Sola Scriptura . . .

[down_under]

Dear Readers,

**-Scriptures are regula fidei or the infallible rule of faith something James Whites puts bluntly. You can’t say it’s not sufficient because we look to scriptures to find out how to get saved.

-If you wanted to be a Christian, the use of the scriptures is the only thing you’ll ever need to find out how.

-Tradition, that is what’s outside of the text [Bible], isn’t considered to be binding on the Christian because there’s no basis for it. **
What’s written here is the general definition of Sola Scriptura sufficient enough to begin another subject. I hope you read this well and I will counter my arguments from here. Thanks for reading my thoughts.

Parker

well that sounds a whole lot like what we have been talking about this whole time to a regular pew sitting catholic like myself, but just for you lets change the beat of the song so maybe you find the right page of music. because if you think this is the problem we are having then you are not on the same page as the rest of us.

to state it plainly in one sentence based on what you just said to believe ss is to believe that the bible itself contains all the divinly inspired truth one will ever need to become a perfect follower of christ and one will never need the tradition of the church to tell one what the bible means because it is perfectly clear and does not need any interpertor athortative or otherwise.

I can give you 30000 reasons why that is not true, but they are only as far away as your phone book. this does not work because honest God fearing bible believeing christians have proven that they cannot come up with divine truth without that athortative interpertor which is the church who uses the tradition of the apostles.

the bible says to go to the church to get this tradition. your next question is which church. which is the real question in the end. You lean on ss because there seems to be NO athortative tradition among so many options. However leaning on ss only makes more options. More splits more religions as more more people try to be there own athortative interpertor. Yes you will say the holy spirit is the spirit of truth and understanding. I am certain you dont need chapter and verse there. But even chapter and verse were christian inventions you would not have without the church. an 11 century monk put in the chapters and gutenberg put in the versus to make sure he would not miss any.

No interpertor you might also say. but the bible you are reading is already an interperation. You cannot translate languages word for word so well. When you give a translation you also give an interperation. They go hand in hand. then the reader interperates it again. At least as a western rationalist. a 21 century man. already you depend on more than scritpure to tell you what scripture means. other wise you would be reading greek that had no chapter and verse notes in it.

 

[down_under]

The holy spirit is the spirit of truth and understanding…

its early I missed that bit I meant to mentions that the holy spirit was givin to the apostles not to everyone in general. It was promised as a guide to the church. agian which church. keep comming. you will see. look to the fathers they have the answer for you.

 

[Church_Militant]

The holy spirit is the spirit of truth and understanding…

its early I missed that bit I meant to mentions that the holy spirit was givin to the apostles not to everyone in general. It was promised as a guide to the church. agian which church. keep comming. you will see. look to the fathers they have the answer for you.

I don’t think that that is accurate based on Act 2:38 DU…

 

[tdgesq]

Sadly, most Catholics are unwilling to comprehend the straw man arguements they use against. So, what’s there left for me to say? Well here’s what SS doesn’t mean.

Really? Let’s see who’s setting up the straw man.

Rule #1: Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean the Bible contains all knowledge: It’s not a scientific textbook, phone book, cook book, car manual etc.

I have never seen a Catholic argue that SS means that the Bible contains all knowledge. I haven’t even seen a Catholic claim that the Church contains all knowledge scientific, etc. I don’t know who you are arguing against here, but it isn’t against any Catholic I know.

Rule #2: Even though there is a lot of information for the reader to comprehend about the past, present, and future, the Bible will not tell you all religious knowledge. It’s not going to tell you about Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism etc. Yes, it’s true, there are a lot of things that Jesus did but I will discuss that later on.

I have never seen a Catholic contend that SS means that the Bible contains all religious knowledge about non-Christian religions. What would be gained by taking such a position anyway? Although this may be somebody’s misunderstanding, it isn’t a Catholic misunderstanding.

Rule #3 & 4 The authority of the church is not to be denied or that to say that the word of God hasn’t been spoken.

These at least are areas where Catholics and non-Catholics have legitimate disputes. As for the rule #3, it depends on the non-Catholic who’s talking. Some would tell you that there is no visible structured church on Earth that has the authority to tell us what to do. You would obviously disagree with that as would I. But it doesn’t change the fact that some n-Cs have a different notion of SS in this regard than you do.

