3 problems with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura in one infographic

The Catholic church certainly claims a lot, doesn't it? It claims to be the first church, going back to Peter the apostle. It claims that all of the apostles were Catholics. It claims that it was the "infallible" Catholic church who declared which books of the bible were inspired and which weren't. It even claims to be the only true church. Wow. Its members declare these things forcefully when you question their claims, trying to stifle any dissent with assertions of divine authority.

Let's look at what they are saying here:

Points 1-3 regarding Sola Scriptura:

1. "Not only does the bible not teach Sola Scriptura, the bible upholds the authority of oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15."

It's funny how they argue against Sola Scriptura by basing the authority of their traditions upon scripture! Here is what 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.

What is Paul saying here? He is saying cling to the traditions he and the other apostles taught them, but only because his teachings are divinely inspired. He isn't talking about traditions in general. The apostles aren't around anymore to give us any further teachings, so why does the Catholic church think this verse gives them license to create new traditions and elevate them to the level of scripture? The answer is that without that connection their traditions lose their authority because they cannot be found in the bible. They have to have a scheme to elevate traditions which gives them a blank check they can keep cashing to create new traditions totally unmoored from scripture.

2. "(Sola Scriptura) Can't explain where we got the bible. The bible itself doesn't tell us which books should be in the bible. That was decided in the 4th century by the Catholic church - the same church which the protestants reject.

The early church fathers had already agreed, for the most part, on what books were and were not inspired. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian all quote or name all but 6 of the books of the NT. Eusebius and Athanasius listed all of the books. The Muratorian Canon was written in the 2nd century and contained all but 4 of the NT books. So what the church compiled was already known and understood as being inspired for centuries. The people of God recognized the inspired writings of God and rejected all of the pagan gospels and fakes. It was scripture alone from the time they were written to the time they were compiled into the NT. It was God who preserved His word, not the infallibility of the RCC.

3. "It doesn't work. The bible has to be interpreted but Protestants can't agree on how to do that. Without church authority to settle disputes, disunity proliferates among Christians"

While it is true there is an increasing disparity of beliefs, and an increasing proliferation of denominations, until recently nearly all Christians have agreed upon the fundamental doctrines of the faith. Our central authority is the Holy Spirit, but unfortunately not everyone listens to Him, including the Roman Catholic Church. In my community although I worship in a pentecostal church, we do ministry together with a southern baptist church and a non-denominational church. The only barriers that keep us apart are those we impose outside of scripture. Any follower of Jesus Christ should be able to work together with any other follower, and come to enough agreement that they can have fellowship. And that isn't just protestants with other protestants, it is also protestants and catholics.

None of these arguments get anywhere close to disputing Sola Scriptura. Point 3 isn't even an argument, it is a claim that the disunity between denominations is proof that Sola Scriptura is wrong. It isn't. Fallen men are the problem there, not Sola Scriptura.

The Catholic church has everything to lose if Sola Scriptura is true. It can no longer elevate its traditions beside scripture or claim to be the only true church. If Sola Scriptura is true then the pope is just another leader in the church like every other leader. This is why they rail so hard against it because the moment someone discovers they need the bible more than the Catholic church, they can make their own choices about where they worship.

There you go. See. You already created your anti-parallel thread. Enjoy.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

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

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

1 John 2:27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

thesunisout said:

Here is what 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.

Click to expand...

As you say, this can not mean traditions which have come after Paul gave us traditions. Because Paul is talking about traditions which "we taught you" . . . not what has not been taught.

And traditions can include all Paul's things which are in the Bible.

For example, our Apostle Paul says,

"Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation," (in Philippians 2:14-16)

So, for me this can be a tradition . . . that we do every single thing, and every married thing, "without complaining and disputing". So, it is a Biblical tradition that we do not argue or complain.

And we do things "without" arguing and complaining, so that we may "become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault" right "in the midst of" this evil world's "crooked and perverse generation".

So, in case we believe in keeping Christian traditions, I would hope this is one of them > how because we are stopping all our arguing and complaining, we are growing in Jesus love which makes us more and more "blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation".

Point 1 - it not only "claims to be " history records that it was.. there was only one church till others split away, and, if you doubt the authority of " the pillar and foundation of truth" clearly given by Jesus when he gave the power to " bind and loose" ( which is what it means - the ability to rule on doctrine) . If you do not accept that you have no basis to accept the New Testament canon, which was chosen by authority of council.

