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

[redleghunter]

Actually, my Blogger article includes primarily scientific evidences that are observable and there are very little historical evidences. Also, why would my quoting of Scripture be a logical fallacy or straw man argument? Are you saying you disagree with the evidences I provided? From my point of view, these evidences are obvious. How can you not see them? Is it because you simply don't want to see them? What evidences did you not believe?

Side Note:

Also, again, you cannot speak against something that you support. You are taking the position of somebody that is against Canon by your question. You are playing the role of the skeptic. Again, you are either for Canon or you are not for Canon. If you are for Canon of Scripture, you cannot speak skeptically against the Canon by asking me the source of Canon.

Jason their deal is the Scriptures don't say "Scriptures alone" in a proof text verse. That's their fallacious argument because others are always challenging them to show where their non-Biblical doctrines come from and ask the same specious question. When instead they should ask what do the Scriptures teach and we find that out via exegesis or drawing out the truth from Scriptures.

For example, you did an admirable job drawing out the truth that the actual writers of the Holy Scriptures under Holy Spirit inspiration did in fact demonstrate Sola Scriptura or the Scriptures alone are the only infallible rule of faith.

 

[GingerBeer]

Which is the usual misconception on these boards reference Sola Scriptura

The misconception is that there is a single universally agreed doctrine of sola scriptura. There isn't. Never has been. Never will be.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason their deal is the Scriptures don't say "Scriptures alone" in a proof text verse. That's their fallacious argument because others are always challenging them to show where their non-Biblical doctrines come from and ask the same specious question. When instead they should ask what do the Scriptures teach and we find that out via exegesis or drawing out the truth from Scriptures.

For example, you did an admirable job drawing out the truth that the actual writers of the Holy Scriptures under Holy Spirit inspiration did in fact demonstrate Sola Scriptura or the Scriptures alone are the only infallible rule of faith.

The Bible speaks for itself that it is divine in origin with tons of evidences that supports it. No other holy book compares to it. Other holy books or holy traditions that others try to add to the Bible does not fit or work, either. Even those who say that prophecy is for today are inadvertently claiming that we can add to God's Word when Revelation 22:18-19 gives us the clear warning not to add to His Word. Many will say this warning was only in reference to Revelation, but that does not work because nobody seeks to buy a book called just "Revelation" as if it is some kind of separate book still. Revelation is a part of one whole book known as the Bible today. God surely knew this.

In fact, adding to God's word is followed by plagues being added to that person. These plagues have already happened and these plagues don't come from Revelation but from other books within the Bible.

Bible Correctors lose Voice
Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show

 

[redleghunter]

So you believe it was men and not God who assembled the Canon?

What they believe is a trifold approach to authority. The Sacred Scriptures, Tradition and Magisterium. The Sacred Scriptures and Tradition of the church are subservient to the Magisterium. Both say what the Magisterium says it says.

Kind of like this:

 

[redleghunter]

The misconception is that there is a single universally agreed doctrine of sola scriptura. There isn't. Never has been. Never will be.

What I gave you comes from all the Reformed confessions.

 

[redleghunter]

Nonsense. I'm pointing out that Sola Scriptura is irrational; by holding to it you have no logical way to know what Scripture is.

Nonsense.

I don't have that problem.

Yes because your Magisterium tells you what the Scriptures say and as such the Scriptures are subservient to the Magisterium.

 

[redleghunter]

Meanwhile, having a central magisterium - which should be a goal but not as in sola ecclesia (SE) Rome with her fantasy of ensured veracity and thus require assent of faith on that basis - does not solve the problem of variant interpretations. For the interpretive body is itself subject to interpretation, and indeed, V2 has even resulted in Catholics being more divided. Division in Catholicism consists both of things which RCs can validly disagree one, as well as variant opinions that what Rome implicitly sanctions.

This peaks my interest the most. Why hasn't this infallible magisterium actually put some freight behind infallibly interpreting the Sacred Scriptures? I think I know the answer but wanted your opinion.

 

[redleghunter]

Start with the fact that scripture does nowhere contain its own table of contents.

Where in the infallible table of contents can I find the supreme magisterial interpretation of all the books? Does not exist. Why?

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

No He said "It is written" more than He said follow tradition. Meaning He actually did say it is written and never said "tradition says." In fact any references to tradition were negative. Jesus Did and Taught and we know this because It is Written.

 

[redleghunter]

Wouldn’t it be lovely if the entire Protestant world could agree on that (or any) single definition for the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura?

What that the Scriptures are the only infallible authority to test truth claims? The apostles taught this, Jesus too. When Paul instructs Timothy he said:

Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching. (1 Timothy 4:13)

and

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. (2 Timothy 4:1-2)

 

[redleghunter]

A question to sola scripturists. (one that appeal to the Bible alone as their sole rule of faith)

A slight correct there. That would be sole infallible authority.

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.
Understanding Sola Scriptura​

Why should anyone believe in your particular denominational teaching rather than another?

Well maybe you can clear a few things up with matters of Roman Catholic doctrine. Do you agree with St Augustine, doctor of the church, on his doctrines of Grace and Election?

 

[redleghunter]

That's ridiculous! We have written Scripture that gives us the teachings of Jesus Christ! There is not another set of teachings that are in auditory form or in practice alone along with Scripture.

LOL yes BINGO. They actually use the written Word of God to try to prove oral tradition. Can't make this stuff up.

 

[redleghunter]

I was just expressing that there is cases when people have trouble with devils and are christians, and if they go to someone for help, they just can't say 'but christians can't have demons'...

God bless.

Is the Gospel and genuine conversions to Christ happening like wild fire where you live? If so Satan will expend a lot of ammunition on your community.

 

[redleghunter]

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

Is that what you are looking for?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

So Paul omitted important information to Timothy?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Can you point to other methods of instruction the apostles gave on matters "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness?"

When we have one thing mentioned and not any others that is defined as alone.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

LOL yes BINGO. They actually use the written Word of God to try to prove oral tradition. Can't make this stuff up.

Yeah, what they believe doesn't make any sense. Here is a graphic I created yesterday that helps to illustrate how God actually communicated with man through out history.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What they believe is a trifold approach to authority. The Sacred Scriptures, Tradition and Magisterium. The Sacred Scriptures and Tradition of the church are subservient to the Magisterium. Both say what the Magisterium says it says.

Kind of like this:

View attachment 246109

Yeah, it is said that most people usually only remember about 17 to 25% of the things they listen to. Even if that percentage was higher, it would suggest a loss information. So the notion that there was some form of auditory transmission that was passed down through history successfully seems highly unlikely unless they are claiming God was helping them. Plus, this is not how it exists today, either. The RCC actually wrote down these so called past auditory spoken traditions down. Why? So that they would not forget them or so that they would not be altered by auditory means from one person to the next, etc.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Interesting you are trying to use Scriptures to prove they are beholden to a Magisterium.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Two points. In you discourse addressing 2 Timothy 3 references you did address many of the descriptions but omitted "complete." Why is that?

Secondly, you are operating from an erroneous or contrived definition of Sola Scriptura:

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.​

Understanding Sola Scriptura

 

[redleghunter]

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."

And Armstrong bases this on the fallacious notion (seen on this thread too) that there needs to be some verse which says "I Paul command you to Sola Scriptura" or something similar. However what the OP and others have pointed out the very fact Jesus and His Apostles demonstrated Sola Scriptura is more than enough.