Sola Scriptura is True

[Kay_Cee]

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.

I can’t help wondering why DD2007 wants to give us an interpretation if the Bible alone is sufficient.

I’m also wondering how, going by the Bible alone, he knows 2 Timothy and Ephesians are scripture. If, as he claims, the Bible “includes everything in it we need for faith and practice,” where does it include the list of which books belong in the Bible? Isn’t knowing which books are scripture (and which aren’t) something we need for faith and practice?

And I’m also wondering where the Bible says “The canon was closed when the last apostle (John) died” and that everything the prophets and apostles wrote is canonical, and where it says “We have all their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture.” Perhaps DD2007 would be so kind as to quote book, chapter, and verse for these three.

 

[LilyM]

There aren’t any writings by a prophet or apostle that isn’t in the bible. The Jews and the CHurch received all of them and held them as scripture.

Please, Paul wrote to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16) - yet that letter isn’t included in the Bible.

And if Scripture alone is enough then why WERE the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement, read out in church right alongside Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? For all the world taken by those congregations to be scripture?

Why was it even necessary to have these other documents exist - that were treated as or purported to be scripture? If scripture alone is enough there shouldn’t need to be a SINGLE word of interpretation or explanation of it written.

 

[jblake]

DD2007;:

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.

If everything that was written is Canonical, then explain why Protestants don’t accept Psalm 151 as Canonical? That Psalm was written by David, who composed most of t he 150 Psalms are that are Canonical for Protestant Christianity.

If everything written by an author of the Protestant Canon is canonical, then explain the omission of the Psalms of Solomon, which was written by the same author as Song of Solomon?

The prophets and apostles wrote it under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Church received it from them as true.

And if you are limiting it to the NT, then explain the omission of Three Corinthians and Epistle to the Laodicieans.

jonathon

 

[gearhead]

When Timothy wrote this book, is it possible that he was referring to what we know as the Old Testament today, as the bible as is compiled today did not exist at the moment? If so, then timothy was not relating to the New Testament, or at least not all of it… If so then your point is that the Old Testament is all we needed or at least up until when he wrote his own books. l am inclined to think that inaccurate…

I agree with this. Any questions about which writings Paul considered to be scripture aside, he certainly couldn’t have been referring to works that didn’t even exist when the epistle was written.

No. It is clear from the text of the New Testament that apostolic writings were being received as scripture while the apostles were still on earth. That’s why they were being written. Peter says the writings of Paul were scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16 ESV
15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Here Peter clearly says thhat the writings of Paul are scripture and warns people not to twist them which is a clear indication that they were being studied in detail as scriputre even in apostolic times.

But the issue is what Paul was referring to. So Peter considered Paul’s writings to be scripture; fine, I suppose, but what bearing does this have on what Paul considered to be scripture? Peter and Paul are two different people; Peter’s opinions are not necessarily Paul’s… in fact, it seems they disagreed on other issues.

 

[Sarah_Angel]

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.

Funny how that passage from Timothy was “refuted” long before today.

catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp

As Lily already mentioned, there is nowhere in that passage that says that it is the ONLY authority. Catholics agree that it is helpful and that Scripture is indeed authoritative. You must keep in mind that Catholics do not believe in anything that contradicts Scripture.

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.

I’m sorry but… how does ANY of that prove Sola Scriptura to be true? I do not see a Table of Contents in that passage from Ephesians.

Also, if you truly believe sola scriptura to be true, then how come you aren’t backing up your Scripture interpretations with more Scripture passages?

 

[adstrinity]

I can’t help wondering why DD2007 wants to give us an interpretation if the Bible alone is sufficient.

Yes, it is rather curious, isn’t it? I mean, if it were, we would all agree on this passage.

It’s even more curious that SyCarl acknowledges the authority of a Catholic/Orthodox Saint.

One may conclude then, that at this point, it is proven to these two and other Protestants, sola scriptura is NOT sufficient.

But, of course now, two things will happen:

1. This thread will go on for at least 45 more pages.
2. This post (mine) will be ignored by all.

 

[SyCarl]

Yes, it is rather curious, isn’t it? I mean, if it were, we would all agree on this passage.

It’s even more curious that SyCarl acknowledges the authority of a Catholic/Orthodox Saint.

One may conclude then, that at this point, it is proven to these two and other Protestants, sola scriptura is NOT sufficient.

But, of course now, two things will happen:

1. This thread will go on for at least 45 more pages.
2. This post (mine) will be ignored by all.

One can refer to the Church Fathers and still accept Sola Scriptura. They can be useful as can any other commentary on Scripture without having the same authority as Scripture. The post I replied to said that we should look at what the Doctors of the Church had said. I merely indicated that I had and gave examples. Referring to the Church Fathers can show that Protestant concepts did not arise for the first time during the Reformation even if other ideas can also be found in them.

 

[E.E.N.S]

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.

How do you know what is and what is not Scripture?

 

[cthulhubryan]

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.

Let’s look again. We’ll use the NIV, a standard protestant Bible. Though as a Methodist I prefer the RSV.

2 Tim 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So, we should pay attention to the Bible and as you said, what they wrote is Canon.

Let’s, for a moment, ignore sacred tradition. Forgive me all you RC’s Other Catholics and Orthodox.

Earlier in the second letter to Timothy St. Paul says this:
St. Paul:

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

2 Tim 1 13-14

Also, St. Luke in writing the Acts of the Apostles said this of the VERY early Church
St. Luke:

They [Christians] devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

So you see we have oral tradition here as well.