Rule #4. I think you misunderstand what Catholics are getting at when they point out that the word of God was spoken before and after it was written. The point isn’t that SS teaches that the word of God is never spoken. It’s that in the early Christian community there was no written collection of books that we today call the Bible to which those early Christians had access. Apparently they had access to God’s word in some other way that was sufficient for their salvation, namely, through the oral testimony of the Church.

-Scriptures are regula fidei or the infallible rule of faith something James Whites puts bluntly. You can’t say it’s not sufficient because we look to scriptures to find out how to get saved.

Catholics don’t hold that scripture is materially insufficient. What they do hold is that it is not formally sufficient by itself to lead the reader to the correct conclusion about how we obtain salvation.

-If you wanted to be a Christian, the use of the scriptures is the only thing you’ll ever need to find out how.

Well, if what you mean is that scripture is itself formally sufficient to tell people how to obtain salvation, then this is obviously not true. Let’s look what the people of various n-C Christian religions out there understand from their use of scripture alone. Some hold that water baptism is not necessary at all for salvation. Some do. Of those that do some believe that it is necessary to baptize infants, while others do not. Of those that believe that only adult baptism is necessary, some require full immersion, while others do not. Of those that require full immersion some require that the immersion take place by plunging backwards into the water, while others do not. Some believe that there are certain other ways that baptism can be effected, others do not. Some claim that we are justified by faith and works, while others claim we are only justified by faith. Some claim osas, while others claim that we can lose our salvation.

Maybe you mean something else by the sufficiency of scripture alone.

-Tradition, that is what’s outside of the text [Bible], isn’t considered to be binding on the Christian because there’s no basis for it.

Catholics agree to a certain extent. No tradition can be binding if it conflicts with what is set forth in scripture. That would be a tradition of men that should be rejected.

Btw, your definition of SS is different and imho weaker than some of the other definitions that I have seen on this board. But if this is the way you want to go, so be it.

 

[MountainBoy11]

OK, so what is the topic again?!? I kid, I kid!

Anyway, I’m going to try it one more time, because, believe it or not, there is a point I’m trying to make.

o4g,

How does SS relate to embryonic stem cell research, or the killing of embryos for the purpose of finding cures?

How does SS deal with contraception?

NotWorthy- you have probably asked for this about 3 times now and it’s starting to bug me. See posts 108 and 126 to for the qualifications of Sola Scriptura.

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy- you have probably asked for this about 3 times now and it’s starting to bug me. See posts 108 and 126 to for the qualifications of Sola Scriptura.

Sorry about the bugging, but your “soap box posts” didn’t even begin to address my question. I see the qualifications of SS. I am well familiar with them.

your post

** -If you wanted to be a Christian, the use of the scriptures is the only thing you’ll ever need to find out how.

-Tradition, that is what’s outside of the text [Bible], isn’t considered to be binding on the Christian because there’s no basis for it.**

doesn’t address my point.**

**I could care less about the medical advances part, that’s technology.

The point is, the bible is silent on Embryonic Stem Cells. So it must not be important on your part, for some churches feel it’s a sin, and others don’t. Don’t you agree that the killing of innocent babies is important enough to warrant an authoirative figure, even if it’s not in the Bible.

Contraception seemed to be important enough 80 years ago for every religion to think that it was a serious sin. Then, beginning in the 1930’s, churches bending to the public will, tended to drop the contraception as an issue of sin, leaving it up to the person involved.

What changed? What was once, even according to SS, a sin is not a sin anymore. It seems like the congregation was determining what was sinful.

How many faiths have bowed to the pressure of abortion, homosexuality, and women pastors/priests?

 

[Philthy]

Observing4Grace;:

Well here’s what SS doesn’t mean.
Rule #1: Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean the Bible contains all knowledge: Rule #2: the Bible will not tell you all religious knowledge. It’s not going to tell you about Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism etc.