Point 2 - the first canons were deemed heretical , take Marcions. Indeed the church has always pronounced on heretical doctrine, see iraneus. So the fact of existence of a Canon does not without church authority givrvit veracity.
Lots of other books were also extant, professing to be apostolic - but only by the authority of church were those rejected. The fact is the Jesus did not give us a book he gave us apostles to pass on the faith ( a process called paradosis, tradition) who apointed others. We see that from the first times. Read such as ignatius to smyrneans to see what was taught by John the apostle- polycarp and ignatius disciples of John, and you .see a liturgical sacramental church that believed in a Eucharist of real presence " real flesh" valid only if performed by a bishop or appointee. And on that alone you can rule out 99 percent of reformationist churches which have apostasized fromearly churvh.

Point 3 - is worse than you think, Protestants have at least five mutually exclusive interpretations of every material doctrine, from Eucharist to baptism, salvation to god head, end times and purgation. Marriage , clergy, LGBT, abortion, you name it and Protestants profoundly disagree on it precisely because they think they can interpret scripture and ignore the authoritative meaning handed by tradition.
All claim to have discerned the spirit but then come to wholly oppposed conclusions! As Luther lamented in later life of the monster he created .." every milkmaid now has their own doctrine!"

The fact is solascriptura is easily shown as logically, historically and scripturally false. Even scripture points to truth outside scripture instating " the Pillar of truth the church!"

As Newman said .." to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

thesunisout said:

The Catholic church certainly claims a lot, doesn't it? It claims to be the first church, going back to Peter the apostle. It claims that all of the apostles were Catholics. It claims that it was the "infallible" Catholic church who declared which books of the bible were inspired and which weren't. It even claims to be the only true church. Wow. Its members declare these things forcefully when you question their claims, trying to stifle any dissent with assertions of divine authority.

Let's look at what they are saying here:

Points 1-3 regarding Sola Scriptura:

1. "Not only does the bible not teach Sola Scriptura, the bible upholds the authority of oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15."

It's funny how they argue against Sola Scriptura by basing the authority of their traditions upon scripture! Here is what 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.

What is Paul saying here? He is saying cling to the traditions he and the other apostles taught them, but only because his teachings are divinely inspired. He isn't talking about traditions in general. The apostles aren't around anymore to give us any further teachings, so why does the Catholic church think this verse gives them license to create new traditions and elevate them to the level of scripture? The answer is that without that connection their traditions lose their authority because they cannot be found in the bible. They have to have a scheme to elevate traditions which gives them a blank check they can keep cashing to create new traditions totally unmoored from scripture.

2. "(Sola Scriptura) Can't explain where we got the bible. The bible itself doesn't tell us which books should be in the bible. That was decided in the 4th century by the Catholic church - the same church which the protestants reject.

The early church fathers had already agreed, for the most part, on what books were and were not inspired. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian all quote or name all but 6 of the books of the NT. Eusebius and Athanasius listed all of the books. The Muratorian Canon was written in the 2nd century and contained all but 4 of the NT books. So what the church compiled was already known and understood as being inspired for centuries. The people of God recognized the inspired writings of God and rejected all of the pagan gospels and fakes. It was scripture alone from the time they were written to the time they were compiled into the NT. It was God who preserved His word, not the infallibility of the RCC.

3. "It doesn't work. The bible has to be interpreted but Protestants can't agree on how to do that. Without church authority to settle disputes, disunity proliferates among Christians"

While it is true there is an increasing disparity of beliefs, and an increasing proliferation of denominations, until recently nearly all Christians have agreed upon the fundamental doctrines of the faith. Our central authority is the Holy Spirit, but unfortunately not everyone listens to Him, including the Roman Catholic Church. In my community although I worship in a pentecostal church, we do ministry together with a southern baptist church and a non-denominational church. The only barriers that keep us apart are those we impose outside of scripture. Any follower of Jesus Christ should be able to work together with any other follower, and come to enough agreement that they can have fellowship. And that isn't just protestants with other protestants, it is also protestants and catholics.

None of these arguments get anywhere close to disputing Sola Scriptura. Point 3 isn't even an argument, it is a claim that the disunity between denominations is proof that Sola Scriptura is wrong. It isn't. Fallen men are the problem there, not Sola Scriptura.

The Catholic church has everything to lose if Sola Scriptura is true. It can no longer elevate its traditions beside scripture or claim to be the only true church. If Sola Scriptura is true then the pope is just another leader in the church like every other leader. This is why they rail so hard against it because the moment someone discovers they need the bible more than the Catholic church, they can make their own choices about where they worship.

Click to expand...

“in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things, charity

There is a false doctrine created by the RCC as 1 of 5
"SOLA'S" in defense of the Reformation of ~1500 AD....Sola Scriptura.

The TRUE DOCTRINE is : "Scriptura Suprema"...
The "word of God", the Bible trumps both legs of the RCC 3-legged stool:
1. Sacred Tradition
2. Papal Magisterium

NOT "Sola Scriptura"...ONLY "Scriptura Suprema"

"Scriptura Suprema"= 2 Peter 1:19-21-
Bible "produced" by Men moved by God the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

John 3:34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure

Hebrews 4:12; 2 Tim.3:16

QI: Does church "tradition" (and / or "magisterium"") trump what is written in Scripture?
A1: No. In the event of unresolvable conflict among the "3 legs of the stool", Scripture must reign SUPREME!

