The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[thomat65]

@catholicray Sorry, no time to reply yet but I’d like to soon. Thanks for keeping the thread from closing.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

@catholicray asked . . . .

Have you found the passage in Scripture that supports your position yet?

I was wondering the same thing (which is why I came back here).

Any luck yet in finding a verse that teaches sola Scriptura in any way?

 

[thomat65]

Sola Scriptura is self refuting on many levels, in the one since St. Paul at one point says to hold fast to his teachings, both those given in writing (scripture) and spoken to them (oral tradition)

It sounds like you’re talking about 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” Among other things this means that Paul’s non-written words were entirely consistent with his written word. This is different from Roman Catholic Tradition which contradicts the clearly written gospel which scripture clearly and sternly warns against getting wrong, proving the absence of the Holy Spirit. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 also means that the Thessalonian church was expected and able to personally interpret Paul’s written word and act according to it. Again, different from what many Catholics say when they assert no one is able to personally interpret scripture, like how you say:

another spot in the bible states that the interpretation of scripture is not up to any individual man, indicating that there must be an authoritative body/person invested with the authority to do so.

You must be talking about 2 Peter 1:20-21 “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

So let me ask you: how do you know that 2 Peter 1:20-21 means “the interpretation of scripture is not up to any individual man”, except that you personally interpreted it to mean that?

And even if you mistranslate it as “But you need to realize that no one alone can understand any of the prophecies in the Scriptures”, it’s still only talking about prophecies within scripture.

And no, that is not the best translation of the words “this first knowing that any prophecy of scripture of its own interpretation not is”. Don’t you wonder why the CEV omits the conjunction at the beginning of verse 21? I suspect it’s because the conjunction that is there helps the reader to understand verse 20 based on verse 21. When you take the context together you are able to see Peter saying “scripture is very well confirmed–more so than personally hearing the voice of the Majestic Glory on that mountain–because the fulfillment of prophecy isn’t up for interpretation, because people didn’t make up these prophecies but they came from God”. Which means you ought to be paying much closer attention to the written words of God than you are.

Why are you ignoring the words of the man you claim as the first Pope?

 

[thomat65]

Further, one may have an infallible book and interpret it fallibly (give me almost any position, and I can probably find a bible verse to support it), which means there must be an infallible interpreter.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow. Romans 3:3-4 says “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar”. God’s written word will remain infallible even if everyone is false and mistreats it.

Also, Catholics do not escape the danger of fallibility. Tell me: what Papal Encyclical have you ever read that has required no personal interpretation? So why haven’t you invented another infallible authority to infallibly interpret them to you? And another infallible authority to infallibly interpret that authority’s interpretations? And so on?

You’ve put yourself in a position where your only escape hatch is for you to claim personal infallibility. Are you sure you want to do that?

Finally the Holy Spirit is clearly not the only thing necessary because otherwise all would believe the same things

Where did you invent this logic? Prove to me that every man, woman, and child necessarily must believe everything exactly the same when the Holy Spirit alone is at work. Good luck finding scripture or official Roman Catholic doctrine which infallibly states this. And good luck using it without personally interpreting it.

And it is not the case that agreement in everything is necessary. Haven’t you read Romans 14? Two people for whom Christ has died may disagree on which day of the week to worship and what foods may be eaten, and it remains true that Christ has died for both of them. There is even a point where Romans 14 says it’s wrong to even argue about it.

And surely you aren’t trying to convince me that everyone within the Roman Catholic Church agrees on everything? Come on. If the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium were all that are necessary, then would you suppose there would only be one Rite?

 

[thomat65]

@Michael_Anthony
I’m coming on strong, I know. But please let me help you out. One may use the scriptures to judge anything about which the scriptures speak, because they are the written words of God who is Judge over all. This Judge over all has fixed a day in which all the secrets of men will be judged in the open by Jesus, not by the Roman Catholic Church which at best can only hope to claim agreement with what will have already been bound and loosed in heaven at the time of its judgment.

