concretecamper
Member of His Church
- Nov 23, 2013
- 6,780
- 2,579
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
is not only the written Word. We've been through this alreadyWord of God
Upvote
0
is not only the written Word. We've been through this alreadyWord of God
Here you go already provided some time ago click me. If we are only saved by God's Grace through faith *Epehsians 2:8 and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *Romans 10:17 how can you have faith when there is no Word? If there is no word there is no faith and if there is no faith there is no salvation (see John 3:16; 1 John 5:4).
Iow, "Hearing God's word is important". That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.Romans 10:17 Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
That's even less relevant since it relates to justification rather than authority. That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority. Try again.Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are you saved through faith (faith comes by the Word of God); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God
Even less relevant because sin isn't the issue here. That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.Romans 14:23 ...whatsoever is not of faith is sin
"Reading God's word is good". Nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
"God's word is very important". Again, nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.Matthew 4:4 Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
One more thing, Timothy was a priest. The implication is that the Church is the teacher. The letter was specifically to Timothy, unlike Paul's other letter to congregations.Yes. That is the context. Yet the passage states all scripture. Would you agree that scripture is scripture regardless of when it was God breathed? Is the NT also scripture? Did Paul have an eye to future scripture? The text doesn’t say. It simply says “All Scripture”. I submit that it is a form of the prophetic present. Meaning the passage has application now but it’s fulfillment in the future. Like Isaiah’s suffering servant. It’s Israel in the context yet we also know that this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ.
Isaiah 53:3–5 (ESV): He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed
What we've seen are posts saying variations on "Gosh darn golly gee, Sacred Scripture is the super awesomerest evar" but not much else.
Show me the scripture that says something akin to "Sacred Scripture should be your sole authority". This thread has gone on for 20 pages and so far all we've established is that scripture is "profitable". That's lovely but we knew that already.
Show me the scripture saying scripture is the only authority.
True tho that may be, other members (particularly Catholics) have in this thread requested a scripture stating that scripture is the sole rule of faith of those who subscribe to such a belief.Again, the OP does not ask to prove the “only” authority.
No, you haven't. You may have participated in threads where the discussion ground to a similar standstill, where some Protestants who believe that Sacred Scripture is the sole rule of faith are unable to provide a scripture substantiating their beliefs and/or where other Protestants bemoan being asked to substantiate that belief even tho they don't share it (raising the question of why they're even participating in the first place).Furthermore I have been in several threads with you where this has been clarified for your edification.
One more thing, Timothy was a priest. The implication is that the Church is the teacher. The letter was specifically to Timothy, unlike Paul's other letter to congregations.
Your response here..LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Here you go already provided some time ago click me. If we are only saved by God's Grace through faith *Epehsians 2:8 and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *Romans 10:17 how can you have faith when there is no Word? If there is no word there is no faith and if there is no faith there is no salvation (see John 3:16; 1 John 5:4).
No need to try again as the scripture says what it says. What does the rest of the verse you are posting about say. Yep "Hearing comes from the Word of God" *Romans 10:17. The scriptures are the written and recorded Word of God and as it is written elsewhere. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God (God breathed is the meaning here meaning living alive) *2 Timothy 3:16. The only true authority is God's Word as revealed through the scriptures. This is shown in the very words of Jesus in Matthew 15:3-9; Peter in Acts of the Apostles 5:29 and Paul in Romans 3:4.Iow, "Hearing God's word is important". That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.That's even less relevant since it relates to justification rather than authority. That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority. Try again.
Sure it does. Gods' Word is the sole authority. The only true authority is God's Word as revealed through the scriptures. This is shown in the very words of Jesus in Matthew 15:3-9; Peter in Acts of the Apostles 5:29 and Paul in Romans 3:4."Reading God's word is good". Nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.
Your response...LoveGodsWord said: ↑ 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
Your just repeating yourself again (see previous sections). 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". The meaning here is that it is the scriptures that are the standard of doctrine and instruction in righteousness. This proves the OP wrong. The OP was to show that the scriptures are all sufficient right?"Reading God's word is good". Nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.
