A Biblical Defense of Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It

Jason0047 said:

There is nothing in the Bible that the Bible does not address as a part of the faith.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine so that the man of God may be perfect unto every good work. Yet, you are saying otherwise.

Click to expand...

But the bible doens't say about this, is not clear, that is my point, and this is an important thing to know for a minister for example.

Jason0047 said:

Alright. Just read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 right now. Okay. Please do that for me and can you tell me what it says?

Click to expand...

I have read that, what do you mean?

Jason0047 said:

I am going to highlight the words in that passage for you (so as to help you to see what I am saying with God's Word).

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, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Facts from the above passage:

#1. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
#2. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine.
#3. All Scripture is profitable so that the man of God may be PERFECT unto ALL good works.

Okay, number 3 is saying ALL good works and not some good works. All good works. That the man of God may be somewhat perfect because he needs some kind of outside Bible teaching? No. All Scripture is profitable so that the man of God may be PERFECT. Perfect unto ALL good works. Not some good works. So there is no need for any outside teachings besides Scripture. We got it all right here! All Scripture is profitable for doctrine. Yet, you are saying that there is some kind of other source (besides Scripture) that is profitable for doctrine.

According to 2 Timothy 3:16, All Scripture is profitable for doctrine. Yet, you are saying that it is not.

Click to expand...

OK, i don't know if i undestood well,
But that doens't say all good works are covered by the bible... there is still things useful to know for a minister for example that are not in the bible.

Jason0047 said:

Name one.

Side Note:

Again, this really comes down to your not accepting what the passage says.

You are refuted by the fact that the passage says that Scripture IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE. This is not just some doctrine because it says that it is sufficient so that the man of God can be PERFECT unto ALL good works. Not some good works. They are made PERFECT. Not somewhat perfect by this. Read the passage aloud to yourself several times over the week and ask God to open your understanding on it.

Click to expand...

I'm just saying that there is good teachings and useful, not included in the bible, nor against it either of course.

Jason0047 said:

Teachings like on how to fix a RAV4 so as to save money to help one's family?
Again, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not share your particular belief.

Click to expand...

Like the 2 examples i posted, not clear at all in the bible... there is great debate about them. One of the sides have to be right.

Jason0047 said:

Well, I won't discuss the example about your version of possession. What was the other example?

Click to expand...

Post 30 i think, the embarrasing one.

Jason0047 said:

I must have missed them. But you cannot miss the OP. I can say that you did the same with my verses in the OP.

Click to expand...

The OP verses don't say "sola scriptura".

Jason0047 said:

There is nothing in the Bible that the Bible does not address as a part of the faith.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine so that the man of God may be perfect unto every good work. Yet, you are saying otherwise.

Click to expand...

This passage is hardly a proof-text which supports Sola Scriptura. It makes claims about the beauty and utility of Sacred Scripture, and AFAIK nobody in this thread disputes any of that.

But this passage (which pops up frequently in these types of discussions) doesn't outright say that Sacred Scripture is the first, last and only source for religious truth or doctrine.

Fidelibus said:

A question to sola scripturists. (one that appeal to the Bible alone as their sole rule of faith) Why should anyone believe in your particular denominational teaching rather than another?

Click to expand...

People like to join a tribe if they don't already have one

Jason0047 said:

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."

Click to expand...

The verse is a ringing endorsement of the usefulness of scripture but it does not endorse "scripture alone". I may say "President Donald Trump has the best record for negotiations with North Korea" but that does not mean that Donald and Donald alone has negotiated with North Korea. So Paul can say to Timothy "All scripture is from God ... " but that does not mean that Paul wants Timothy to throw away all other books and learning so he can become "a man of only one book".

The verses also endorse the idea that familiarity with scripture equips "the man of God" for all good works. That however does not mean that no other equipment is useful.

Mountainmike said:

There are 101 problems with the false premise that is sola scriptura.

Here a few - all biblical!