On that day, it will be clearly demonstrated that everyone not united to Christ through faith alone has always fallen far short of the glory of God, having spent their life exchanging the glory of God for images resembling created things, worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator. Every evil thought, every careless word, and every hypocritical action will serve as incontrovertible evidence. Every failure in one point of God’s law will show transgression against the entire law leading to a fate much worse than death without mercy.

The only escape is through Christ who bore all sins (of people to be found in him) in his body on the tree, paying in full that debt that was nailed to the cross in totality as he cried “it is finished”, offering up his perfectly effective sacrifice once for all who believe, being made sin though He knew no sin so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

On that day there will be many who appeal to their works supposedly done in righteousness, saying “Lord, Lord, did we not do many mighty works in your name?” and they will be clearly shown to be lawless works because they were done without faith in Christ, the faith without which it is impossible to please God. Being sprinkled with water does not remove sins at all, neither does participation in other ceremonies or eating anything.

I urge you to repent of placing your trust in a human organization and seek shelter in Christ alone who is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to him in faith alone, and give glory to God alone who saves us by his unmerited favor alone as revealed in God’s written word which has final authority over all it touches.

Sorry, @catholicray, @De_Maria, and @Cathoholic. I’m out of time again. Working my way through. Will reply to you guys soon…

 

[Cathoholic]

@Michael_Anthony.

thomat65 told you this . . .

On that day there will be many who appeal to their works supposedly done in righteousness, saying “Lord, Lord, did we not do many mighty works in your name?” and they will be clearly shown to be lawless works because they were done without faith in Christ, the faith without which it is impossible to please God.

This is a partial truth (thomast65 seems to be suggesting that either ALL works are faithless works or that faithful works are non-salvific) and I will come back here and address it soon.

There is MORE to this story than the verse thomat65 is partially paraphrasing.

Taken by itself, this is a subtle denial of Christ living in you and working in you.

It is ANTI-incarnational.

It is an only PARTIALLY Biblical aspect combined with overt ERROR (at least if thomat65 is suggesting what I think he is suggesting).

The portion about “faith” Catholics already affirm. (But we don’t ADD to the Bible the word “ALONE” to this.)

 

[Cathoholic]

@thomat65 here seems to pretend that ALL “works” = lawless works. At least that is the ONLY paradigm presented here.

This is taught nowhere in Scripture.

Don’t be deceived by this.

From a prior post of mine elsewhere . . . .

There are what I term three different classifications of “works”.

The Cathoholic classification scheme (ha ha).

1. Old Covenant “works”. These are apart from Christ living in you and through you.
2. New Covenant “works” apart from grace. (Sowing to his own flesh)
3. New Covenant works with Christ at WORK IN YOU. (Sowing to the Spirit)

It is 3. Christ at work in you that is salvific.

Our salvation is not a mere moment ALONE, but a moment followed by a process. A lifelong process of justification.

You must be saved, then you must KEEP BEING saved. That’s WHY Revelation 22:11 can say . . . “he who is justified, let him be justified further still.”

(This Rev. 22 is quoted and exemplified in this manner in the Trent documents session 6 too.)

So you cannot merit your initial justification.
That is Christ alone.

And Christ Jesus MUST make the first move towards mankind too
(that is called, “God’s prevenient grace” ).

When the Son of Man was lifted up, He drew all men to Himself (John 12:32).

Old Covenant works of law such as cicumcision (discussed in Romans 3 and 4) are NOT salvific.

New Covenant works apart from Christ or before you are united to Christ (discussed in Ephesians 2:8-9) are not salvific.

But once you are saved, once you are a child of God, once you have the Spirit of Truth living IN YOU, than you not only CAN, but MUST work in faith and hope.

To whom much is given (the Spirit of God is MUCH), much will be REQUIRED (Luke 12:48).
Not merely “ desired ” but “required”.