Nothing is missing to those who see and hear Gods' Word as it is written by Paul "Let God be true and everyman a liar *Romans 3:4 and Peter "We ough to obey God rather then man" *Acts 5:29 with the warnings given to us from JESUS when he says those who follow the traditions and teachings of men that break the commandments of God are not following God *Matthew 15:3-9. Yep seems like "ALL SCRIPTURE" seems pretty sufficient to me don't you think? Ignoring God's Word does not make it disappear. It simply becomes our judge come judgement day according to the scriptures *John 12:47-48Again, plenty of scripture quotes saying "Scripture is good/important/builds faith" or whatever else. But still missing is the scripture saying something like "Sacred Scripture is the Christian's only permissible authority". Still waiting.
is not only the written Word. We've been through this already
It says what it says, alright. The problem tho is it doesn't say what you think it says.No need to try again as the scripture says what it says.
It says no such thing. "Scripture is good" is not the same as "Scripture is the sole rule of faith". When you have a scripture that says that or something similar, let me know.Sure it does. Gods' Word is the sole authority.
I'm keeping up with the Joneses on that.Your just repeating yourself again
And I sidestepped it because that's off-topic in this discussion.I asked you a question earlier. If we are only saved by God's Grace through faith
It says what it says, alright. The problem tho is it doesn't say what you think it says.
It says no such thing. "Scripture is good" is not the same as "Scripture is the sole rule of faith". When you have a scripture that says that or something similar, let me know.
I'm keeping up with the Joneses on that.
And I sidestepped it because that's off-topic in this discussion.
Quite so, because the scriptures you provided are so irrelevant as to be almost off-topic.Well you did not address anything or the scirptures provided in the post you are quoting from
It doesn't.Hope this helps.
Quite so, because the scriptures you provided are so irrelevant as to be almost off-topic. Again, "Scripture is good" is not the same as "Scripture is the sole rule of faith". When you have a scripture that says that or something similar, let me know. It doesn't.
Iow, "Hearing God's word is important". That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.
That's even less relevant since it relates to justification rather than authority. That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority. Try again.
Even less relevant because sin isn't the issue here. That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.
"Reading God's word is good". Nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.
"God's word is very important". Again, nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.
Again, plenty of scripture quotes saying "Scripture is good/important/builds faith" or whatever else.
But still missing is the scripture saying something like "Sacred Scripture is the Christian's only permissible authority". Still waiting.
my mistake, he was a Bishop.No, Timothy was not a ἱερεύς or herios meaning priest.
I chose that it remains the way Paul meant it, what Timothy knew from his youth (or infancy with regards to the faith).Yet the statement about scripture remains
of course they were not personal opinion. Unlike SS which we are discussing.In other words Paul’s words about scripture we not personal opinion especially if he was offering advice to a Presbyter.
Hardly. Read me post carefully. It could be that I wasn’t clear. I don’t deny there was a time that Paul’s teaching existed in Oral form and only later written down.So your best card to play is Paul was uttering a prophecy? You choice to believe that but it doesnt fit with Paul's reference
The terms episcopoi and Presbyteroi were used interchangeably in the NT.my mistake, he was a Bishop.
Yes. That is the context. Yet the passage states all scripture. Would you agree that scripture is scripture regardless of when it was God breathed? Is the NT also scripture? Did Paul have an eye to future scripture? The text doesn’t say. It simply says “All Scripture”. I submit that it is a form of the prophetic present. Meaning the passage has application now but it’s fulfillment in the future. Like Isaiah’s suffering servant. It’s Israel in the context yet we also know that this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ.
That's quite a novel argument, saying that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is "a form of the prophetic present". I never heard that one before. But the problem is, Scripture doesn't say or even imply that. There's a much simpler explanation, which is what I have been trying to steer you towards.
In the previous verse (2 Timothy 3:15) Paul is telling Timothy that "from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." This verse is specific, the Scriptures that Timothy had since his infancy is what we call the Old Testament (Talmud, Tanakh, whatever..). And it is of these Scriptures that Paul is saying that they can "instruct to salvation".
Then in the next two verses Paul is moving from the specific situation of Timothy to the general rule, explaining if you wish why he said what he said in verse 15: not just this or that book, but all Scripture is inspired, profitable etc.. It does not make sense to argue that Paul was speaking about the "total number of 66 books, and nothing more or nothing less", since some of these books were not written yet, and Paul even doubted whether his own writings were inspired. They were, but he didn't know that.
