Question about "sola scriptura"

[Wolf_Says]

No, Timothy was considered a Gentile, not a Jew. Timothy's mother was a Jew, but his father was a gentile.

That is why the law-people wanted Timothy circumcised in his adulthood and why Timothy was not circumcised as a child.

Had Timothy been a Jew, Timothy would have been circumcised in the FIRST WEEK after his birth.

Acts 16:3
3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, so he took him and circumcised him on account of the Jews in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Please provide another proof scripture that shows Timothy was speaking about the Old Testament as you say. I can then address whatever text you decide makes your case. TImothy was a gentile.

I must say, Timothy was devoted to Christ because that must have hurt. OUCH.

Let me fix something, as I was in a hurry and mistated.

Timothy stated nothing, as it was Paul who wrote the letter to Timothy.

Paul is stating that we should follow the OT, as that was the scripture by which the truth of Jesus was spread throughout the world, and Christianity was built upon.

It is a historical fact that the Holy Bible as we know it now was not around until it was put together and declared sacred scripture by the Church in the late 4th century. Paul's letters to Timothy clearly outdate the existence of the Bible (otherwise they wouldn't be in the Bible).

I do not need to pull out a scripture verse for this, because it is history.

However, I will say that we have left off the begining of that portion of the letter. Please, I shall post the entire thing. 2 Timothy 3:10-17 :
10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico′nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

 

[ToBeLoved]

2 Timothy 3:10-17 :
10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico′nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Well actually Paul is acknowledging what I said, see the red text above.

I said that Timothy's mother was Jewish. Timothy was 'acquainted' with the sacred writings as his mother was Jewish. But a man is the head of the household and his father was a gentile, specifically a Greek gentile as I have shown in a previous post.

So please show me scripture that proves me wrong, because this does not.

You must do better if you want to argue scripture with me brother.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Well actually Paul is acknowledging what I said, see the red text above.

I said that Timothy's mother was Jewish. Timothy was 'acquainted' with the sacred writings as his mother was Jewish. But a man is the head of the household and his father was a gentile, specifically a Greek gentile as I have shown in a previous post.

So please show me scripture that proves me wrong, because this does not.

You must do better if you want to argue scripture with me brother.

It's not scripture though, its historical fact that Paul is referencing the old testament in your quote. I simply quoted the entire passage for thread purposes.

The NT was not established yet, and Christianity spread because the apostles were teaching the OT and how Jesus fulfilled the OT. The NT wasn't written, then put together and declared sacred scripture until the late 4th century.

In his letter to Timothy, when Paul says "All scripture", the only scripture around was the Old Testament. There was no NT for Paul to reference, or be talking about.

So, logically, if you were to follow that statement you would have to follow only the OT of the Bible, because that is the only thing that Paul can be referring too. But now that verse has been taking out of context to point to the entire Bible, which I am pretty sure Paul did not have such foresight to know that a book called the Bible with an entirely NT would be put together and declared scripture.

If you want to defend the concept of Sola Scriptura, then please tell me what does this statement mean?

1 Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's not scripture though, its historical fact that Paul is referencing the old testament in your quote. I simply quoted the entire passage for thread purposes.

The NT was not established yet, and Christianity spread because the apostles were teaching the OT and how Jesus fulfilled the OT. The NT wasn't written, then put together and declared sacred scripture until the late 4th century.

Who wrote 65% of the New Testament?

Paul.

Are you joking with me that the New Testament wasn't written or being written?

You must mean it was not cannonized. Words and details matter.

What proof do you have that Paul was referencing the Old Testament? You said you had "proof" but so far you are saying the writer of 1 Timothy is writing about something other than the author says he is writing about.

How is that not completely silly? Telling the author what the author wrote?

You need to do better.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'll let you comment away Wolf_Says and address all of it later, maybe I can save myself some time by combining thing.

Also, why did you choose the name "Wolf"? Wolf is a derogatory word in the New Covenant. Lookup who is called a "wolf".