Do not be deceived. When the Spirit of God dwells IN YOU, you can and MUST sow works unto eternal life not on your own, but WITH GOD!

GALATIANS 6:7-8 7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption;
but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

.

Justification by faith alone (if “faith” is reduced to a mere intellectual event and charitable works and/or hope are ignored), is a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God.

.

COLOSSIANS 3:23-25 23 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, 24 knowing that from the Lord
you will receive the inheritance as your reward;
you are serving the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done , and there is no partiality.

.

TITUS 1:16 They profess to know God , but they deny him by their deeds ; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

 

[Cathoholic]

God Is At WORK In You (Sanctifying Grace)

Christ works in us and through us. This is part of our cooperation with our Lord Jesus. Since it is He, Jesus, that works in us, Steve Wood often refers to these works as “Grace Works”, not our own mere works on their own.

This concept of God at work in us—this notion of “Grace Works”—is illustrated below.

PHILIPPIANS 2:12-13 12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you , both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

PHILIPPIANS 4:13 13 I can do all things in him who strengthens me.

GALATIANS 2:20 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me ; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

EPHESIANS 3:20-21 20 Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think , 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.

HEBREWS 13:20a, 21 “Now may the God of peace . . . . equip you with everything good that you may do His will, working in you that which is pleasing in His sight through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Other verses that at least hint at the same thing include, Romans 8:8-11, 1st Thessalonians 2:13, Philippians 1:6, 1st Corinthians 9:1, 2nd Corinthians 6:1, 2nd Corinthians 9:8, John 9:4, and many others.

.

HEBREWS 5:7-11, 14 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him , 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. 11 About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. . . . 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

.

ACTS 5:31-32 31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him. "

 

[catholicray]

Also, Catholics do not escape the danger of fallibility. Tell me: what Papal Encyclical have you ever read that has required no personal interpretation? So why haven’t you invented another infallible authority to infallibly interpret them to you? And another infallible authority to infallibly interpret that authority’s interpretations? And so on?

This is actually a strawman believe it or not. Regardless I view this argument this way. First not everything that is taught through the Magisterium is an interpretation of Scripture. Nor does the Church teach that there is zero tolerance for personal interpretations of Scripture. It does teach that any personal interpretation of Scripture, if it is accurate, must align with the teachings of the Magisterium.

Long story short, there is no need for an infallible interpretation of an infallible interpretation of Scripture in the Catholic Church. The interpretation is infallible. What an individual understands is fallible. After an infallible interpretation is arrived at there is only room for clarification rather than interpretation. The clarification can not override or be logically at odds with that which is infallibly defined.

Your accusation has an answer ultimately but it does take some work to understand. The answer to your question is why the Church claims to be on a pilgrimage. Every doctrine of the Church is dependent on what has come before it. That is part of the reason that Tradition is equally as important as Scripture. When the Magisterium teaches today it must teach within the confines of that which precedes it.

A Catholic is not infallible in theology simply because he or she subscribes to Catholicism. Every Catholic is on a pilgrimage until the end of this life. Our faith is one of ascent toward dogmatism. A Catholic can obtain higher levels of dogmatism as he or she learns the faith. It doesn’t make ones knowledge infallible however. We know that the Church in what it teaches is free from error. We journey to align with that teaching. Culpability is the saving factor in all of this. A Catholic can be theologically in error and can actually be in sin without knowing. In this case his or hers culpability for the error is zero providing they are continuing to study to improve themselves.

This means a Catholic retains his or hers own fallibility and believes in the infallibility of the Church. The statements made by the Church are indeed infallible however clarification may be needed. Clarification is not an interpretation of an infallible statement. That’s your answer. So a Catholic does not completely remove his or herself from fallibility rather he or she journeys toward such a state of being.

