P
pnewton
Guest
Second Timothy 3:16 maybe?
First, as was pointed out, it only says it is profitable. If I were to say that food is profitable for life, that does not mean one can live without water, air, shelter, etc.
Second, this was in a letter prior to the New Testament canon. To take this into Sola Scriptura would restrict one’s authority to the Old Testament. The preceding verse defines this Scripture thus, “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings.”
Yet, this verse is the closest we can come to for sola scriptura, and it falls far short. Therefore sola scriptura is impossible. It is just so hard to pass up an air tight logical refutation of a wrong doctrine. The closest one can really come to sola scriptura is belief that the Bible alone is the sole source of truth, with one very glaring exception.
First, as was pointed out, it only says it is profitable. If I were to say that food is profitable for life, that does not mean one can live without water, air, shelter, etc.
Second, this was in a letter prior to the New Testament canon. To take this into Sola Scriptura would restrict one’s authority to the Old Testament. The preceding verse defines this Scripture thus, “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings.”
Yet, this verse is the closest we can come to for sola scriptura, and it falls far short. Therefore sola scriptura is impossible. It is just so hard to pass up an air tight logical refutation of a wrong doctrine. The closest one can really come to sola scriptura is belief that the Bible alone is the sole source of truth, with one very glaring exception.
Last edited: