Sola Scriptura Precludes Preaching

[DeFide]

DeFide:

I hate to break this to you, but “useful” or “profitable” is not the same as “sufficient” or “all that is needed” or “adequate”.

Nowhere in the verse does it say that “Scripture alone” is able to make us wise. Scripture, yes. Scripture alone? No.

By analogy, eating a healthy diet can help you become a great athlete, but that does not mean you can avoid training. Also, a full tank of gas can make your car able to travel all the way to the store, but that doesn’t mean that spark plugs or wheels are unneeded.

It’s not an either-or issue. 2 Tim 3:15 is correct AND “Sola Scriptura” is wrong.

P.S. If “able” = sufficient or all that is needed, then:

2 Timothy 2:2

The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

(Faithful men are sufficient?)

 

[dcdurel]

DeFide:

I’ve heard many Protestants say that Scripture is both the sole final authority and is “sufficient” as a rule of faith.

If the believer must go by their individual interpretation of Scripture alone as their final, sole, sufficient rule of faith, why do Protestant preachers bother preaching? Why don’t they just hand out Bibles in silence and leave?

The real reason that “Sola Scriptura” doesn’t work, and the reason that Protestants have to teach and preach is because the bible was not written with the intention of teaching doctrine.
In other words, it does not force any interpretation on us, and it doesn’t have it’s own explanations contained in it. The reason for all this is that the bible is primarily intended as salvation history, that is, it is intended primarily to present a historical account of how God has acted in the history of mankind. Now, in giving this account, God does present some parts of some of His teachings of the many that were taught to the apostles… Thus, the Church does use scripture to illuminate her teachings, as she uses scripture as a witness to her teachings, and to nourish her teachings, and even a few times as proof of her teachings. But, the source of all the Church teachings is the Gospel the apostles handed down in apostolic Tradition and only parts of some of those teachings were written down in salvation history, the bible.
This is because Jesus taught the apostles for three years, and only some of this was public teaching, and only some of this was written down in the Gospels. The rest He taught secretly. And from the time of his resurrection til His Ascension, He taught the apostles about the kingdom (the Church) and opended their minds to the scriptures. But none of these teachings were written in the bible. Then He said He would send the Holy Spirit who would teach them all things. None of these teachings were recorded.
Now, only the apostles received the full Gospel, that is all the teachings of Jesus, some of which He taught secretly, those teachings He gave after His resurrection, and the teachings of the Holy Spirit. Then the apostles went and preached and taught the Gospel. But note, there is not one single book of the bible nor one single chapter that has a summary of this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. We have a little of parts of the Creed, and that is it.

Since the apostles alone received the full Gospel, and since **virtually none of this Gospel that they taught and preached is summarized anywhere in the bible, it is impossible for Protestants to learn the Gospel they taught and preached. It simply is not in the bible. It is not written anywhere. **
The apostles did not write it, because they were following the example of the perfect teacher, Jesus, who did not write a single word of the Gospel. Since the perfect method of teaching is by oral instruction and example, that is, sacred Tradition, then the apostles followed this method of teaching and preaching.

So, how do we know the content of this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached?
Well, even an athiest can find out. All he has to do is find out the teachings the early Christians said came from the apostles.
By learning what the early Christians, the Church Fathers believed, we can learn the basics of Gospel the apostles taught. And as anyone who has done this knows, they taught the exact same thing the Church teaches today. They taught the same thing with regards to the sacraments, purgatory, prayer to the saints, the Eucharist, the Mass, etc.

Thus the Gospel the apostles taught is contained in the same the Church teachings today. **In other words, the “Catholic faith which comes to us from the apostles” (words of the mass) is the same as the Gospel which comes to us from the apostles. **
**The Gospel that the apostles taught and preached is the same one contained in the Catholic faith which we believe today. **
The apostles had to summarize and organize the Gospel they learned from Jesus and the Holy Spirit when they taught it, otherwise the faithful could not learn it all, nor could they remember it all. This organization and summarization eventually led to structuring the teaching of the Gospel in the form of the Creed, the sacraments, the commandments and prayer. Thus, when a Catholic learns the truths in these parts, he learns almost the entire Gospel the apostles taught and preached. Their content is one and the same.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

DeFide:

I hate to break this to you, but “useful” or “profitable” is not the same as “sufficient” or “all that is needed” or “adequate”.