Start with the fact that scripture does nowhere contain its own table of contents.
So how do you even know what is scripture, without tradition or authority?

Click to expand...

Then this is the first of your false premises,
1. that correctly ascertaining what is of God, whether it be men of writings, requires ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (which is the Catholic false premise), and,
2. that SS must mean that Scripture alone absolutely provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace.

The first premise is incontrovertibly refuted by the fact that a body of wholly inspired-of-God authoritative writings was discerned and established (essentially due to their unique enduring Divine qualities and attestation) before a church even existed that presumed her infallible magisterium was essential for thus, and thus the Lord and His disciples could appeal to writings of that body in establishing the prophetic and doctrinal foundation of the NT church and kingdom of God. (Luke 24:27,44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28)

The second false premise is that SS means SS means nothing else is needed but Scripture in order to know what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, not reason, teachers or councils, all of which are affirmed under SS.

The fact that we would not know of the books of the Bible unless they were passed does not mean that SS is false another than the fact that we would not even know what any writing was about unless the knowledge of how to read was passed down.

But SS refers to a substantive body that has been discerned via people and tools that provided it, thru the use of means provided to them, and that as being provided, Scripture alone is the supreme and only infallible sure and sufficient standard for faith and morals, and which sufficiency includes what it materially provides for. Which includes ascertaining both men and writings of God as being so, and thus a canon.

Tradition provides information of the judgment of others as to what they considered to be writings of of God, but which does not mean their judgment is necessarily correct. Nor (contrary to another false premise of yours) does affirming their judgment (on 66 books of Scripture) mean that we are affirming that such discernsers possess ensured veracity, and thus must be submitted to.

Second, Jesus never said "write this" or "read this" he said "do this" and "teach this" -

Click to expand...

. The Lord never even directly said to ordain successors to Peter, yet He did indirectly, the Lord Jesus did say to write, both directly, and thru His angels, and by inspiring holy men to do so by His Spirit in 27 books of the NT. For as said, God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. And thus the Lord and abundantly invoked what was written as the supreme transcendent standard. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
Thus, while "many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:30-31)

and the faith was handed on by tradition (which is paradosis, the faith handed down) from the apostles and succession bishops. Read the early fathers!

Click to expand...

That is simply an argument by assertion, for contrary to the writers of Scripture, so-called "church fathers" did not speak as wholly inspired of God, nor did they consistently agree with each other, and thus cannot be determintive of what the NT church believed, in contrast to the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation in this regard.

Its why Paul says "stat true to tradition" (ie the faith handed down) and is why the early fathers all refer to staying true to the teaching of bishops...primacy at Rome.

Click to expand...

Which is another specious claim, since you simply have no proof what the traditions Paul referred to actually were, but which Catholicism makes out to be as a blank check. Nor can I you prove that they were subsequent written, or referred to what was, but I can show that this was is normally the case for anything called the word of God. That something is included in Scripture is the basis for assurance that it is the word of God, versus resting upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

Third the "new testament" of which Jesus said "do this" was not even a book (or was not in origin) testament is same as covenant. The "new covenant/testament in my blood" is the eucharist, not a book! The book was compiled to support tradition not to replace it.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. The "new testament" refers to the prophesied New Covenant, which they knew by writings, and which was instituted by the death of the testator, (Hebrews 9:16,17) and which shedding of His sinless blood the cup of wine represented, versus the Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper .

Fourth if you all have is scripture, you do not have the word of God. The word of God is the words AND the correct meaning for them. The meaning handed by tradition. (faith handed down) Obviously And by divorcing scripture from tradition (the meaning handed down) is why protestants disagree on every key aspect of doctrine.

Click to expand...

.
What is obvious is that this is pure bombast, for this is no more true for Christianity then it was for the Jews, whose tradition leads away from the Lord Jesus as being the Christ.