"Scriptura Suprema"...NOT "Sola Scriptura".

Q1A: Which is the ultimate authority?
A1A: The "word of God" revealed to Man in the miraculous Bible.

Q2: ...RE: (TRUE BELIEVERS / )church leaders,
how plausible is it that they are led by the God the Holy Spirit?

A: VERY!

2 Peter 1: 19-21...Bible "produced by Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
So we have the prophetic WORD (Scripture) made more sure,
to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
But know this first of all, that
no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but
men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Q3: Does the Bible mention the "WORD of God"?
A3: YES!

John 3:34
For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God;
for He gives the Spirit without measure.

Ephesians 6:17
And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION,
and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

1 Timothy 4:5
for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

Hebrews 4:12
For the "Word of God" is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword,
and piercing as far as the division of SOUL and SPIRIT,
of both joints and marrow, (Body)
and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.(cardia)

Q4: Is "Scripture" the same as the "WORDS" in the present Bible?

"Scripture" occurs 32 times in 32 verses in the NASB...all in the NT
Greek:
G1121 gramma ~= letter, bill, writing, learning, scripture, written
G1124 graphe ~= scripture

A4: My guess: the existing OT as viewed by the authors of the NT?

But see: 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20

Q5. Should the WORDS of the Bible be used as the BEST TEST of all other writings and spiritual ideas?

A5: Yes..because it is miraculous...spirit inspired (God-breathed and superintended By God The Holy Spirit)

The Bible as a piece of literature is withhout peer, and
it has been MIRACULOUSLY remembered, inspired, dictated, written, copied, translated, preserved, interpreted, and distributed.

Mountainmike said:

Point 1 - it not only "claims to be " history records that it was.. there was only one church till others split away, and, if you doubt the authority of " the pillar and foundation of truth" clearly given by Jesus when he gave the power to " bind and loose" ( which is what it means - the ability to rule on doctrine) . If you do not accept that you have no basis to accept the New Testament canon, which was chosen by authority of council.

Click to expand...

Again I think its funny that Catholics base the foundations of their traditions on scripture to dispute Sola Scriptura. You also have no basis at all to claim Peter as your first pope. You make the assertion but have no evidence to back it up.

This is the true basis that we accept the New Testament canon:

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God preserves His word and He has used men to do it. Whether it was your church or another, it is God who is preserving His word, not you.

Mountainmike said:

Point 2 - the first canons were deemed heretical , take Marcions. Indeed the church has always pronounced on heretical doctrine, see iraneus. So the fact of existence of a Canon does not without church authority givrvit veracity.
Lots of other books were also extant, professing to be apostolic - but only by the authority of church were those rejected. The fact is the Jesus did not give us a book he gave us apostles to pass on the faith ( a process called paradosis, tradition) who apointed others. We see that from the first times. Read such as ignatius to smyrneans to see what was taught by John the apostle- polycarp and ignatius disciples of John, and you .see a liturgical sacramental church that believed in a Eucharist of real presence " real flesh" valid only if performed by a bishop or appointee. And on that alone you can rule out 99 percent of reformationist churches which have apostasized fromearly churvh.

Click to expand...

Sure you can find some holes in there but the main point is that there was widespread agreement on which books were divinely inspired well before the Catholic church got involved.

Mountainmike said:

Point 3 - is worse than you think, Protestants have at least five mutually exclusive interpretations of every material doctrine, from Eucharist to baptism, salvation to god head, end times and purgation. Marriage , clergy, LGBT, abortion, you name it and Protestants profoundly disagree on it precisely because they think they can interpret scripture and ignore the authoritative meaning handed by tradition.
All claim to have discerned the spirit but then come to wholly oppposed conclusions! As Luther lamented in later life of the monster he created .." every milkmaid now has their own doctrine!"

The fact is solascriptura is easily shown as logically, historically and scripturally false. Even scripture points to truth outside scripture instating " the Pillar of truth the church!"

As Newman said .." to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

Click to expand...

It's only in these modern times when the society has rejected biblical authority that we have a widespread confusion. The problem isn't with them though, it is with the church (yours included) which have failed to preach the gospel or influence the culture in profound ways. It is a lack of prayer and the corruption of men, not the failure of the scripture alone being Gods vehicle to bring people into relationship with Himself. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, and the Holy Spirit isn't telling people contradictory doctrines. It is the members of the church, yours included, who aren't listening to Him

thesunisout said:

why does the Catholic church think this verse gives them license to create new traditions and elevate them to the level of scripture? The answer is that without that connection their traditions lose their authority because they cannot be found in the bible. They have to have a scheme to elevate traditions which gives them a blank check they can keep cashing to create new traditions totally unmoored from scripture.