Never said that it is. Please read my post a little more carefully. I saw that you made this distinction in point 1 of your post. And I agreed. However, verses 15 and 17 indicate the sufficiency of Scripture. I didn’t ignore your post, please don’t ignore my response by simply reiterating your post. I commented earlier that your post was very thoughtful. I cannot say that about this post. It seems that you are just repeating yourself as if I hadn’t given you any sort of issue.

Nowhere in the verse does it say that “Scripture alone” is able to make us wise. Scripture, yes. Scripture alone? No.

It is either able to or unable to. We can discuss sole authority after we’ve settled the issue of sufficiency.

By analogy, eating a healthy diet can help you become a great athlete, but that does not mean you can avoid training. Also, a full tank of gas can make your car able to travel all the way to the store, but that doesn’t mean that spark plugs or wheels are unneeded.

The problem with using analogies like this is that you have to speculate that this is analogous to what Paul was saying. My claims regarding this passage are at least equally feasible (I would say more so, given the fact that Scripture is God-breathed by nature). Not to mention that grammatically, my position is probably a bit stronger.
Therefore, at worst (for me) we are on equal footing here, but in no way does your argument overturn mine.

It’s not an either-or issue. 2 Tim 3:15 is correct AND “Sola Scriptura” is wrong.

Then interact with my exegesis, show where it is wrong, and demonstrate another grammatically and contextually viable alternative. Analogies about what Paul might have thought won’t cut it.

DeFide:

P.S. If “able” = sufficient or all that is needed, then:

2 Timothy 2:2

The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

(Faithful men are sufficient?)

Here’s the part where you mockingly post an absurd example to show how silly and naive I am.
However, 2 Tim 2:2 is speaking to another issue. These faithful men are able to teach (and by the way, they teach with Scripture 2 Tim 3:16). Paul is not speaking about the nature or the purpose of faithful men in this context. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about other than having a word in common.
The faithful men are able to teach, not to make one wise for salvation and thoroughly equip him for every good work.
Your example does not disprove my position. But it does lead me to believe that you do not take me very seriously. I thoughtfully read and reflected on your post and then took the effort to respond to it charitably and fairly thoroughly.
You have basically ignored that post and interacted with me as though I’m some “dumb Baptist” who doesn’t deserve your actual attention. If you want to continue this conversation, please deal with my post.

Fidelis:

Actually I think the pragmatic argument is a very strong one against Sola Scriptura, and is one that Protestants asiduously avoid answering. It goes beyond just saying “there are a lot of Protestant denominations and then expect that to be a persuasive argument against the sufficiency of Scripture;” it points out the fact that, even if Sola Scriptura were taught in the Scriptures (which clearly it is not), there is the matter of definitive interpretation. Again, truth is not relative to the individual interpreter: someone has to decide.

I’m just saying that unless you demonstrate your view from Scripture, you won’t be convincing any commited Protestants. As a Protestant, if the Bible teaches the sufficiency of Scripture (and I believe it does), then I need to obey that and sort out the pragmatic matters afterwards.

 

[RyanL]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

It is either able to or unable to. We can discuss sole authority after we’ve settled the issue of sufficiency.

I assert that Sacred Scripture is insufficient as to testify to what constitutes Sacred Scripture. So if that is your absolute dividing line, you must now make your decision.

That seems silly as a dividing line, however. Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. It’s like having all of the materials to build a house on a vacant lot - is that a guarantee that the house will be built to “code”? Nope. Is it sufficient? Materially, yes, but you also need the knowledge to use the materials. That is where “formal” sufficiency comes in. What you have asserted is that there is no distinction, however, and anyone who comes across a vacant lot with sufficient materials would obviously be “thoroughly equipped” to build this house to code. Can you see the fallacy?

Do you acknowledge a difference?