If two people oppose on meaning (eg only one of: OSAS, saved but can lose it, not saved till the end - can be true - they are exclusive) All have scripture. Only one of them has the word of God.

Click to expand...

This is true, but by your logic you invalid your own church, since there are many things not settled in Catholicism, and in which Catholics can disagree, as well as many disagreements Rome implicitly sanctions, thus showing what she really believes concerning what the church is, while evangelical types have been seen as the most potent basically unified major faith group in the Americas.

In addition, you must also nuke EOs members as being faithful believers.

Fifth- even the bible says "the foundation of truth is the church" (not scripture!)

Click to expand...

Which is a case of forcing a text to support the autocratic elitism of Rome as if thru her magisterium she is the basis of Truth, thereby making Scripture subject to her, even though Divine Truth preceded the church, and her Truth claims were established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. The one true church is actually the prophesied "child" of the Truth that preceded it, consisting only of those who were begotten "with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1:18)

Yet what Caths attempt to extrapolate their fantasy out of is actually (based upon what is contained in the Greek) "church living God pillar/support and ground [hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek, or it is said to have meant in the latter fixed, steadfast, or immovable] the truth."

That the church of the living God is of the Truth, and supports and is fixed on the Truth is substantiated in Scripture, the Lord Himself taking time to go thru Scripture and show the basis for His Messiaship and ministry, and opening the understanding of the disciples (more than just apostles being present) to them, (Lk. 24:44,45) and with Biblical prophets being foundational. (Eph. 2:20).

And so on.....because Jesus gave his apostles authoirity (the power to "bind and loose"). Without it you would not have a bible.

Click to expand...

Which is another abuse of Scripture. And Rome can only wish she could bind Bible Christians like the apostles could bind actual rebels. The power of binding loosing, like that of "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do," (John 14:13,14) is not an autocratic power, one that can add to the word of God such as inventing ordained church offices, but such is subject to the will of God, and conformity with Scripture. This applies to the church and it also did to the Scribes and Pharisees. Who, though they sat in the seat of Moses, were reproved by the Lord from Scripture for teaching as doctrines the traditions of men. Based on Catholic logic, they had that power, however, the Lord makes it clear they were not above Scripture. (Mark 7:2-16)

The power of binding loosing actually flows from the OT, judicially to bind or loose one from guilt, (Dt. 17:8-13) and even civil courts have that power (Matthew 18:34) as well as husbands or fathers to bind or loose a wife or daughter to her vow. (Numbers 30:1-15) Yet formal judicial actions by the church are executed under leadership, in union with the church. (Matthew 18:16-18; though which text in context deals with personal disputes). The formal corporate judicial binding and loosing is seen in action in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5. Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by the body that was harmed by public sin. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)

But as seen in Matthew 18:19-20 and James 5:16-18, the spiritual power of binding and loosing are is not restricted to clergy, but as many of Elijah-type righteousness and fervent prayer (Elijah bound and loosed the heavens), though that is sadly not me.

Sola scriptura is a pure man made tradition of the reformation. It is certainly not justified either in or by scripture or history. Nobody was sola scriptura before that.

Click to expand...

Actually sola Roma ecclesia and distinctive Catholic doctrines are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

But that God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation, and
that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God is abundantly evidenced.

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

Everyone then became their own pope with endless schism because of it. Even Luther lamented "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"! All because of sola scriptura.

Click to expand...

You need to search here before you parrot such quotes, but the reality is that it is Catholics - those whom Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death - who are the most dis-unified in comparison with historical SS types, and thus - combined with apathy about doctrine - they usually can remain Catholic despite their variegated beliefs.

And rather than the mighty magisterium being the answer to division, she actually has caused more. As one poster wryly reported,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, Against The Grain

Yet there are is too much unnecessary division, and a central magisterium is the ideal, but which idea Rome has poisoned, and she certainly is not a candidate.

In conclusion, once again your arguments have been exposed as fallacious, as was the absurd idea that affirmation of the NT by Protestants means affirming her authority, and thus the need to submit to Rome.