Lastly, but certainly not leastly we have the words of Jesus himself:

GOD:

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16:17-19

Besides, any other way and you get stuck with the whole chicken and the egg thing.
“Preacher, how did we get the Bible?”
“Child, the Church put it together and separated the wheat from the chaff and thus we have the Bible”
“Preacher, where did we get the Church?”
“Child, from the Bible”

 

[Harpazo]

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.

Sola Scriptura is about as true as the sun is blue.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[E.E.N.S]

Besides, any other way and you get stuck with the whole chicken and the egg thing.
“Preacher, how did we get the Bible?”
“Child, the Church put it together and separated the wheat from the chaff and thus we have the Bible”
“Preacher, where did we get the Church?”
“Child, from the Bible”

Of course we know that the Church really came from Christ and not from Scripture.

 

[DD2007]

.

What is the ESV bible?

The ESV bible is the Revised Standard version 3.

In the 1950’s the Revised Standard version was released but it had some translation errors in the OT and left a lot of the English words that were from the original Authorized Version. This is the RSV that the RCC uses for the Ignatius Study Bible.

In the 1980’s the New Revised Standard Version was released and improved upon some errors inthe RSV yet made the tragic error of implementing inclusive language with many gender neutral passages. The is is the NRSV used by Catholics in Canada and by liberal protestants that have women pastors.

In 2001 the English Standard Version was released. It fixed the remaining issues and cut out the inclusive language and is regarded as teh most accurate yet readable bible in the English language. The Vatican hasn’t used it yet. However, I expect they will soon as the ESV with apocrypha from Oxford was released this year.

esv.org/

 

[DD2007]

I’m also wondering how, going by the Bible alone, he knows 2 Timothy and Ephesians are scripture…

They were written by the apostle Paul.

Here is a bible for you to read it you would like:

gnpcb.org/esv/

It has all of the apostolic teaching preserved by the Holy Spirit in it.

 

[gearhead]

They were written by the apostle Paul.

Revelation wasn’t.

 

[DD2007]

But the issue is what Paul was referring to. So Peter considered Paul’s writings to be scripture; fine, I suppose, but what bearing does this have on what Paul considered to be scripture? Peter and Paul are two different people; Peter’s opinions are not necessarily Paul’s… in fact, it seems they disagreed on other issues.

Their disagreement was recorded in scripture. Paul was right Peter was wrong. Peter is also recorded as denying Christ 3 times and Paul is recorded as the worst persecuter of Chruistians the early church had to face.

 

[DD2007]

Revelation wasn’t.

Revelation wasn’t mentioned inthe question.

It was written by the apostle John who also wrote the gospel of John and the three Johanine epistles.

 

[gearhead]

Their disagreement was recorded in scripture. Paul was right Peter was wrong.

Right… so in at least some cases, Peter was incorrect. Why accept his opinion on this matter as necessarily true, then?

I smell some circular reasoning here.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I can’t help wondering why DD2007 wants to give us an interpretation if the Bible alone is sufficient.

I’m also wondering how, going by the Bible alone, he knows 2 Timothy and Ephesians are scripture. If, as he claims, the Bible “includes everything in it we need for faith and practice,” where does it include the list of which books belong in the Bible? Isn’t knowing which books are scripture (and which aren’t) something we need for faith and practice?

And I’m also wondering where the Bible says “The canon was closed when the last apostle (John) died” and that everything the prophets and apostles wrote is canonical, and where it says “We have all their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture.” Perhaps DD2007 would be so kind as to quote book, chapter, and verse for these three.

Gabriel of 12;
Interesting I was having the same thoughts as I read the thread? If Jesus built the Church before the New Testament, would it not be logical that the Gospels and Epistles were handed down by Apostolic Oral Traditions before they were written, and then written to be taught to the existing Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian communities. And what about John 21:25? “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

I thought Revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle was strictly a Catholic teaching? this is the first I ever heard a non catholic speak Catholic doctrine in such a definitive description.

If Apostolic teaching/ writing is admired by DD2007. Why reject the Apostolic living Tradition handed down from the original Apostles that exists (historically) only in the Catholic Church and for DD2007 to succumb to a Sola Scriptura teaching 1500 years later after “Revelation ceased with the last living apostle” that has no Apostolic following what so ever.

Can one claim to have Apostolic biblical teachings without a living Apostolic succession? If the successors to the Apostles put the New Testament Letters together and canonized them all, where is the Church that canonized the bible today?

If sola scriptura is all God’s revelation that is needed? then; does not sola scriptura limit God to a finite being?

For this Catholic; God is Living and infinite and is not limited to letters on a page only. For in my Catholic confession Jesus becomes “Truly” present to me both in word and sacrament and even these do not limit God to “only” or “sola theology”.

Sacrament; a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ himself, that gives Grace to the believer.

 

[E.E.N.S]

They were written by the apostle Paul. .

How do you know that it was indeed written by the St. Paul?

 

[DD2007]

Please, Paul wrote to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16) - yet that letter isn’t included in the Bible.

Colossians 4:16 ESV
16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

This passage does not indicate that Paul wrote a lost letter to Laodicea as some have proposed. Even if he did, we see that the Holy Spirit didn’t choose to preserve it or it would be here. The passage simply says read the letter from Laodicea. For all we know it could have been any of Paul’s 13 letters that we do have preserved in our New Testament that were being circulated as scripture as we clearly see in this passage.