As has been pointed out, these two “points” are irrelevent and the epitomy of the “straw man”. Your attempt to attribute such nonsense as the opinion of Catholics is weak. If Catholics have any opinion of SS it is the direct result of, and predicated upon, interaction with Protestants attempting to define what *they *beleive SS is. All SS definitions are, in fact, personal interpretations. It is precisely the same problem which results in the plurality of doctrine among Protestant churches.
O4G:

Rule #3 The authority of the church is not to be denied

You’ve made a potentially strong statement here, but have left so much unspoken that the statement is actually pretty weak. You need to explain:

Who or what the “church” is in the context of your statement and how, exactly, it is recognized as such by all Christians?
What is the “authority” of the church and how does that not contradict Scripture being the rule of faith?
How and when its authority is to be used?
Are its decisions binding upon individual believers?
Does a refusal to submit to the “authority” of the “church” have any eternal consequences?
Does Rule#4 come from Scripture or from the authority of the Church?

o4g:

Rule #4: SS is not to say that the word of God hasn’t been spoken.

But it is to say that the end of the spoken “word of God” occurred with the book of Revelation. The problem is that such a statement does not come from Scripture and I dont see anything in your definition of SS to account for such a belief to be binding upon the “average believer” reading the bible. Where, exactly, would the “average believer” come up with the notion that oral and/or written revelation has stopped???
o4g:

Here’s what SS means: Scriptures are… the infallible rule of faith.]
The problem with this assertion is that:

It is not infallibly determined from Scripture
Scripture - especially the NT - is not written in rulebook form. >There is about 400 pages of NT; exactly how many rules are there and what are they?
Whatever you claim the “rules of faith” are according to your reading of the Bible, there are others who have more or less of them using the same approach.

o4g:

You can’t say it’s not sufficient because we look to scriptures to find out how to get saved.

Simply looking to the Scriptures does not lead all to find “the way” of how to get saved. Furthermore, you have no way of knowing for certain who died and went to Heaven, and that alone is the ultimate criterion for salvation.

-If you wanted to be a Christian, the use of the scriptures is the only thing you’ll ever need to find out how.

Again, 400 pages to basically say, “Repent and be baptized”?

-Tradition, that is what’s outside of the text [Bible]
, isn’t considered to be binding on the Christian because there’s no basis for it.

Ahhh - “what’s outside of the Bible” as determined by whom? You? How does this not contradict your above claim that the “authority of the church is not to be denied”?

You did a good job of presenting your case - thanks. I simply find too many historical, theological, practical and scriptural holes to make SS reasonable and practical. In addition, the unresolvable inconsistencies within the communities adhering to SS provide credible witness to its weaknesses.

But let me be clear: I am not one to judge people’s hearts(at least not without later regretting and confessing it!) and I accept you as a brother (or sister) in Christ by virtue of the fact that you are honestly seeking to follow the will of God, and I wish you well.

 

[MountainBoy11]

What I am hoping to see sooner or later is your full proofs that SS is found in the New Testament. Hopefully you have the time to engage that.

Okay, here we go:

I believe full proof for SS in the NT is a literal, straightforward reading/interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-4:2.

“the Holy Scriptures are able to instruct you for salvation…All Scripture…is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work…Preach the Word”

This is an indication that the words of God which we have in Scripture are all we need in order to be saved and are sufficient to equip us for living the Christian life. If there is any good work God wants Christians to do, God has made provision in His Word for training the xn to do it. (Let me know if we need to do more in depth grammatical/contextual/exegetical battle on this.)

This is why Jesus said
“Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth”
Sanctify means to set apart from sin, to be holy and separated to God. According to Jesus, this happens by means of inscripturated truth.

I want to go to more passages, such as Mark 12:24, 2 Pet 1:3, Mt 4:1-11, Lk 11:28, Lk 16:27, Heb 4:12, James 1:25, 1 Pet 2:2, and OT passages such as Dt 6:4 and Psalm 19, but I think there is a more pressing issue that needs to be addressed (plus, I think it’s fair that you contribute a fair share of the work here )

Since I have answered you, and before tearing apart the above, please answer me:

WHERE DOES SCRIPTURE EVER SUGGEST TAHT THERE ARE UNWRITTEN TRUTHS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR OUR SPIRITUAL WELL BEING. IOW, show me where the NT cautions believers from sola scriptura, and says "you need Scripture plus…I can guess a few places you’ll go here, and ask you to please bring it on. Then lets have at each other’s responses.