Mountainmike said:

But the westminster confession is a #FAIL for sola scriptura.
If scripture stands alone. Why do you need a confession?

Answer it replaces tradition (ie what the first 1500 years thought the bible meant including authority decisions on it)
With the west minster confession which is pure man made tradition of the reformation (ie what reformatinists changed it to mean)

Click to expand...

If you actually read my response, then you might comprehend that the idea that SS means nothing else is needed but Scripture in order to know what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace - not reason, not writing, not discernment, not teachers, not even God - is simply a strawman, which is what you depend on.

That Scripture is sufficient to supply the Truth of God, formally telling us such things as how to be saved, while materially providing for things from reason to synods, is the only correct concept of SS.

But your alternative to SS, that of sola Roma ecclesia, in which the church of Rome is the supreme infallible standard for faith and morality, and provides what is necessary for knowing and growing in both, is what is untenable, as has been shown.

The concept of sola scriptura is one that is easily refuted.

The teaching of the apostles was inspired, whether they wrote it down or spoke it. It was authoritative even before they set their words to paper. Something tells me that the authority had never rested with Scripture alone, but with the people whom God had entrusted the care of His flock to. These are the people who were given the power to bind and loose, charged to baptize (Matthew 28:19) and hear the confessions of the faithful (John 20:21-23), who were singled out amongst all of the disciples for unique leadership roles in the Church, and one of whom in particular was instructed, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17).

Before there was a Bible, there was a Church, and this is what Saint Paul referred to as the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), because the Church is more than just a collection of its apostles' writings. It's made up of apostles, prophets, healers, speakers of tongues and the interpreters of those tongues- disciples, and Jesus founded His Church on such people, rather than Scriptures.

Jason0047 said:

There is nothing in the Bible that the Bible does not address as a part of the faith.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine so that the man of God may be perfect unto every good work. Yet, you are saying otherwise.

Click to expand...

"This is the classic Protestant proof text for sola scriptura. The hidden premise is that, since Scripture is good for all these things, it is good for all things, including being the sole infallible rule of faith.

But the second doesn’t follow from the first. Catholics who understand their faith abide by this passage as much as Protestants do. But a plain reading shows that “equipping for every good work” does not exclude other sources of training, as sola scriptura would demand.

The important notions of Church and tradition are present implicitly in 2 Timothy 3:15-16, based on topically cross-referencing to other Pauline passages on authority, apostolic tradition, and the Church. Moreover, if we look at the overall context of this passage, in 2 Timothy alone, Paul makes reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14), and it was just as binding in Paul’s opinion as his written letters.

We agree with Protestants that Scripture can train us in righteousness and equip us for good works, just as we believe in the material sufficiency of the Bible (the notion that all Christian doctrines are found in Scripture in some form or other). The Protestant mistake lies in equating that sufficiency with formal sufficiency: the Bible as the sole, ultimate, binding norm and authoritative rule of faith, to the exclusion of Church and Tradition.

This doesn’t follow logically, nor exegetically, from the passage. It is a circular argument. At best, this passage might be regarded as harmonious with a view of sola scriptura, assuming it were clearly established on other biblical grounds. But in no way does it establish the principle of sola scriptura on its own."

(Source-- Apologist Dave Armstrong, Catholicanswers.com)

NBB said:

Maybe i don't understand well what sola scriptura is but,
I think sola scriptura fails, when we need to know something in a matter the bible doesn't talk about, there is other ways of knowing from God, like experience, or the guidance of the Holy spirit.
Also if you have only biblical knowledge of God but have not experienced anything from Him your knowledge is very limited.

Click to expand...

That is "either or" thinking. It would be like saying "you can either accept Christ or you can submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit but you can't accept the Holy Spirit's work in your life and accept Christ as your savior". There is no war between knowing Christ and the Word of God for the Christian.