Paul was simply explaining that the nature of Scripture is such that it is inspired, and as you pointed out, the purpose and the effects of something that is inspired is that it is profitable to use and able to produce the effects mentioned (being perfect, every good faith.. I mean work).
Another way of looking at it then is this. What is true of the nature of a thing is true of every thing of that nature. When we say apples grow on trees, then we know that each and every apple grew on a tree. Apple 1 grew on a tree, apple 2 grew on a tree,.. apple 37,763,774 grew on a tree, etc..
Apply this to what Paul is saying here:
When a Protestant tries to insert the word sufficient into 2 Timothy 3:16-17, he is forced to insert the same word into each of the above statements:
- The book of Genesis is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
- The book of Exodus is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
- The book of Leviticus is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
- ...
- The Gospel of St. John is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
- ...
- The Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
- ...
- The book of Revelation is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
Does that makes sense? No. That is NOT the meaning that Paul could have been trying to convey here.
- The book of Genesis is sufficient..
- The book of Exodus is sufficient..
- The book of Leviticus is sufficient..
- ...
- The book of Revelation is sufficient..
Protestants then will try to argue, "well, Paul switched in the middle of his statement from speaking about the nature of Scripture to speaking specifically about the 66 books that some Christians one day will proclaim as inspired."
And this I believe that is what Patrick Madrid called an error against the hermeneutic of anachronism, or in simple terms, reading something into Scripture that simply is not there and could not have been there.
So, there is no way you can argue that Paul is implying sufficiency in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Paul said scripture, scripture Timothy knew from infancy, it means the Tanakh, it ain't hard to understandI don’t deny there was a time that Paul’s teaching existed in Oral form and only later written down.
That's quite a novel argument, saying that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is "a form of the prophetic present". I never heard that one before. But the problem is, Scripture doesn't say or even imply that. There's a much simpler explanation, which is what I have been trying to steer you towards.
In the previous verse (2 Timothy 3:15) Paul is telling Timothy that "from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." This verse is specific, the Scriptures that Timothy had since his infancy is what we call the Old Testament (Talmud, Tanakh, whatever..). And it is of these Scriptures that Paul is saying that they can "instruct to salvation".
Then in the next two verses Paul is moving from the specific situation of Timothy to the general rule, explaining if you wish why he said what he said in verse 15: not just this or that book, but all Scripture is inspired, profitable etc.. It does not make sense to argue that Paul was speaking about the "total number of 66 books, and nothing more or nothing less", since some of these books were not written yet, and Paul even doubted whether his own writings were inspired. They were, but he didn't know that.
Paul was simply explaining that the nature of Scripture is such that it is inspired, and as you pointed out, the purpose and the effects of something that is inspired is that it is profitable to use and able to produce the effects mentioned (being perfect, every good faith.. I mean work).
Another way of looking at it then is this. What is true of the nature of a thing is true of every thing of that nature. When we say apples grow on trees, then we know that each and every apple grew on a tree. Apple 1 grew on a tree, apple 2 grew on a tree,.. apple 37,763,774 grew on a tree, etc..
Hence the word “All”. And is supernatural in origin. Again. God Breathed.Apply this to what Paul is saying here:
- The book of Genesis is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
- The book of Exodus is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
- The book of Leviticus is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
- ...
- The Gospel of St. John is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
- ...
- The Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
- ...
- The book of Revelation is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
It does not make sense to argue that Paul was speaking about the "total number of 66 books, and nothing more or nothing less", since some of these books were not written yet, and Paul even doubted whether his own writings were inspired. They were, but he didn't know that.
Does that makes sense? No. That is NOT the meaning that Paul could have been trying to convey here.
Protestants then will try to argue, "well, Paul switched in the middle of his statement from speaking about the nature of Scripture to speaking specifically about the 66 books that some Christians one day will proclaim as inspired."
And this I believe is what Patrick Madrid called an error against the hermeneutic of anachronism, or in simple terms, reading something into Scripture that simply is not there and could not have been there.
So, there is no way you can argue that Paul is implying sufficiency in 2 Timothy 3:16-