicated in.

so all the versions of the Bible, KJV, NIV, ESV, NWT, etc., even though they use different words many times, are the same Bible? How should we know which one to use? And how do we know which interpretation is correct, since, from CARM, there are multiple interpretations, all by people fervently believing in those interpretations, and believing them to be confirmed by the Spirit.

 

[DD2007]

So what was reformed? And where can we find the reformed Church? Is there a website?

Everything that wasn’t scriptural was repented of and the resolution was made to follow the scriptures as the sole authority of faith and practice.

Here are some Reformed links:

Orthodox Presbyterian Church
opc.org/

Presbyterian Church in America
pcanet.org/

Blue Letter Bible
blueletterbible.org/

E-Sword (free Bible software)
e-sword.net/

Christian Classics Ethereal Library
ccel.org/

Monergism
monergism.com/

Westminster Bookstore
wtsbooks.com/

Monergism Books
monergismbooks.com/

Reformation Heritage Books
heritagebooks.org/

Cumberland Valley Bible Book Store
cvbbs.com/

Covenant College
covenant.edu/

Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia)
wts.edu/

Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
gpts.edu/

Northwest Theological Seminary
nwts.edu/

Westminster Seminary California
wscal.edu/

Covenant Theological Seminary
covenantseminary.edu/

Reformed Theological Seminary
rts.edu/

RTS on iTunes
itunes.rts.edu/

Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
rpts.edu/

Biblical Theology and Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics
two-age.org/

The Biblical Theology of Geerhardus Vos
biblicaltheology.org/

Cornelius Van Til
vantil.info/

John Frame & Vern Poythress
frame-poythress.org/

Reformation Theology
reformationtheology.com/

Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics
reformed.org/

Puritan Library
puritanlibrary.com/

Fire and Ice: Puritan and Reformed Writings
puritansermons.com/

John Owen
johnowen.org/

Riddleblog (Kim Riddlebarger)
kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/

White Horse Inn
whitehorseinn.org/

Reformation Ink
homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/r…/index.htm

Modern Reformation Magazine
modernreformation.org/

Reformation 21 Magazine
reformation21.org/

Grace Online Library
graceonlinelibrary.org/

Providence Baptist Ministries (many online books archived here)
pbministries.org/

Third Millennium Ministries
thirdmill.org/

Five Solas
fivesolas.com/

Tim Challies
challies.com/

Green Baggins (Lane Keister)
greenbaggins.wordpress.com/

The Upper Register (Lee Irons)
upper-register.com/

Kerux: The Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary
kerux.com/

Princeton Theological Review (1903-1929)
scdc.library.ptsem.edu/mets/mets…RIndex.txt

The Confessional Presbyterian
cpjournal.com/

Sermon Audio
sermonaudio.com/

Westminster Assembly Project
westminsterassembly.org/

Reformation Art
reformationart.com/

 

[SyCarl]

What he meant was that, in the context of the passage, there is no possible way “all scripture” can include the New Testament. Paul would have been referring to the Old Testament.

Would you say then that the Apostles would not have been capable of knowing that they were writing Scripture or that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could not know what Scripture would be?

 

[Religio71]

Everything that wasn’t scriptural was repented of and the resolution was made to follow the scriptures as the sole authority of faith and practice.

Here are some Reformed links:

Orthodox Presbyterian Church
opc.org/

Presbyterian Church in America
pcanet.org/

Blue Letter Bible
blueletterbible.org/

E-Sword (free Bible software)
e-sword.net/

Christian Classics Ethereal Library
ccel.org/

Monergism
monergism.com/

Westminster Bookstore
wtsbooks.com/

Monergism Books
monergismbooks.com/

Reformation Heritage Books
heritagebooks.org/

Cumberland Valley Bible Book Store
cvbbs.com/

Covenant College
covenant.edu/

Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia)
wts.edu/

Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
gpts.edu/

Northwest Theological Seminary
nwts.edu/

Westminster Seminary California
wscal.edu/

Covenant Theological Seminary
covenantseminary.edu/

Reformed Theological Seminary
rts.edu/

RTS on iTunes
itunes.rts.edu/

Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
rpts.edu/

Biblical Theology and Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics
two-age.org/

The Biblical Theology of Geerhardus Vos
biblicaltheology.org/

Cornelius Van Til
vantil.info/

John Frame & Vern Poythress
frame-poythress.org/

Reformation Theology
reformationtheology.com/

Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics
reformed.org/

Puritan Library
puritanlibrary.com/

Fire and Ice: Puritan and Reformed Writings
puritansermons.com/

John Owen
johnowen.org/

Riddleblog (Kim Riddlebarger)
kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/

White Horse Inn
whitehorseinn.org/

Reformation Ink
homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/r…/index.htm

Modern Reformation Magazine
modernreformation.org/

Reformation 21 Magazine
reformation21.org/

Grace Online Library
graceonlinelibrary.org/

Providence Baptist Ministries (many online books archived here)
pbministries.org/