God bless,
RyanL

 

[Mickey]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

As a Protestant, if the Bible teaches the sufficiency of Scripture (and I believe it does), then I need to obey that and sort out the pragmatic matters afterwards.

In your view, does the Bible teach the material sufficiency of Scriptiure and the formal sufficiency of Scripture?

 

[sonseeker]

DeFide:

If the believer must go by their individual interpretation of Scripture alone as their final, sole, sufficient rule of faith, why do Protestant preachers bother preaching? Why don’t they just hand out Bibles in silence and leave?

The answer to your question is found in the Scripture, alone.

Romans 10:14-17 (NASB95)
14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Is my interpretation correct? Is not a preacher is needed?

Perhaps we can interpret the Scripture.

 

[Mickey]

RyanL:

I assert that Sacred Scripture is insufficient as to testify to what constitutes Sacred Scripture. So if that is your absolute dividing line, you must now make your decision.

That seems silly as a dividing line, however. Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. It’s like having all of the materials to build a house on a vacant lot - is that a guarantee that the house will be built to “code”? Nope. Is it sufficient? Materially, yes, but you also need the knowledge to use the materials. That is where “formal” sufficiency comes in. What you have asserted is that there is no distinction, however, and anyone who comes across a vacant lot with sufficient materials would obviously be “thoroughly equipped” to build this house to code. Can you see the fallacy?

Do you acknowledge a difference?

God bless,
RyanL

You said it better than I did.

 

[DeFide]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Never said that it is. Please read my post a little more carefully. I saw that you made this distinction in point 1 of your post. And I agreed. However, verses 15 and 17 indicate the sufficiency of Scripture. I didn’t ignore your post, please don’t ignore my response by simply reiterating your post. I commented earlier that your post was very thoughtful. I cannot say that about this post. It seems that you are just repeating yourself as if I hadn’t given you any sort of issue.

It is either able to or unable to. We can discuss sole authority after we’ve settled the issue of sufficiency.

The problem with using analogies like this is that you have to speculate that this is analogous to what Paul was saying. My claims regarding this passage are at least equally feasible (I would say more so, given the fact that Scripture is God-breathed by nature). Not to mention that grammatically, my position is probably a bit stronger.
Therefore, at worst (for me) we are on equal footing here, but in no way does your argument overturn mine.

Then interact with my exegesis, show where it is wrong, and demonstrate another grammatically and contextually viable alternative. Analogies about what Paul might have thought won’t cut it.

Here’s the part where you mockingly post an absurd example to show how silly and naive I am.
However, 2 Tim 2:2 is speaking to another issue. These faithful men are able to teach (and by the way, they teach with Scripture 2 Tim 3:16). Paul is not speaking about the nature or the purpose of faithful men in this context. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about other than having a word in common.
The faithful men are able to teach, not to make one wise for salvation and thoroughly equip him for every good work.
Your example does not disprove my position. But it does lead me to believe that you do not take me very seriously. I thoughtfully read and reflected on your post and then took the effort to respond to it charitably and fairly thoroughly.
You have basically ignored that post and interacted with me as though I’m some “dumb Baptist” who doesn’t deserve your actual attention. If you want to continue this conversation, please deal with my post.

.

I’ve obviously irritated you. I apologize for that. It was not my aim. I am not being flippant with you. I attempted to address your replies. I think you misunderstood which verse I was referring to. You seem rather arbitrary on how you want to interpret what word when. In fact, you seem to indicate that you can read St. Paul’s mind when he uses “able” in verses. If St. Paul was defining “Sola Scriptura”, why doesn’t he say so explicitly? Everyone for 1500 years missed it.

Doesn’t this discussion itself show how personal interpretation of Scripture is not sufficient? This is foundational to your faith, and yet other sincere people don’t agree when we examine Scripture. Even other Sola Scriptura-ists cannot agree on the nature of Baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, etc. Jesus said to take disagreements to the Church, not scripture (Mt 18:15-18), and he did not say to establish your own Church if you didn’t like his Church’s decision. God did not establish competing systems of truth through personal interpretion.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Superreformanda,

1 - You stated that the Scriptures ARE the Apostolic Tradition. Please tell me where I am told in Scripture to regard the writings of Non-Apostles such as Luke, Mark, Jude, James and the anonymous book of Hebrews as Apostolic?