Click to expand...

But we can't paint all Roman Catholics with one brush. I have been informed that in meetings for voting for a new pope or matters of doctrine and other things, even the higher leaders in those meetings do not agree. And I meet various Catholics, and they are not all the same, to keep it simple.

But there are certain individuals who can stuff themselves in our faces and claim they represent real Catholicism. But how many know what is these activists' sort of Roman Catholicism, and how many agree on it all?

One friend of mine is very kind with me, and she says she is Catholic. She totally accepts and honors me. And she said she does not buy things of Catholicism. Why, then, does she go to the local Catholic church? She said she likes the music. I have been told by at least one Catholic that he or she does not buy the Pope. And ones take communion, though officially they are not permitted, and the priest gives it to them; there are priests who don't buy the Pope's authority, plus priests who don't even know their own people so they would know who should or should not get communion. And a lot of people do not even really know their own priests; how, then, can they know the example of their leaders????

So, if I don't personally know a Catholic, I am not going to assume whatever he or she says or claims, or that he or she really even believes what he or she claims. How are you becoming as a person, in comparison with Jesus??????? We are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus > Romans 8:29 < not conformed to what certain leaders claim is official Christianity. How are we becoming in relation to what we believe and do?

Part of our basic calling is how God has us relating with one another as His family > Paul says to walk "worthy" of our "calling" >

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love," (Ephesians 4:2)

Part of the accuracy of our belief has to do with if our love is the way God has us be in love, and how we relate.

Is our character . . . our nature . . . being changed by God so that "as He is, so are we in this world"?? >

"Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)

How accurate are we, then, in our character, so that God's grace with almighty power is curing to become how God's love is? . . . "in this world" our Apostle John says. This is a basic emphasis of the Bible. All scripture has this basic love meaning, not of accurate words and practices, but the fact of our character. Among ones claiming to be Catholics and Protestants, how well known is this basic Bible tradition? I don't mean only a tradition of belief, but a tradition of how God in us does what His word means to Him > Isaiah 55:11. This is a tradition of what God does; this is included in all which His grace does.

This is basic Bible; so, if someone wants to keep score, about who is right > of the people who are busy with proving either Catholics or Protestants to be wrong, how many of these finger pointers can tell us about how God's love is perfecting us in our nature so we are more and more like Jesus?

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

Is Jesus in us making our sacrifices and suffering "sweet-smelling" to our Heavenly Father. This is quite something to be called to > how we can sweetly please God Himself, because of Jesus in us making us this way > Galatians 4:19 < basic Bible.

And how many people claiming to be Protestants know this basic of our Christian calling . . . how God has us relating in His love > Ephesians 4:1-4? I personally know people who I would say are my example of how to be and relate in God's love. And I have visited various churches from Boston to North Carolina. Yes, there are divided people who all claim their outward way of doctrine and practice is right; but in their same churches we have examples who are humble and gentle and caring and kind and who do not stuff themselves in your face, but they feed us their example.

We need to know someone personally in order to know their example

For Christian leaders we have this basic >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

And Paul describes what qualifies a man to be a leader by example >

@chevyontheriver 1 Timothy 3:1-10 < this, by the way, is not a tradition of the Roman Catholic church, to my knowledge. And it certainly is not a tradition of a number of non-Catholics. And yes people of wrong groups can spend a long time pointing at each other, while they themselves do not keep this tradition which Paul has given about who qualifies to "take care of the church of God" (in 1 Timothy 3:1-10).

It is easy for me to spot and point out how someone else who is wrong; but can I see how I myself am wrong and then seek God for real correction > Hebrews 12:4-11 < of His love's perfection (1 John 4:17)?

Daniel Marsh said:

3 Problems with the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, In One Infographic | ChurchPOP

This attack on Sola Scriptura was posted elsewhere and protestants were forbidden to respond. Since, in all honestly it belongs here, I posted it here so it can be responded to.

When separated from the other five it creates a strawman argument.

SOLUS CHRISTUS
God has given the ultimate revelation of himself to us by sending Jesus Christ, Colossians 1:15. Only through God’s gracious self-revelation in Jesus do we come to a saving and transforming knowledge of God.

1 Timothy 1:5. Because God is holy and all humans are sinful and sinners, 1 John 1:1 Hebrews 7:25 Romans 8:34. Neither religious rituals nor good works mediate between us and God. Acts 4:12 by which a person can be saved other than the name of Jesus. Hebrews 7:23, and his sacrificial death alone can atone for sin.

The Five Solas - Points from the Past that Should Matter to You

Click to expand...