And just another quickie…To suggest taht the Word of God is insufficient -that more is needed- is the basis for virtually every cult that pretends to be Christian. A common point of cults is a belief that people need the Bible plus something else, such as the writings of some “enlightened” prophet (Islam, Mormon), or in the RCCs case, the edicts of church tradition.**

 

[Observing4Grace]

well that sounds a whole lot like what we have been talking about this whole time to a regular pew sitting catholic like myself, but just for you lets change the beat of the song so maybe you find the right page of music. because if you think this is the problem we are having then you are not on the same page as the rest of us.

**No, I think it’s quite the contrary. **

to state it plainly in one sentence based on what you just said to believe ss is to believe that the bible itself contains all the divinly inspired truth one will ever need to become a perfect follower of christ and one will never need the tradition of the church to tell one what the bible means because it is perfectly clear and does not need any interpertor athortative or otherwise.

**That’s not what I said. Let’s address it point by point: **

**one will never need the tradition **

***-I didn’t say you can’t have tradition. It’s just that there is no bind upon the Christian to believe if there is no basis found upon it. *****

to tell one what the bible means

***-The Church does assist in helping and leading the believer but like the rest of the believers who consist the church, she must bow to the authority of scripture. Neither does this mean you can’t use the ECF’s to determine what the Early Christians believed. However, that doesn’t mean we should, as believers, agree with everything they said about the scriptures. ***

**because it is perfectly clear **

***-Did I say it was perfectly clear? No. Like I keep reiterating, there are points of difficulty within scripture but it doesn’t deny it’s sufficiency by any means. ***

does not need any interpertor athortative or otherwise.

-I didn’t say that either. So, please refrain from your word stuffin’!

I can give you 30000 reasons why that is not true,

**I can give you six times as many reasons from the number you mentioned. **

but they are only as far away as your phone book.

**you’re missing the point. **

this does not work because honest God fearing bible believeing christians have proven that they cannot come up with divine truth without that athortative interpertor which is the church who uses the tradition of the apostles.

***Oh, Catholic Church, have mercy on my soul! :bowdown: How could I never go anywhere without her divine interpreter? Mercy me! :bigyikes: *****

Anyways, you must tell me how you were able to determine that we [protestants] need a divine infallible interpreter without being the interpreter yourself or how you were able to tell us without a doubt that what we say isn’t an act of private interpretation.

You lean on ss because there seems to be NO athortative tradition among so many options.

**If there’s no basis for it, I’m not bounded by it. For example, there is no proof for the bodily assumption of Mary in scriptures or purgatory for that matter either, therefore it’s not binding. However, teachings like the eucharist, baptism, trinity, etc. are binding on me as the believer because you can find it in there. **

However leaning on ss only makes more options. More splits more religions as more more people try to be there own athortative interpertor.

**Hold on here! The scriptures are perfec. Just because one misinterprets or deliberately misquotes them doesn’t make it insufficient. **

Yes you will say the holy spirit is the spirit of truth and understanding. I am certain you dont need chapter and verse there.

**Your condescending tone doesn’t help me. **

But even chapter and verse were christian inventions you would not have without the church. An 11 century monk put in the chapters and gutenberg put in the versus to make sure he would not miss any.

Yak, yak, yak, I’m bounded by an eleventh century monk.

No interpertor you might also say. but the bible you are reading is already an interperation. You cannot translate languages word for word so well.

**The message doesn’t change now does it? Besides, you’re the ones who borrow from others. Ex. The Douray-Rheims bible comes from a Latin translation, the determination of the cannons were coming from the eastern churches. Wow! That’s a lot.

Parker**

 

[Observing4Grace]

I have never seen a Catholic argue that SS means that the Bible contains all knowledge.

**I haven’t either but you’re charging us Protestants of making that assertion. Plus the tone in your questions, * implies that you and your fellow apologist wannabes don’t understand the point of SS. ***

I haven’t even seen a Catholic claim that the Church contains all knowledge scientific, etc.

**Stop switching words, I said Bible, not “church”. **

I don’t know who you are arguing against here, but it isn’t against any Catholic I know.

**You sure don’t understand or listen to yourself either. **

Although this may be somebody’s misunderstanding, it isn’t a Catholic misunderstanding.

Well this definition is used because like most catholic apologists around here, they accuse us of thinking of SS to mean that everything (quite literally) is contained within the scriptures. This is to point out that your understanding of it is exactly what I said in the beginning: a STRAWMAN.

These at least are areas where Catholics and non-Catholics have legitimate disputes. As for the rule #3, it depends on the non-Catholic who’s talking.

**No. It depends on how well informed your non-catholic counterpart is. I’m a bit smarter than an average “misinformed” Protestant. **

Some would tell you that there is no visible structured church on Earth that has the authority to tell us what to do.

That’s a misunderstanding of SS.

You would obviously disagree with that as would I. But it doesn’t change the fact that some n-Cs have a different notion of SS in this regard than you do.

**Well like I already said, this is an entirely differnt take on it. Most of these charges you present are entirely not true or better yet a strawman because most reformers never said that. A better phrase would be like this: Prima Scriptura. Since we’re now on the same page, I think we’re going to make it as long time friends. **

Rule #4. I think you misunderstand what Catholics are getting at when they point out that the word of God was spoken before and after it was written.

**I understand entirely. **

The point isn’t that SS teaches that the word of God is never spoken. It’s that in the early Christian community there was no written collection of books that we today call the Bible to which those early Christians had access.

**Well you’re clearly mistaken. How do you think St. Clement wrote his writings? To whom did he allude to when he wrote his epistles? Scripture, Scripture, Scripture. You’ll find a lot of his writings hinting to the NT a lot. **

Apparently they had access to God’s word in some other way that was sufficient for their salvation, namely, through the oral testimony of the Church.

**Well even if it is oral testimony, the very same information spoken by the church should be found plainly in scriptures. You shouldn’t use a fine comb and be finicky with words. **

 

[Observing4Grace]

Catholics don’t hold that scripture is materially insufficient. What they do hold is that it is not formally sufficient by itself to lead the reader to the correct conclusion about how we obtain salvation.

I’m familiar with that position. That is why I say it is because the bible a technical manual that’s written for the church to go by. For what use is the church without a sensible guideline? The Church is consisted of believers, is it not?

Well, if what you mean is that scripture is itself formally sufficient to tell people how to obtain salvation, then this is obviously not true. Let’s look what the people of various n-C Christian religions out there understand from their use of scripture alone. Some hold that water baptism is not necessary at all for salvation…

**I know where you’re going but that’s not say the RCC church is any better. For instance, the church hasn’t decided on the following issues:

-Whether to take Genesis 1 & 2 literally
-If the Vatican II is a legitimate council
-If the pope is legitimate or not

These are critical issues, you know. Plus there are liberal, conservative and moderate Catholics, the ones who hold different practices, and others who beg to differ on the traditions themselves.**

Maybe you mean something else by the sufficiency of scripture alone.

**No. **

Catholics agree to a certain extent. No tradition can be binding if it conflicts with what is set forth in scripture. That would be a tradition of men that should be rejected.

**Right. This is why I reject the notions of Mary. I respect the Virgin and would honor her as far as erecting a plaque in her name. But what the church claims about her is what I say differs the most. **

Btw, your definition of SS is different and imho weaker than some of the other definitions that I have seen on this board. But if this is the way you want to go, so be it.

**I don’t consider it weaker. It’s more clearer and easier to grasp. I’ve already sorted through the dozens of charges and yet they’re all the same. Why don’t you pick up a book by Eric Svendsen called “Evangelical Answers” and James White’s “The Roman Catholic Controversy”. It’s not that hard, is it?

Parker**

 

[Observing4Grace]

Sorry about the bugging, but your “soap box posts” didn’t even begin to address my question. I see the qualifications of SS. I am well familiar with them.

your post doesn’t address my point.**

**I could care less about the medical advances part, that’s technology.

The point is, the bible is silent on Embryonic Stem Cells. So it must not be important on your part, for some churches feel it’s a sin, and others don’t. Don’t you agree that the killing of innocent babies is important enough to warrant an authoirative figure, even if it’s not in the Bible.

This quote clearly demonstrates my point. The Bible doesn’t mention Abortion, Stem Cells, etc. because it’s not a scientific textbook. However it’s sufficient to tell you other things that are important, [thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, etc.] So, here we go with the next question: If the Bible is blunt about these concepts, does one need to know what kind of category the sin falls under? The answer: NO

What changed? What was once, even according to SS, a sin is not a sin anymore. It seems like the congregation was determining what was sinful.

**Ahh… here we are again with another problem. Deliberate misinterpretation of scripture doesn’t make the scriptures insufficient. Period.

Parker**

 

[MountainBoy11]

Sorry about the bugging, but your “soap box posts” didn’t even begin to address my question. I see the qualifications of SS. I am well familiar with them.

The point is, the bible is silent on Embryonic Stem Cells. So it must not be important on your part, for some churches feel it’s a sin, and others don’t. Don’t you agree that the killing of innocent babies is important enough to warrant an authoirative figure, even if it’s not in the Bible.

You know what…I think this is a great point and I’m glad you got to get it in. I do feel VERY strongly against abortion, and so do my pastors. But Scripture does address teh sanctity of human life…don’t have time here, but a prominent protestant spokesperson on this would be albert mohler. I refer you to his website.

Homepage - AlbertMohler.com

albertmohler.com

 

[Contarini]

Okay, here we go:

I believe full proof for SS in the NT is a literal, straightforward reading/interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-4:2.

A literal, straightforward reading of this text can’t possibly support SS. Only when you read a lot into it can you get to that conclusion.

“the Holy Scriptures are able to instruct you for salvation…All Scripture…is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work…Preach the Word”

This is an indication that the words of God which we have in Scripture are all we need in order to be saved and are sufficient to equip us for living the Christian life. If there is any good work God wants Christians to do, God has made provision in His Word for training the xn to do it. (Let me know if we need to do more in depth grammatical/contextual/exegetical battle on this.)

Well yes, since the text says absolutely nothing about Scripture being all we need. It isn’t interested in that question. It’s telling us what Scripture is, not what something else isn’t. (And Sacred Tradition isn’t really “something else” anyway–as defined by Vatican II it’s the ongoing process of transmission of the deposit of faith, not some other deposit clearly distinct from the deposit found in Scripture.)

This is why Jesus said
“Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth”
Sanctify means to set apart from sin, to be holy and separated to God. According to Jesus, this happens by means of inscripturated truth.

What makes you think that “Your word” in John 17 refers solely to “inscripturated truth”?

“Scripture is God’s Word” does not equate to “God’s Word always means Scripture.” That’s a basic logical fallacy (all cats are animals does not mean that all animals are cats).

God’s Word has a number of modes in which it operates, of which Scripture is one. No other written text simply *is *God’s Word (though others contain God’s Word), so in that sense Scripture is certainly unique.

WHERE DOES SCRIPTURE EVER SUGGEST TAHT THERE ARE UNWRITTEN TRUTHS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR OUR SPIRITUAL WELL BEING.

That makes no sense. You are asking Catholics to assume Sola Scriptura in order to refute it. Surely it needs to be proven before it can be used as the basis for the debate–and then you won’t need to have the debate! In other words, you are committing another classic fallacy–“begging the question.”

Of course 2 Thess. 2:15 does refer to oral tradition. Since it’s an early part of the NT there is no way to prove conclusively that this exhortation still applies to us after the closing of the canon. But there is no reason whatever to suppose that it doesn’t unless one starts by assuming Sola Scriptura.

And just another quickie…To suggest taht the Word of God is insufficient -that more is needed- is the basis for virtually every cult that pretends to be Christian. A common point of cults is a belief that people need the Bible plus something else, such as the writings of some “enlightened” prophet (Islam, Mormon), or in the RCCs case, the edicts of church tradition.

Why should Catholics or anyone else care about your definition of “cults”? And since when was guilt by association a legitimate form of argument? You just can’t keep away from your logical fallacies, can you!