2 - You asked that Protestants be allowed to define your own doctrines. Which Protestant should I refer to as having the proper definition of Sola Scriptura?

3 - You referred to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Here is Article XXIII: WE AFFIRM the clarity of Scripture and specifically of its message about salvation from sin. WE DENY that all passages of Scripture are equally clear or have equal bearing on the message of redemption. If Scripture is clear in its message about salvation from sin, how come godly, erudite Evangelical Bible scholars cannot agree on whether a child of God can fall from grace, die unrepentant and lose their salvation?

4 - I am confused. Jesus told us to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet in Acts we read that people were baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Can you tell me if I am allowed to do both or does one take precedence over the other? Please show me from Scripture.

Grace and peace to you,

Gene

 

[Writer]

Sola Scriptura doesn’t work. It is personal interpretation which does not always mean the same as what the writer intended. The bible is filled with figures of speech and parables. There needs to be an infallible interpreter. So, in other words protestants don’t have to believe in anything their pastor says since he/she is not infallible, resulting in the thousands even millions of individual denominations.

20 12 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. -2 Peter 1:20-21

Since the Holy Spirit varies in people and there is no gaurantee that every individual is guided by the Holy Spirit, how can there be sola scriptura without error? Apostolic Succession gaurantees the guidance of the Holy Spirit making the Apostles infallible and Peter whose line of succession has been the only one that remains fully infallible. All others have a piece of the original apostolic office in general and are only infallible when they’re all put together in ecumenical council called and approved by the office of Peter.

Peter’s office in scripture:

13 8 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 11 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” -Matthew 16:13-19

Right on! If Sola Scriptura worked, then Protestant denominations would all be of a single and clear voice on any given biblical or theological issue. With each new denomination forming weekly (or daily), the Sola Scriptura arguement is weakened a little bit more. Critical thinking and an open mind are all that’s required to realize the value in the authoritative teachings of the Church.

 

[RyanL]

RyanL:

I assert that Sacred Scripture is insufficient as to testify to what constitutes Sacred Scripture. So if that is your absolute dividing line, you must now make your decision.

Just so I’m clear about this (in re-reading, I think I may not be), I am asserting that there is no “divinely inspired Table of Contents”. Scripture cannot tell me if the Epistle of Hermas is or is not inspired, and I can find no objective reason to include Revelations, which is filled with all sorts of weird imagery, is never refered to by another book, and was rejected by many of the earliest Christians. The only reason I can see for accepting the one and not the other exists outside of the pages of Sacred Scripture.

Do you agree?

God bless you and keep you, and make His face to smile upon you,
RyanL

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

RyanL:

I assert that Sacred Scripture is insufficient as to testify to what constitutes Sacred Scripture. So if that is your absolute dividing line, you must now make your decision.

As I’ve said, I’m not prepared to discuss canon. I simply haven’t done the homework. I understand your argument, but have not studied enough to find an answer. However, I do know many Protestants who do hold to Sola Scriptura and have done research on canon. I suppose there must be a salution. Perhaps we could discuss this at a later time?

That seems silly as a dividing line, however. Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. It’s like having all of the materials to build a house on a vacant lot - is that a guarantee that the house will be built to “code”? Nope. Is it sufficient? Materially, yes, but you also need the knowledge to use the materials. That is where “formal” sufficiency comes in. What you have asserted is that there is no distinction, however, and anyone who comes across a vacant lot with sufficient materials would obviously be “thoroughly equipped” to build this house to code. Can you see the fallacy?

I see where you are coming from. However, I don’t say that “just anyone” can understand the Scriptures and be equipped for every good work. The context of 2 Tim 3:15-17 is dealing with the man of God, not just anyone. As 1 Cor 2:14 says unregenerate men cannot understand the things of God. A person needs the Holy Spirit to understand the Holy Scripture.

Do you acknowledge a difference?

In a sense, I do acknowledge a difference. However, I still posit that the Scriptures (with the Holy Spirit, who inspired them) are capable of making one wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Once one is regenerate, then he has the basic ability to understand the Scriptures, which are sufficient for their task.

DeFide:

I’ve obviously irritated you. I apologize for that. It was not my aim. I am not being flippant with you. I attempted to address your replies.

I’ll take you at your word, let’s put it behind us.

I think you misunderstood which verse I was referring to.

Perhaps so…even now I’m not sure what you mean (i.e., where did I misunderstand and what verse were you refering to?)

You seem rather arbitrary on how you want to interpret what word when. In fact, you seem to indicate that you can read St. Paul’s mind when he uses “able” in verses.

I try to let context determine meaning. Words don’t, on their own, “mean” anything. It is their relationship to other words that really gives their meaning. The verse from 2 Tim 2 speaks of men’s ability to teach. The verses 2 Tim 3:15-17 deal with the nature and purpose of Scripture. They are two different subjects. If you give me a little more to work with maybe I can clarify myself. I don’t claim to be able to read Paul’s mind. However, as I’ve said, your alternative explanations are speculatory. Even if I am trying to read Paul’s mind, we are still on equal footing (though I still think that the grammar of 2 Tim 3:15-17 is more supportive of my view).

If St. Paul was defining “Sola Scriptura”, why doesn’t he say so explicitly? Everyone for 1500 years missed it.

I would say, “because in the context, he did not have to. Timothy already knew.” I don’t know much about Patristics, but I am aware of people who find support for the sufficiency of Scripture in the church Fathers.

Doesn’t this discussion itself show how personal interpretation of Scripture is not sufficient? This is foundational to your faith, and yet other sincere people don’t agree when we examine Scripture.

No, we are dialoguing. Hopefully, the meaning of the text will become clear as we work with it. And, I’ve not said personal interpretation is sufficient. I’ve said that Scripture is sufficient.

Even other Sola Scriptura-ists cannot agree on the nature of Baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, etc. Jesus said to take disagreements to the Church, not scripture (Mt 18:15-18)

You are looking at this out of context. Matt 18:15ff deals with personal sin and church discipline, not doctrinal disputes.

 

[TPJCatholic]

If the Bible is the sole rule and binding authority of the Christian faith, then Christians need nothing but the Bible. They do not need teachers, or pastors, or priests, or Churches, etc…all they need is a Bible, the time to read it and the Holy Spirit to help them personally interpret it. Done, end of story. Let’s tear down dem Churches!

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

Gene C.:

1 - You stated that the Scriptures ARE the Apostolic Tradition. Please tell me where I am told in Scripture to regard the writings of Non-Apostles such as Luke, Mark, Jude, James and the anonymous book of Hebrews as Apostolic?

You aren’t told to regard them as Apostolic. Most of the NT is written by apostles (hence, my apostolic tradition comment). Luke is cited as Scripture by Paul, thus the canon of the NT is shown to be mroe than just apostolic writing. As I’ve said, I am not yet prepared to discuss canon. We agree on the New Testament canon, let’s discuss what it means and leave how we know what constitutes it for another time.

2 - You asked that Protestants be allowed to define your own doctrines. Which Protestant should I refer to as having the proper definition of Sola Scriptura?

I’ve dealt with this. The historic Protestant position is the one I have been articulating. This is the one you should accept. I cannot help it if some Protestants have distorted or misunderstood this teaching.
By way of example, suppose I came in here and argued with you for worshipping Mary above Christ. You would explain that the RCC teaches you to honor her and that most certainly Christ is regarded as superior to his mother. It would not be fair of me to cite examples such as a church in Puerto Rico where a statue of Mary sits enthroned above a statue of the entombed Christ, or of the experiences of a missionary friend of mine, who in Mexico say worshippers of Christ persecuted by people devoted to the cult of the virgin of Guadelupe, and then tell you that I cannot say whose definition of devotion to Mary is the Catholic position.