The difference between Protestants and Catholics here is massive. Catholics journey toward embracing teaching that is guaranteed free from error. Protestants journey toward continually showing that previous teaching is not free from error and grasp onto two dogmas, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. There are three others but they are not as fundamental as these two.

 

[De_Maria]

@ thomat65

Have you found the passage in Scripture that supports your position yet?

Here’s what you’re doing:

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

You, Thom, are transgressing the Word of God for the sake of Sola Scriptura.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts the Teaching of the Bible, but you
maintain it, because you prefer your musings and idiosyncracies to the actual
Word of God.

Show us from the Bible, Thom. Quit dancing around the issue.

 

[knightfall]

Hello Matt

So why haven’t you invented another infallible authority to infallibly interpret them to you? And another infallible authority to infallibly interpret that authority’s interpretations? And so on?

Simple. Because there’s no need to “invent another infallible authority”. The Catholic Church is a living authority, so if something is unclear, just ask for clarification. It may be slow in coming, but it will come. Your argument here does not compute.

You’ve put yourself in a position where your only escape hatch is for you to claim personal infallibility. Are you sure you want to do that?

Not at all … see above. In fact, it’s funny you should bring that up. Do you claim personal infallibility? Or do you admit that you could be wrong about your interpretation of the Bible?

 

[thomat65]

Likewise Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation because it tells you what to do.

Good. And it says the work of God is for us to believe in Jesus, John 6:29. And that works are a necessary consequence of true belief, James 2:17. And the works contribute in no way to God’s declaration of righteousness, Galatians 2:16.

Because a paint brush alone no matter how much it equips you to paint a mural will not paint it by itself.

My point was that nothing other than the paint brush is necessary (not even paint, which makes the paint brush a bad analogy). Not that the paint brush will paint murals by itself.

Truth and truth are warranted here.

I explained why I disagreed. Can you explain why “Truth” necessarily ought to be capitalized there? Just because one supposes there is a deeper understanding does not necessarily mean it’s the case. I’m hitting on this because it’s a link in the argument you laid out.

A head is held up physically by it’s body as well and of course the body is commanded by the head to do so. Again an understanding of communion rather than submission. A body divided against itself can not stand. “You are no longer servants but friends”. The relationship between the Church and God is communion not submission.

I do not deny that Christ is in close communion with his church. But metaphors have their limitations. To make this clear: a head will die without its body, so how are you to keep from saying that Christ will die without the Church?

And Christ’s church is in submission to him, Ephesians 5:23-24. This didn’t change when Jesus said John 15:15. You can tell that what Jesus meant in John 15:15 is not what you’re saying he meant, because he goes on to explain a little more precisely what he means by “no longer do I call you servants”: his church is like a friend and unlike a servant in that Jesus has made known to his church all that he heard from the Father, instead of hiding it like one would hide information from a servant. This does not negate the church’s inferior position.

This is the kind of nonsense that I’m opposed to concerning Sola Scriptura.

So you don’t like that Hebrews 6:13-18 is in your Bible? Look, God’s word is binding on himself. Otherwise God would be a liar. But he isn’t: he’s constrained to keep to his truth that he laid out in scripture.

 

[thomat65]

That verse does not say that at all. It talks about the people subjecting themselves to Scripture in order that they know how to behave in the household of God. This is saying individual Christians are to subject themselves to Scripture in order that they know how to behave in the household of God (The Church). You are factually wrong here.

1 Timothy was written to give instruction to Timothy on how the household of God was to behave. I am not wrong about this. 1 Timothy 4:6, 11, 5:7, etc. 1 Timothy is binding on the household of God.

He never commanded anyone to pass on Scripture. So, your characterization is eminently flawed.

No it’s not. Yes he did. Revelation 1:1-3 (and again indirectly through the angel in Revelation 22:10) for starters.

