Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

[BobRyan]

Or that they couldn't practice the observance of a day of rest and worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath?

No NT writer identifies the LORD with any other day but Sabbath "the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28. Never is that said of week-day-1

The Bible says "the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the LORD" Exodus 20:10
The Bible says the Sabbath is "The Holy Day of the LORD" Isaiah 58:13
but never says "week-day-1 is the LORD's day"

.
So? Did the apostles tell them "that they couldn't practice the observance of a day of rest and worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath?" Did the apostles tell or show them that they should practice it that new way?

1. Not one NT writer calls week-day-1 "The Lord's day" as already pointed out. man made tradition in later centuries made that claim after-the-fact.

2. Paul says "though we Apostles or an Angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed!" Gal 1:6-9

And so you're preaching the different gospel.

to some the mere quote of the text appears to be a "different gospel".

The church has always known the truth regarding the day of the week identified as "The Lord's Day", from the beginning, .

True of the Catholic church from about the 4th century A.D. Not an actual Bible text that you have there -- just saying.


now back to the "more general case" as the focus in the OP
======================================

Someone has posted that there are problems with sola scriptura. Through a process of philosophy and extreme inference.

[There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.[/QUOTE]

The error there - is that the entire argument above relies on ignoring what the Bible has to say on that subject - and simply "quoting yourself" relying on extreme inference alone.

There is... another way.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - none of those texts should exist!

We know what day the Lord's Day was, Sunday,

Not from any Bible text in OT or NT. In the actual Bible Christ is "LORD of the Sabbath" no such text for "LORD of week-day-1" and we both know it.

Sunday, the day of our Lord's Resurrection-

We all agree that Christ was raised on what the Bible calls -- "week day 1"... it does not say He was "raised on the LORD's day" ... again this is irrefutable.

You can argue against these two reasons until you are blue in the face, but the fact is they are true and accurate.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

No argument can erase these inconvenient details

1. The term "all of scripture" is used in Luke 24 as a description of Christ's teaching method.
2. Nobody in the NT was going to "wait 200 or 300 years to read the Bible" as if they needed a yet-to-be-invented tradition to tell them what to read.
3. Christ flatly condemns traditions of man in Mark 7:6-13 by evaluating them against the "rule" of the Bible. He used the very sola-scriptura method being condemned by some on this board.
4. Acts 17:11 describes the very practice that has been argued against by those who reject sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice. "studied the scriptures to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul ... were so"
5. No scriptural canon used today - was canonized in the form "we just found out that this should be in the Bible" rather they all claim it had always been read and accepted by the saints.

Isiah 8:20 is a great example of "sola scriptura" being the rule in the OT. The term does not mean "no more scripture can ever be written" as some have imagined.

 

[BobRyan]

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine"

2 Peter 3 - even Paul's writings were being accepted as a part of "scripture" by NT saints.. not just the OT text.

Hebrews 3 refers to the OT text as "The Holy Spirit says"..

2 Peter 1:20-21 "20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

 

[BobRyan]

Actually people can and do string Bible verses together to make it say what they want it to say. I have seen it done time and time again, and they argue its authenticity till the cows come home.

No doubt some Bible texts could be used to construct bad doctrine in favor of rejecting the Trinity, or in favor of praying to the dead or in favor of purgatory or bowing down before images and promising to serve those they represent etc.

Certainly the non-Christian Jews of Christ day would argue that Christians were simply "presenting a string of Bible texts" and coming to a conclusion that was rejected by non-Christian Jews. YET Paul used the Bible Method anyway - in Acts 17:1-5 and in Acts 18:4

But that is not a sufficient detail to refute Christ's sola scriptura method of teaching in Luke 24 "from all of scripture" or to refute the blessed practice of Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul were SO"

 

[Bible2+]

gordonhooker said in post #199:

There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive . . .

Note that there is. For unless scripture were comprehensive, it would not be sufficient to make a Christian perfect:

2 Timothy 3:15 . . . from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
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 4:1 ¶I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Note that this also shows that scripture is able to refute errant doctrine.