3 - You referred to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Here is Article XXIII: WE AFFIRM the clarity of Scripture and specifically of its message about salvation from sin. WE DENY that all passages of Scripture are equally clear or have equal bearing on the message of redemption. If Scripture is clear in its message about salvation from sin, how come godly, erudite Evangelical Bible scholars cannot agree on whether a child of God can fall from grace, die unrepentant and lose their salvation?

Because some erudite Evangelical Bible scholars are not submissive to all parts of the Bible. Because of their prior and superior commitment to Libertarian Free Will, they refuse to submit to the Bible’s clear teaching on the Perseverance and preservation of the saints.

4 - I am confused. Jesus told us to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet in Acts we read that people were baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Can you tell me if I am allowed to do both or does one take precedence over the other? Please show me from Scripture.

Jesus gives the baptismal formula. The Acts record uses “name” more in the sense of authority (in this regard). At least this is my understanding. Also, Matt 28 records a command (and is thus, more didactic). Acts is a narrative (and thus records what happened, not necessarily saying whether or not it was right). Basic hermeneutics: the didactic interprets the narrative.

 

[DeFide]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

As I’ve said, I’m not prepared to discuss canon. I simply haven’t done the homework. I understand your argument, but have not studied enough to find an answer. However, I do know many Protestants who do hold to Sola Scriptura and have done research on canon. I suppose there must be a salution. Perhaps we could discuss this at a later time?

I see where you are coming from. However, I don’t say that “just anyone” can understand the Scriptures and be equipped for every good work. The context of 2 Tim 3:15-17 is dealing with the man of God, not just anyone. As 1 Cor 2:14 says unregenerate men cannot understand the things of God. A person needs the Holy Spirit to understand the Holy Scripture.

In a sense, I do acknowledge a difference. However, I still posit that the Scriptures (with the Holy Spirit, who inspired them) are capable of making one wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Once one is regenerate, then he has the basic ability to understand the Scriptures, which are sufficient for their task.

I’ll take you at your word, let’s put it behind us.

Perhaps so…even now I’m not sure what you mean (i.e., where did I misunderstand and what verse were you refering to?)

I try to let context determine meaning. Words don’t, on their own, “mean” anything. It is their relationship to other words that really gives their meaning. The verse from 2 Tim 2 speaks of men’s ability to teach. The verses 2 Tim 3:15-17 deal with the nature and purpose of Scripture. They are two different subjects. If you give me a little more to work with maybe I can clarify myself. I don’t claim to be able to read Paul’s mind. However, as I’ve said, your alternative explanations are speculatory. Even if I am trying to read Paul’s mind, we are still on equal footing (though I still think that the grammar of 2 Tim 3:15-17 is more supportive of my view).

I would say, “because in the context, he did not have to. Timothy already knew.” I don’t know much about Patristics, but I am aware of people who find support for the sufficiency of Scripture in the church Fathers.

No, we are dialoguing. Hopefully, the meaning of the text will become clear as we work with it. And, I’ve not said personal interpretation is sufficient. I’ve said that Scripture is sufficient.

You are looking at this out of context. Matt 18:15ff deals with personal sin and church discipline, not doctrinal disputes.

1. On your last item, to lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21.
2. You have something to add to your definition of Sola Scriptura. You say that you must be a man of God. How do you know you are the man of God? (BTW, it now seems Scripture isn’t Sola anymore. Man of God + Scripture seems to be your view.)
3. I agree that the two “able” verses are on different subjects. That was my point. Why does “able” mean “solely able” where you want it to, and merely “able” just a few paragraphs earlier? I suspect you’re reading presuppositions into the verses selectively.
4. I think you misundestood that I was talking about “able” in context with the following verses of 2 Tim 3:15, still not meaning “sufficient”, “solely able”, or “adequate”. I accept the blame for not being clear about that.
5. I think that we can agree that Scripture is inerrant. Where we part ways is when personal interpretation comes in. I believe that the Church has the authority to make infallible pronouncements of faith and morals for the faithful, whereas you believe some (yet to be defined) man of God can make infallible pronouncements. Feel free to clarify.
6. The word “able” does not imply that the objective goal will infallibly happen, but is merely possible. I’m “able” to make a 3-pt basketball shot blindfolded, but it doesn’t mean it’s likely. (Oh, despite being able, I can’t do it without the ball. It’s not sola mea)