A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

Sola Scriptura is the position that you can trust Scripture and Scripture alone as your sole authority for your faith and life. That the revelation known as the Bible can be trusted as your final word of authority for knowing God, salvation, true love, right living, and truth. Now, while there may be other books, letters, or epistles mentioned in Scripture that we don't have currently, they are not a part of the cannon of God's Word today, for there is no other written texts or revelations that is needed besides the Bible for all spiritual matters. For the Bible is unlike any other book in human history. It is clearly a book that is divine in origin that is backed up by many evidences in Science and History.

Now, some might object and point out that you can't prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture because such a position wouldn't have existed until the close of Revelation because the apostles were still speaking and writing the Word of God. However, that is not Sola Scriptura, though. Sola Scriptura is putting your faith in the written Word of God and believing it is suffient for all matters concerning one's faith in God. But what about the spoken Word of God? Does that not conflict with Sola Scriptura? No. First, the spoken Word of God was confirmed by the written Word of God (Acts 17:11). Second, one truth (the Spoken Word of God) was not in conflict with another truth (i.e. the Written Word of God). They both breathed in harmony until one passed away. In other words, picture it in your mind that there are two branches or sticks. One branch represents the Spoken Word and the other branch represents the Written Word. Now imagine one of those branches starting to vanish away out of thin air until it is gone. Is the one branch that remains any different just because the other branch is gone? Yeah, but wouldn't Sola Scriptura only exist until after the close of Revelation with Revelation 22:18-19 because you can't add anymore words to God's Word? No. This is not an exclusive teaching within Scripture; For the Bible teaches elsewhere that we are not to add to the written Word of God, too (Deuteronomy 4:2) (Deuteronomy 12:32) (Proverbs 30:5-6).

Anyways, the purpose of this study is to provide passages to help the reader in possessing Scripture so that they can trust in one divinely inspired written revelation or book (i.e. the Bible) for all spiritual matters in regards to having love, faith, and salvation in Him.

Also, before we examine this study, it is important to note that there are 3 major Words spoken about within Scripture that are connected to one another. There is the:

(1) Living Word of God (Jesus),
(2) Spoken Word of God (Either from God or His people),
(3) Written Word of God (Scripture).

All three are perfect and will endure for forever.
All three are tied together and are always connected.

The Biblical Case for Sola Scriptura:

I. All Scripture is Profitable for Doctrine, Correction, Righteous Teaching.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

A. All Scripture is profitable:

(a) for doctrine, (because)
~ (1) Scripture is sufficient for eternal life (1 John 5:13).
(b) for correction (and)
(c) for instruction in righteousness,
(It is sufficient in righteous training because):
~ (1) Scripture brings about hope (faith). (Romans 15:4).
~ (2) Scripture can be hid within one's heart so as not to sin against God. (Psalm 119:11)

All Scripture is profitable so that the man of God:
(d) May be perfect.
(e) Completely furnished unto all good works.
~ (1) For speaking Scripture provides spiritual nutrition or life (Matthew 4:4)
~ (2) For Scripture brings about joy (1 John 1:4)
(In fact, one of the fruits of the Spirit is joy) (Galatians 5:22)
All Scripture is profitable so that the man of God may be perfect andcomplete unto all good works. For Scripture is profitable in (1) doctrine, (2)correction, and (3) training in righteousness. All three of these things are essential to a person's faith in God and will lead the man of God to beperfect and completeunto all good works. Not some good works. But allgood works. No oral Words of God alone were ever mentioned to do such a thing for us currently or during the time the "Written Word of God" came into being. No "Spoken Word of God" was ever mentioned to make the man of God perfect and complete unto all good works in addition to Scripture. This shows us that Scripture and Scripture alone is sufficient in and of itself because it will lead the man of God unto perfection and being fully furnished unto every good work.

For man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of his mouth that is from God. This is to live spiritually. For it is how one's faith even begins. So we gain faith and a life with God. We gain spiritual nutrients from speaking God's Word, whereby we can grow spiritually so as to conform to the image of Christ in being perfect and to allow Christ to do every good work within us. For you are what you eat. For the seed of the Word took root within your heart when you first believed and it grows within you to bring forth much fruit. However, how can you believe or grow if there is no "Written Word of God" which is nailed down in written form for all to agree?

II. Do Not Add or Take Away or Go Beyond What is Written:

A. Do Not Add or Take Away From God's Word -

Revelation 22:18-19
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Before you say it, yes, I am aware that Revelation 22:18-19 is speaking in context of the book of Revelation. However, we have to think about this logically, though. If you can't add any words to the book of Revelation, then you can't add any words to the Bible, too. Why? Well, the book of Revelation is the end of the Bible. It is the close of the whole book known as the Bible. It is the end. This is why I believe Revelation 22:18-19 is prophetic in the fact that it has a secondary fulfillment of speaking about "this book" in reference to "Revelation" in being a part of the book known as the Bible. How so? Well, there are several passages that have a double fulfillment to them. Here is one them:

Hosea 11:1
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."

First Fulfillment (That was in the Past):
Reference to the exodus of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.

Secondary Fulfillment (That was in the Future):
Reference to the Love of God calling his Son back to the comparative safety in Egypt so that he might die for his people. Matthew 2:15 - "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."

Also, in Revelation 2-3, Jesus gives His assessment of various churches. In these chapters, Jesus spoke of real churches that existed at the time when John written the book of Revelation, but also to the spiritual state of churches thru out time and today, too. For one of the churches is told to repent or they will go thru the tribulation. For obviously there has been Luke warm churches thru out history and today like the Laodician church.

Besides, there are hundreds of double fulfillment passages in the Bible. How so? Well, the "Typifications of Christ" in the Old Testament are essentially double fulfillment type passages (See this forum thread here to check them out). In fact, Jesus said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39). In other words, the OT Scriptures are a double fulfilment. For the Old Testament Scriptures spoke of the events of it's time and they also spoke about Jesus Christ, too; For Jesus said so Himself.

Also, consider the prophecy in the book of Daniel which was to seal up vision and prophecy versus the prophecy of the book of Revelation which is not sealed.

~ Daniel's End Times prophecy speaks of the events in Revelation. These prophecies of the End Times (that were in a book, i.e. scroll) were to be sealed up and closed (Daniel 12:4) because they were a far way off because Jesus still needed to come to save His people from their sins.

Revelation 22:10 mentions the spirit of prophecy that the book is open.

~ Now, the book is open whereby the things within Revelation (That Daniel also talks about) is exposed so that it will be fulfilled in bringing in the End with Christ's return.

For the entire book of Revelation is about the End Times leading up to Christ's return.

For the end of Revelation closes with Jesus saying,

"Surely I come quickly." (Revelation 22:20).

This means that we should be looking to Jesus return and not some new Revelation.

Paul said if we or an angel from heaven preach to you another gospel, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:8). It is strange that both the Mormon and the Muslim religion are founded on a revelation that comes from angels. Yet the Bible warns against this very thing.

In fact, Jesus Christ commanded that we as believers were to preach this gospel unto all the world (or all nations) until Christ's return.

Matthew 24:14
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

This is also what we see in Revelation. For this same gospel message was still going out to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people (That is still an ongoing process today).

Revelation 14:6
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,"

In other words, God knew that the book of Revelation was going to be a part of the Bible. For surely God does not want us accepting new revelations or additional written works to add to the Bible like with the book of Mormon, the Koran, the added oral traditions of the RCC (Roman Catholic Church), and or the added writings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. For it is not a coincidence that this warning in Revelation 22 is at the close of our Bibles. In other words, the new reader (Who is unaware that the Bible is made up of 66 books) would understand that you are not to add or subtract from the book (i.e. the Bible) that they were reading. For God obviously intended Scripture to be compiled into one book known as the Bible. For Christians today do regard the Bible as one book, for it is published as one book and it is not generally published into 66 individual books or a 66 book volume set. There are no 66 individual old manuscripts in their original form anymore; And God does not exist in the past abiding with these old manuscripts. These manuscripts are dead and gone. For they were written in a language that is dead. All these things are in the past. However, our God is not a God who just exists in the past. Our God is present and ever active with His people today. For our God is not the God of the dead but of the living. He works with His people who are alive with the written Revelation known as the Bible. Adding any new words to that revelation would be adding to God's Holy written Word as it currently exists with His people who live today.

B. Warning Against Altering God's Word is Confirmed in Old Testament:

Forbidding in altering God's Word in Revelation 22:18-19 can also be seen in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 12:32 which says not to add or take away from the words of God's commands. This was the written Word. The Law. God did not want His words being changed or altered in any way by adding or taking away from His words. In fact, if somebody were to try and destroy God's Word, we see that God would protect or preserve His Word. We see an example of this in Jeremiah 36:22-32where king Jehoiakim burns the scroll in a fire (i.e. to eliminate God's Word) and then later God has Jeremiah re-create another roll that says the same thing. In other words, the written Word could not be destroyed by fire, just as the Living Word cannot be destroyed by fire. For the fourth who was in the fiery furnace with Daniel's friends was the Son of God (Daniel 3:25). For even when Moses had broken or shattered the tablets of stone that had the direct hand written Word of God (i.e. the Ten Commandments) on it (Exodus 32:19), the Lord our God had hand written them down on tablets of stone again (Exodus 34:1). For the Word of God cannot be broken (John 10:35). For Jesus said, "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). Meaning, that Christ's words would be memorialized by being written down where they would not pass away (or be deleted by men).

C. Do Not Go Above What is Written on how we think about men:

The Bible says we are not to go above that which is written (concerning our thoughts of men). Granted, this verse is not all inclusive to the fact that we are not to go above Scripture on other matters, but what this passage does is show us a pattern that Scripture and Scripture alone is our sole authority on the faith and spiritual matters. It confirms that we are not to add or take away from God's Word.

1 Corinthians 4:6
"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."

Daniel Marsh said:

Maybe you all can be kind enough to explain what this text means?

1 Corinthians 4:6 ►

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

Thank You,
Daniel

Click to expand...

Hebrews 5:13-14 says,
13 “For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

Strong meat belongs to those who know how to discern between good and evil.

Paul condemned the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 5 for allowing sexual immorality to take place among them. They were to kick out that brother who was in an immoral sexual affair. Paul said not to keep company with a brother who was sexually immoral.

See, “sin” is about “self” and it about uplifting man instead of God. It is why some boasted they were of Paul and others boasted they were of Apollos.

In 1 Corinthians 3 one of things it talks about are works of gold. This is the type of work you do based on what is in your heart. Hence, it makes up who you are (a part of God's building). But do not confuse sin as being stubble or hay. Those are not works that will be burned. They are good works you do for the Lord that turn out to not be true pure works that God desires as a part of His building. But you cannot have gold and sin in your building. For 1 Corinthians 3:17 says if any man defile the temple (which is obviously by sin), then God will destroy them. This means they are not saved because they will be destroyed and not saved through the fire.

But what about when Paul said the Corinthians were still yet carnal and he needed to speak to them as if they were babes in Christ?

The word “carnal” actually means unregenerate; unsaved. How can we have unsaved Christians? Paul states in the second letter to the Corinthians that he was afraid when he came to them he would be embarrassed and find many which had sinned and not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lasciviousness which they had committed. He feared there would be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder (2 Corinthians 12:20-13:5). These were in the visible church, but not considered saved. In fact, Paul states real Christians should not fellowship these "carnal Christians" (1 Corinthians 5:11-13).

Some seem to think the only one in the Corinthian church who was unsaved was the one who was living immoral with his mother or maybe step-mother, but from the verses quoted above it seems there were many in an unconverted state. Yet there were no doubt saved, regenerate, upright Christians in that church as well, but Paul feared many who had sinned would not have repented when he arrived (2 Corinthians 12:20).

The classic passage in defense of the "carnal Christian" position is found in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4.

First, I see no necessity of saying all in a particular local church are in the same spiritual condition. John describes antichrists as going out from [the church]. "They were not [really] of us; for if they had been of us, they would not doubt have continued with us" (1 John 2:19). Obviously all professing Christians are not in the same state or degree of grace. To refer to a church collectively as Christians does not mean all in that church are saved.

Second, the key words brethren, babes in Christ, and carnal must be properly understood. Brethren does not always mean Christian in the true sense. Sometimes it is used of mankind in general or of those in a community relationship which are united by common interests or members of the same congregation, but does not mean all such are regenerated.

Paul says,” I … could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal,”

Paul says elsewhere,

“For to be carnally minded is death;” (Romans 8:5).

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God”. (Romans 8:6).

“So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:8).

As for the phrase”Babes in Christ” in 1 Corinthians 3:1:

Note that Paul does not call them “Babes in Christ.” Paul merely said that he had to speak to them as if they were “Babes in Christ.”

For the New Living Translation says,

“Dear brothers and sisters, when I was with you I couldn't talk to you as I would to spiritual people. I had to talk as though you belonged to this world or as though you were infants in the Christian life.” (1 Corinthians 3:1) (NLT).

But it must be noted that Paul cites the inconsistencies of their lives. Religious, yes, but sinful in their actions. Can a person be religious and lost? Yes! Paul points to the inconsistencies of every strife and division. Since you have all this among you, are you not yet carnal (unregenerate) and live like or act the same as unregenerate man? In 2 Corinthians 12:20-1 Paul reveals their sexual sin and debauchery, anger, slander, gossip, envying, strife. Paul, in Galatians 5:19-21 tell us they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

As for 1 Corinthians 4:6:

1 Corinthians 4:6 says,
"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."

What is 1 Corinthians 4:6 saying in light of all of this?

We are not to act sinful in thinking of ourselves as greater than what we really are according to God's Word. We are not to go beyond what Scripture says about ourselves (i.e. believers in Christ). To say that one is of Paul and one is of Apollos is inaccurate according to Scripture because we are technically of Christ if we are born again of Him. Christ is the foundation and we cannot build any other foundation. To build on some other foundation (Apollos or Paul) without Christ is to not have any foundation at all.

In short, we should not go beyond Scripture in the way we think about ourselves. This is a constant theme in God's Word. We are not to go beyond what is written within Holy Scripture.

You said:

The Tradition that the Apostles speak of is Apostolic in nature which was written down in the NT.

Click to expand...

I believe the early followers of Jesus had received prophecies and tongues. I do not believe this is still taking place today. How so?

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18).

I believe verse 18 above here is referencing both the book of Revelation and what we would come to know as the Bible. For Revelation is the end of the book called the Bible.


Source used for a few paragraphs within this post:
The Myth of the "Carnal" Christian

You dont don't seem to understand the meaning of tradition, which is the process ( not a doctrine) that Jesus gave for handing down faith. He didn't give us a book, that came later, presumably because until recently most could not read, and books were rare and far too expensive for ordinary man. He said to his disciples " do this", not " write this" and most did not write,

The true faith was passed down , to which they held true by " word of mouth and letter" . Present day so called bible Christians that own a bible and then dispute its meaning are a very recent phenomenon, post reformation only, Luther hated how his legacy was division of doctrine. Precisely because of sola scriptura.

You don't seem to understand that there was only one church in early times, The Catholic Church.
It would be a millennia before the fracture into east and west, and even a name " Roman" came necessary for the core. Proliferation of denominations are a recent thing in church history. Checkout church history.

Throughtout the early period , indeed the period in which the canon was adopted finally at hippo, none disputed the " primacy of honour of the bishop of Rome"

The biblical basis for the pope is clear, the office of " keys" , the power to " bind and loose" given to Peter individuality, not just apostles together. And it was recognised as primacy by the church and councils including those who chose your new testament.

The hoops Protestants go through to break all grammatical and syntactic rules, to strain to make rock other than Peter are farcical. That's what it says and what it means, and the office of keys is clear from OT.

indeed Protestants ignore the geographical location of Jesus appointing the rock. They are amnesic of history.

And that of course is the problem:

You and others want those verses to mean something else, and seem to think that you can interpret scripture how you wish. You can't. There is one truth - the meaning handed by paradosis, and doctrine passed on by authority.

The pillar of truth is the church,

Scripture is only materially sufficient, not formally sufficient. Tradition passes the meaning. Failure to recognise that is why Protestants and reformationists fracture on every doctrinal issue.

Take a single issue.

Read the earliest fathers..taught by apostles: it is quite clear that the apostles passed on a Eucharist of the real presence " real flesh" - valid only if performed by appointed bishop in succession or his appointee, which formed the centre of worship practice in a sacramental liturgical church.

So it can't be the lukewarm, spiritual or memorial practice if most churches now, indeed most lost the succession by departing so cannot perform a valid Eucharist anyway.

Almost all Protestants have apostasized and forgotten that. Have you?

What do you believe about Eucharist? Do you disregard what apostles handed on?

You also seem illinformed - Catholics hold scripture in the highest regard, but accept that the meaning is not passed on with it, which is done by tradition and authority.

I can only urge you to study the fathers.

thesunisout said:

Again I think its funny that Catholics base the foundations of their traditions on scripture to dispute Sola Scriptura. You also have no basis at all to claim Peter as your first pope. You make the assertion but have no evidence to back it up.

This is the true basis that we accept the New Testament canon:

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God preserves His word and He has used men to do it. Whether it was your church or another, it is God who is preserving His word, not you.

Sure you can find some holes in there but the main point is that there was widespread agreement on which books were divinely inspired well before the Catholic church got involved.



It's only in these modern times when the society has rejected biblical authority that we have a widespread confusion. The problem isn't with them though, it is with the church (yours included) which have failed to preach the gospel or influence the culture in profound ways. It is a lack of prayer and the corruption of men, not the failure of the scripture alone being Gods vehicle to bring people into relationship with Himself. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, and the Holy Spirit isn't telling people contradictory doctrines. It is the members of the church, yours included, who aren't listening to Him

Click to expand...

Psalm 119 is a great place to start to see what God has to say about His Word and the value we should place on it.
Then in Proverbs 14:12 He says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death".
Then He repeats it in 16:25.
I personally have never read the Sola Scriptura and I never even heard of Scriptura Suprema.
But, whenever I have a question, I find out what His word has to say on that subject.
His Word must be our supreme authority on all matters.

16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
(2 Timothy 3:16-17).

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts of the Apostles 17:11).

"...if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20).

7 "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:7-9).

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9).

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (1 Timothy 2:5).

"Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (1 Timothy 4:3).

#1. Catholics claim the Bible rejects Sola Scriptura based upon 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that says, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15).


#2. Catholics claim the Bible rejects Sola Scriptura on the grounds that we do not know according to the Bible which books should be included.


#3. Catholics claim that the Bible rejects Sola Scriptura because only the Catholic church is the final authority on matters of the faith (Whereas Protestants all disagree with each other).