Long story short, there is no need for an infallible interpretation of an infallible interpretation of Scripture in the Catholic Church. The interpretation is infallible. What an individual understands is fallible. After an infallible interpretation is arrived at there is only room for clarification rather than interpretation. The clarification can not override or be logically at odds with that which is infallibly defined.

Ahh, but you do need an infallible interpretation of an infallible interpretation of (repeat endlessly) because “what an individual understands is fallible”. It’s not true that after an infallible interpretation is arrived at there is only room for clarification rather than interpretation because clarification is interpretation! And how is one to know if the clarification does or doesn’t override or is at logical odds with that which is infallibly defined if not through fallible personal interpretation?

That is part of the reason that Tradition is equally as important as Scripture.

I understand somewhat why it’s important for the RCC to claim that Tradition is only equally as important as Scripture, but I do not see that happening in practice.

When the Magisterium teaches today it must teach within the confines of that which precedes it.

And how does anyone know that which precedes it? You require an infallible interpretation of an infallible interpretation of (repeat endlessly) to know anything. And then once you’ve got that infinitely long infallible string, you need personal infallibility.

 

[thomat65]

We know that the Church in what it teaches is free from error.

You do? Do you know this infallibly? Since you have already answered in the negative above, then you can be wrong that the RCC is free from error. And therefore you have to agree that you believe it’s possible for the RCC to be in error. This brings us back to the “trap” I was pointing out to you much earlier: you’re a Roman Catholic because of fallible personal interpretation of things. Again: invoking the Magisterium does not lift you from fallibility.

Let me take a step back for a moment. It’s plain that you really believe you have found something valuable in the RCC, even salvation. But you could be wrong about that, and I believe that you are. So please consider again the offer that Christ made in John 6:37-40:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

All you need to do is look on Christ and believe in him and he will give you eternal life and raise you up on the last day. It’s that simple. It really is faith alone which unites one to Christ. No, not a faith that is alone, because true faith necessarily results in good works and obedience to God’s commands, and you’ll be encouraged in the genuineness of your faith when you begin to see works done in fath. But the works themselves merit you in no way to the Father. It is Christ who is righteous, and he freely gives that righteousness to anyone who will rely on his work alone instead of their own work mixed with his.

If James 2:21 means that Abraham received God’s legal declaration of righteousness because of his work of offering up Isaac, then Abraham has something to boast about. So it can’t be talking about a legal declaration of righteousness from God! Romans 4. We are legally declared righteous by God at the moment when we begin trusting in Christ alone for salvation.

I can tell you from experience that trusting in Christ alone is truly freeing! His yoke is easy indeed, and his burden is light.

<< I’m rate limited. Waiting for someone reply to this thread so I can post one more reply >>

 

[catholicray]

A reply so you can continue.

 

[De_Maria]

DM said:

He never commanded anyone to pass on Scripture. So, your characterization is eminently flawed.

No it’s not. Yes he did. Revelation 1:1-3

Let’s start with this one. Notice that Jesus doesn’t say, “pass on Scripture alone”. He instructs precisely what the Church Teaches. Pass on Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

Revelation 1:1-3 King James Version (KJV)​

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,

In order for someone to hear these words, they must be spoken to him.

(and again indirectly through the angel in Revelation 22:10) for starters.

Revelation 22:10 King James Version (KJV)​

10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

I don’t know what this has to do with anything, but there’s no instruction here to pass on Scripture alone. If you think there is, you’ll have to unpack it and explain it to us.

 

[TULIPed]

But you could be wrong about that, and I believe that you are

Be careful. “Judge not…”

I know a great many Catholics who love Jesus as their Lord and Savior. I know they love him because I’ve seen how they treat His sheep - especially the “least of these”, I’ve seen them make sacrifices for our King, and I’ve shed tears with them over that which breaks His heart.

 

[catholicray]

Good. And it says the work of God is for us to believe in Jesus, John 6:29. And that works are a necessary consequence of true belief, James 2:17. And the works contribute in no way to God’s declaration of righteousness, Galatians 2:16.