Third Millennium Ministries
thirdmill.org/

Five Solas
fivesolas.com/

Tim Challies
challies.com/

Green Baggins (Lane Keister)
greenbaggins.wordpress.com/

The Upper Register (Lee Irons)
upper-register.com/

Kerux: The Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary
kerux.com/

Princeton Theological Review (1903-1929)
scdc.library.ptsem.edu/mets/mets…RIndex.txt

The Confessional Presbyterian
cpjournal.com/

Sermon Audio
sermonaudio.com/

Westminster Assembly Project
westminsterassembly.org/

Reformation Art
reformationart.com/

Thank you. Now what were some of these unscriptural things that were repented of?

 

[DD2007]

so all the versions of the Bible, KJV, NIV, ESV, NWT, etc., even though they use different words many times, are the same Bible? How should we know which one to use? And how do we know which interpretation is correct, since, from CARM, there are multiple interpretations, all by people fervently believing in those interpretations, and believing them to be confirmed by the Spirit.

I personally believe that the most accurate translation in the english language is the King James Version. However there are many different manuscripts and various translations the ESV and the NASB are the most respected by modern scholars.

What one can do that does not have the originals it to cross reference all of the known english translations when consulting a problematic passage. Also one consults commentaries and greek resources if need be.

I personally think Jerome’s Latin is pretty good and should be used as well.

So, God has lavished us with a wealth of biblical resources in our time to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ESV
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So – which future edition of Scripture did the Holy Spirit inspire them to know about?

KJV, NIV, GNV,etc etcc etc?

Was it the Protestant canon, in that order?
The Jewish Tanakh, in the Palestinian order with New Testament writing added later?
The Ethiopian Canon?
The Aramaic Peshyto?
The Greek Septuagint?
The Latin Vulgate?
The original King James Authorized Version with deuterocanonicals included? or the later edition with deuterocanonicals deleted?

Is it the Jeffersonian edition, with all miracles excluded?
the Luther version with Hebrews, James, and Revelation missing and an errant “alone” added?

 

[SyCarl]

So far only one passage has been dealt with. I would like to refer to another.

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
(John 20:30-31 NASB)

It is true that John tells us that everything is not written. He then goes on to say though that what he has written allows us to believe and have life. He is telling us everything we need is in his book. If everything necessary is in one book, how much more true is it of the entire Bible?

 

[josie_L]

There is only one church universal. We reformed and all members who would like to reform are welcome to join us.

Your understanding of the word “church” is faulty. It is not just an ephemeral invisible body of believers, according to scripture, it is hierarchical in structure with bishops (one of which holds primacy, i.e., the keys) it is also the pillar and foundation of truth (not just some truths and some falsehoods) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against this Church which is built on rock (Peter) as per Jesus’s Christ promise.

 

[Jimmy_B]

That old excuse has been refuted long ago.

Here is the proper exegesis for this passage:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

*Breathed out by God *- Inspired by God authoritative, the words of God, God made this writing happen for a purpose.

*Profitable for teaching, for reproof, correction, training in righteousness *- This is the purpose of scripture. This is what it is good for. Teaching the truth. Rebuking false doctrines. Correcting errors, and training in righeousness. That is everything a christian would need.

*That the man of God may be competent *- Who scripture is meant for and for what purpose. Those who are regenerate believers in God the elect; especially teachers.

Equipped for EVERY good work - This is the part where the passage teaches sufficiency of scripture. It is inspired by God so that a child of God can be equipped for EVERY good work that can possibly be done here on earth. If there is any work that can be done that isn;t in scripture then this passage isn’t true. Therefore, one must believe in the sufficiency of scripture if they believe in biblical inerrancy which the Roman Church claims it does.

So the word every is all encompasing and certainly teaches sufficiency.

Also, The table of contents of scripture is found in this passage:

Ephesians 2:20 ESV
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

The prophets and apostles spoke from God. Everything they wrote is canonical. We have all of their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture. That is how we got the bible. The prophets and apostles wrote it under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Church received it from them as true. Jesus Christ himself the Word of God is the cornerstone of the Church that is built upon the revelation of the prophets and apostles from God himself. That is why the church is apostolic we have their teachings recorded in scripture. The canon was closed when the last apostle (John) died. The bible is the written word of God and includes everything in it we need for faith and practice.

Your apologists have been refuted.

to disprove Catholicism, any attempt to do so is just silly…
DD2007,

The main problem that you have with your exegesis is that the Bible is a Catholic book.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports the Catholic argument in this case and is often used here at CAF by Catholics. “Teaching” unless one is reciting from the Bible word for word, is not “Bible Alone” or "Sola Scriptura”.