 

[Lillith]

Semp…I am reading your messages thoroughly…first you said this:

**You are reading a Roman Catholic ecclesiology into the text here. A man of God is simply a man who is possessed by God: any Christian. You cannot claim that this is an official office of clergy without making unwarranted leaps of logic. 1 Tim 6:11 does not teach that man of God is an office of clergy either. Indeed, Ephesians 4:11ff indicates that all of God’s people do the work of ministry.
**

Then you said this:

** I see where you are coming from. However, I don’t say that “just anyone” can understand the Scriptures and be equipped for every good work. The context of 2 Tim 3:15-17 is dealing with the man of God, not just anyone. As 1 Cor 2:14 says unregenerate men cannot understand the things of God. A person needs the Holy Spirit to understand the Holy Scripture.**

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

Lillith:

Semp…I am reading your messages thoroughly…first you said this:

**You are reading a Roman Catholic ecclesiology into the text here. A man of God is simply a man who is possessed by God: any Christian. You cannot claim that this is an official office of clergy without making unwarranted leaps of logic. 1 Tim 6:11 does not teach that man of God is an office of clergy either. Indeed, Ephesians 4:11ff indicates that all of God’s people do the work of ministry.
**

Then you said this:

** I see where you are coming from. However, I don’t say that “just anyone” can understand the Scriptures and be equipped for every good work. The context of 2 Tim 3:15-17 is dealing with the man of God, not just anyone. As 1 Cor 2:14 says unregenerate men cannot understand the things of God. A person needs the Holy Spirit to understand the Holy Scripture.**

I’m not sure what you are getting at…I assume you see a contradiction between these two statements…I do not see one. If you’ll clarify I’d be happy to explain myself more clearly.

 

[RyanL]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

I’m not sure what you are getting at…I assume you see a contradiction between these two statements…I do not see one. If you’ll clarify I’d be happy to explain myself more clearly.

I think what Lillith is saying is that you have claimed that for any Christian, the Bible is formally sufficient. Is that your position?

God bless,
RyanL

 

[john_ennis]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

It is true that the OT is primarily in view. However, in 1 Tim 5:18, Paul cites both Deut 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as Scripture.
Also, 2 Pet 3:16 identifies Paul’s letters as Scripture. We cannot limit “Scripture” to only the Old Testament.

This whole issue about what writings Paul was talking about makes Sola Scriptura untenable; no, you haven’t really answered this OT argument. Can any sane person believe that Timothy understood Paul to mean the entire canon we have today?

He didn’t. And since Paul was inarguably writing about a portion of the Scripture we now have, he meant what he said to Timothy: profitable…inspired. No less, no more.

Your knowledge is impressive, Sempereformanda, even remarkable. But to make “profitable” and “inspired” mean “all that is necessary to be believed” requires a lengthy thesis from you. Even leaving aside the incompleteness of first century Scriptures, Paul’s letter doesn’t plainly indicate at all what you are extrapolating.

And then, considering that incompleteness, we know Paul could not have meant that, under any interpretation.

Peace.
John

 

[Lillith]

Lillith:

Semp…I am reading your messages thoroughly…first you said this:

**You are reading a Roman Catholic ecclesiology into the text here. A man of God is simply a man who is possessed by God: any Christian. You cannot claim that this is an official office of clergy without making unwarranted leaps of logic. 1 Tim 6:11 does not teach that man of God is an office of clergy either. Indeed, Ephesians 4:11ff indicates that all of God’s people do the work of ministry. **

Then you said this:

I see where you are coming from. However, I don’t say that “just anyone” can understand the Scriptures and be equipped for every good work. The context of 2 Tim 3:15-17 is dealing with the man of God, not just anyone. As 1 Cor 2:14 says unregenerate men cannot understand the things of God. A person needs the Holy Spirit to understand the Holy Scripture.

These letters were written to a church full of believers, and so by your terms they were filled with the Holy spirit. They already had accepted the Lord …who is “Just anyone” if it isn’t the clergy?