Edwin

 

[kleary]

Okay, here we go:

I believe full proof for SS in the NT is a literal, straightforward reading/interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-4:2.

“the Holy Scriptures are able to instruct you for salvation…All Scripture…is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work…Preach the Word”

The “Holy Scriptures” when Paul wrote this verse was only the Old Testament was it not? I mean the entire Bible was not placed under one cover for many many years after 2 Tim was written. Paul did indeed mean the "Old Testament Scriptures ALONE (you can replace “Holy Scripture” in the above verse to say “OT Scriptures”) for at that time the New Testament Scriptures were not complete.

"It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his ***infancy ***(IE the OLD TESTAMENT) [emphasis added].

“Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.”
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Ken

 

[kleary]

WHERE DOES SCRIPTURE EVER SUGGEST TAHT THERE ARE UNWRITTEN TRUTHS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR OUR SPIRITUAL WELL BEING. IOW, show me where the NT cautions believers from sola scriptura, and says "you need Scripture plus…I can guess a few places you’ll go here, and ask you to please bring it on. Then lets have at each other’s responses. **

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Also, YOU still haven’t answered:shrug: .

Scripture suggests that there are indeed unwritten truths that are necessary for salvation. It suggests it by its silence. Its silence on what books are Scripture.

Ken

 

[NotWorthy]

observing4grace:

What changed? What was once, even according to SS, a sin is not a sin anymore. It seems like the congregation was determining what was sinful.

Ahh… here we are again with another problem. Deliberate misinterpretation of scripture doesn’t make the scriptures insufficient. Period.

And you see, this helps bolster my point. SS, though sound on paper, fails to hold up to the test, for we have Bible-Toting Churches claiming that Contraception is either:
a) not an essential (where once it WAS considered essential), or
b) no longer a sin (and they are silent regarding the reasoning behind their change).

So what happens? There seems to be no way to determine how important this issue is. If some think it’s important, they are faced with breaking off or what (at least this is what SS history has shown us).

 

[NotWorthy]

You know what…I think this is a great point and I’m glad you got to get it in. I do feel VERY strongly against abortion, and so do my pastors. But Scripture does address teh sanctity of human life…don’t have time here, but a prominent protestant spokesperson on this would be albert mohler. I refer you to his website.

albertmohler.com

Well, glad to see I’m no longer buggin’ you!
I agree that Scripture addresses the sanctity of human life, including the life of a fetus, but so many of your SS brothers don’t feel that a fetus is part of the sanctity fo life; the freedom of the mother has replaced the sanctity of the fetus.

What happens to SS when something considered essential to one group is deemed no longer essential to another, often in an effort to conform to the norms of society?

 

[Des]

Okay, here we go:

I believe full proof for SS in the NT is a literal, straightforward reading/interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-4:2.

“the Holy Scriptures are able to instruct you for salvation…All Scripture…is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work…”

You have to realize this is actually talking about the ‘Teacher’ teaching the students (since it is specifically using words like Instructing, correcting, or to reprove). The Pope or any Priest of the Catholic Church teaches Dogmas while quoting Scripture to reprove, correct and instruct us so the faithful or man of God may be perfect and furnished for every good work . This does not mean for the students to just pick up Scripture pray to the Holy Spirit and inevitably come to the fullness of the Truth God wishes to reveal within the written text. So yeah, again, you only pointed to yet another verse that fits the Catholic Church perfectly.

You also have to ask yourself why there were all these letters to the different Churches IF in fact Scripture (The Old Testament they were talking about in that verse) was sufficient enough. Why did the Apostles need to teach at all? Why not just throw the old Testament at them, tell them to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and to have a nice day? Because God knew they needed visible oral Teachers then and now.

 

[tdgesq]

I haven’t either but you’re charging us Protestants of making that assertion. Plus the tone in your questions, * implies that you and your fellow apologist wannabes don’t understand the point of SS.*

Actually I said the exact opposite. I said that Protestants don’t mean this by SS and that Catholics don’t accuse them of it either. I certainly don’t. There is no tone in my question. This is the internet. There is no tone. As for the rest, it’s silly, so I won’t respond.

Stop switching words, I said Bible, not “church”.