When you refer to "teaching the truth”, which version of the ‘truth” should we adopt, after all there exists more than 36,000 different Protestant, non-Catholic Christian denominations, who are all different because they all hold different beliefs. Using Sola Scriptura, can you explain this division in Protestantism and tells us which denomination contains the full deposit of faith.

The first flawed Protestant belief, which allowed for personal interpretation of the Bible, has lead to many other flawed beliefs found in Protestant denominations, including “Sola Scriptura”.

Ephesians 2:20 is another verse often used by Catholics to refute Sola Scriptura.

Your argument here is confusing, are you supporting those things found in Roman Catholicism or simply confused. I ask this seriously, because of the Catholic verses you chose to post in an attempt to win a Protestant argument, doesn’t make any sense to me, maybe to could elaborate.

It is impossible to use a Catholic book the Bible to win an argument against Catholicism.

 

[adstrinity]

No God has inspired only one bible. Translating the same bible into many languages is still the same bible communicated in whatever language God needs it communicated in.

Not only multiple Bibles, but, this is your theory and not found in the Bible.

Would you say then that the Apostles would not have been capable of knowing that they were writing Scripture or that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could not know what Scripture would be?

I don’t think that they thought they were writting what would be the NT, I don’t think they gave their letters a second thought save, “God, please let me get there quickly and safely so I can show them what they are doing wrong and explain this more.”

Can you show in the Bible that they did know they were writting writtings that would be compliled for Jesus’ followers?

 

[DD2007]

Thank you. Now what were some of these unscriptural things that were repented of?

Salvation by works based systems.

Praying to anything but God.

Defining the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is there but not definable by humans.

Not putting scripture in it’s proper place as the sole rule of faith and practice.

Making people believe doctrines about Mary that are not in scripture.

The authority of the pope over the church universal.

Indulgences

Purgatory

Confession to a priest only for forgiveness of sins.

Celebicy of the clergy.

Those are a few but the list is considerably longer.

 

[DD2007]

Your argument here is confusing, are you supporting those things found in Roman Catholicism or simply confused. I ask this seriously, because of the Catholic verses you chose to post in an attempt to win a Protestant argument, doesn’t make any sense to me, maybe to could elaborate.

.

Please read the rest of the thread. Everything you asked has been covered already.

 

[SyCarl]

Not only multiple Bibles, but, this is your theory and not found in the Bible.

I don’t think that they thought they were writting what would be the NT, I don’t think they gave their letters a second thought save, “God, please let me get there quickly and safely so I can show them what they are doing wrong and explain this more.”

Can you show in the Bible that they did know they were writting writtings that would be compliled for Jesus’ followers?

Well Peter certainly seemed to realize that Paul’s letters were Scripture.

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

(2 Peter 3:14-16 NASB)

 

[Religio71]

Salvation by works based systems.

Praying to anything but God.

Defining the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is there but not definable by humans.

Not putting scripture in it’s proper place as the sole rule of faith and practice.

Making people believe doctrines about Mary that are not in scripture.

The authority of the pope over the church universal.

Indulgences

Purgatory

Confession to a priest only for forgiveness of sins.

Celebicy of the clergy.

Those are a few but the list is considerably longer.

Ok thank you, so the Church that was reformed is the Catholic Church (as in, the Church in union with the Bishop of Rome, since I know protestants like to twist our words when saying “Catholic Church”. you know what we’re referring to even if you don’t agree).

The fact that the point of the Reformed movement was/is to reform the Catholic Church says a lot.

 

[josie_L]

But what are the creeds except a summary taken from Scripture?

Cyril of Jerusalem tells us this.

(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, Paragraph 12)
newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

Thomas Aquinas tells us the same thing.

Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 1, Article 9.

Notice also that while Aquinas says some of Scripture is obscure it can be understood by study and practice.

The Sacred Tradition of the Church is what put together Sacred Scripture (although Sacred Tradition is not Sacred Scripture, they do overlap, and flow from the same divine source). Sacred Tradition is the teachings imparted by Jesus and passed on to the apostles and then to other successive generations through apostolic succession (these teachings were actually doctrines of the Church).

 

[adstrinity]

Well Peter certainly seemed to realize that Paul’s letters were Scripture.

(2 Peter 3:14-16 NASB)

No. No, he’s not talking about St. Paul’s letters. He’s talking about those who will try to twist what St. Paul is saying, like they twist the “other scriptures”. What are these “other scriptures”, we cannot say from the text alone. If they were the OT, I think it would say so.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Please read the rest of the thread. Everything you asked has been covered already.

This was already covered in ther first fifteen hundred years of Christian history, prior to any Protestant denomination, so I don’t beleve it is necessary for me to read this entire thread,. If a belief is anti-Catholic then it is anti-Christian. You do know that the Catholic Church and that Catholic Popes preceeded both the Bible and Protestents…right?

 

[josie_L]

Untrue. Only Christians go to heaven.

John 3:16-18 ESV
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Which Christians?