Thanks for responding. I’ve been waiting and I thought this thread might die out. So let’s dig in. I notice that some of your response really veers off topic and attempts to get into the discussion of faith and works. I have no problem discussing that here but it seems this is always the run away tactic of each Protestant that attempts to sustain Sola Scriptura. Once you realize that you can not sustain it logically or via Scripture it’s time to attack something else in hopes to establish that which you can’t. If you can prove a tenant of the Catholic faith wrong then it must follow that Sola Scriptura is somehow accurate regardless of the issues that stand against it. I should warn you that if you could in fact establish that one tenant of the Catholic Faith is indeed wrong I still wouldn’t buy into Sola Scriptura.

Now we can dig into your responses. In this first quote I would have to say that the problem with Protestant theology that tries to support Sola Fide is that it has to ignore the rest of Scripture in order to uphold its’ concepts in key verses in Scripture. Thus one can support with Scripture the view of Sola Fide, but only if they isolate their view of Scripture to the key verses they use to support it and then interpret other passages to fit the bias. Not to mention one must take the most surface level reading of the text in order to even try to draw the conclusions that you have.

To start the word believe in Scripture does not mean the same thing as when we think of believing in Santa Clause. That word can not be supported to have that meaning given the context of the rest of Scripture.

For Example:

John 3:36 - RSVCE

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

 

[catholicray]

Well which is it? Are we to believe or are we to obey? Does obedience lead to works? I think so and I could sustain that position in Scripture. Thus works that are the product of obedience to Christ are those works which contribute to our salvation. Apart from that all works are dead.

Then what about Galatians? Well the key phrase here is “works of the law”. If we understand the Jewish culture and context at the time then we understand “works of the law” to be all of the added works (yoke) of the Pharisaical tradition. The problem here is that Protestants read their current culture back into the text and assume that these works are works universally rather than allowing the letter to address the audience of that time. That is not to say that Scripture does not address all time but it is an assumption and a leap to attempt to make that verse say what you are suggesting it does. From a critical perspective the text you have cited can only be guessed or assumed to mean what you say it does. That’s not a solid foundation in my opinion even if I were practicing Sola Scriptura. There is far too much bias and room for error that keeps your interpretation from being binding.

Romans 2:6-7 ~ RSVCE

“For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life”

Romans 3:28 ~ RSVCE

“For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”

Either St. Paul has contradicted himself and rendered God a liar or the terms “works” and “works of the law” have a difference in meaning. Seems odd that he would write contradicting statements in the same letter don’t you think? To understand this you must understand the full context and the audience being addressed specifically by the time you get to Romans Chapter 3.

 

[catholicray]

My point was that nothing other than the paint brush is necessary (not even paint, which makes the paint brush a bad analogy). Not that the paint brush will paint murals by itself.

It’s a terrible analogy if your trying to sustain faith alone. Every analogy that tries to support that position is just as miserable. You’re welcome to try a few more though. My point remains the same you can be equipped as well as you like but if you fail to use the tools you are given then the equipment alone will not amount to anything for you as an individual.

You read the bible right? Are you not commanded to read the Scriptures? Are the Scriptures not very much like your paint brush? And yet if you do not read the Scriptures will you come to the knowledge of Salvation? Your reading is already a work friend. Do the Scriptures just put themselves in your head? No! You actively choose to study them? You put in the work to come to the knowledge of Salvation. Without your cooperation you have the tool and no means of using it.

I explained why I disagreed. Can you explain why “Truth” necessarily ought to be capitalized there? Just because one supposes there is a deeper understanding does not necessarily mean it’s the case. I’m hitting on this because it’s a link in the argument you laid out.

When I capitalize truth it refers to Jesus who is the Truth unless there is some other truth you think the Scriptures are referring to? Thus all truths find their conclusion in Christ or they are false. What truth do suppose the Scriptures are referencing here if it not the Truth?