I wonder why you chose that name if you know God's Word? That is irony.

 

[JohannaSK]

This is not true in the sense that you have said.

The text in the Bible + the Holy Spirit.

The text in the Bible is enough on it's own. The problem is it is so, so, so very complicated.

God made the entire universe, God is perfect. And God put His instructions for man kind into that one book. Do you know what kind of Bible the perfect Lord God could put together with ALL His smartness? A hugely complicated book, as I have said earlier.

So we need the Holy Spirit to understand what the Bible is indeed saying. Because much of the Bible is spiritual. That complicates things HUGELY.

So human because of OUR LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF GOD, needs the Holy Spirit to understand it. But that is not showing the Bible is not Truth because we are not as smart as God. So God, sends the Holy Spirit to us to help us understand the complex things God put in the Bible. That DOES NOT make the Bible untrue. That makes us not smart enough to understand it by ourselves. But with God's help we can understand it.

Ok, now I think I know what you mean.

So according to your understanding of the principle of Sola Scriptura the Scripture is sufficient by itself, but without the guidance of the Holy Spirit we just cannot understand it sufficiently? The concequence of this would be to claim that all wisdom and knowledge of the will of God actually is packed in the Bible, but we just struggle to understand it, and the Holy Spirit helps us in understanding.

So in theory the Bible alone would actually be sufficient (if only we could be smart enough!), but in practice (because we're not smart enough) it must be the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

Hence one can appeal to the Bible text as the ultimate objective authority – in other words, hold the principle of SS.

This would be the understanding of Sola Scriptura that I could endorse.

Did understand it correctly?

 

[Wolf_Says]

I'll let you comment away Wolf_Says and address all of it later, maybe I can save myself some time by combining thing.

Also, why did you choose the name "Wolf"? Wolf is a derogatory word in the New Covenant. Lookup who is called a "wolf".

I wonder why you chose that name if you know God's Word? That is irony.

Because I love wolves, the animals, because they are the ancestors of dogs which are my favorite animals. Why does everybody have to criticize my name~~ >_< lol.

Who wrote 65% of the New Testament?

Paul.

Are you joking with me that the New Testament wasn't written or being written?

You must mean it was not cannonized. Words and details matter.

What proof do you have that Paul was referencing the Old Testament? You said you had "proof" but so far you are saying the writer of 1 Timothy is writing about something other than the author says he is writing about.

How is that not completely silly? Telling the author what the author wrote?

You need to do better.

Why did Paul write? He wrote for 1 of 2 reasons.

Reason 1) He was writing to give corrections to a place that he had already visited, and taught with the OT.

Reason 2) He could not get to a place or wrote about his coming.

Paul never considered his letters to be sacred scripture. Paul and the other apostles considered the OT to be sacred scripture.

I never said he didn't know what he was talking about. Of course Paul knew what he was talking about, but can you tell me that Paul knew he was writing the NT of the Bible? I'm pretty sure he didn't. He wrote letters to specific people or specific groups, hence the book names.

So when Paul says "All scripture" what do you think Paul is referring too? What was around during this time period that was considered scripture by jews and early Christians? The OT! How could Paul possibly be referring to something (the NT) that was not complete, and not declared sacred scripture?

Logically, we cant. If you choose to ignore historical fact and context, then I can see how that could be a defense of SS. But then we are not getting the full picture, because historical context matters.

The NT was not canonized, declared sacred scripture, or called divinely inspired until the 4th century when the Bible was finally placed together.

What was around when Paul was writing Timothy was the OT, which was seen as sacred scripture. Paul knew this, and this is what Paul was referring too because to him and Timothy, the OT was "All scripture".

There is no biblical verse of Paul saying "I am talking about the current Bible, but the future OT when the NT is completed and declared scripture and joined to form a new Bible" just as there is no verse in which Paul states that he is talking about the future NT.

So, please, how do I need to do better?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Ok, now I think I know what you mean.

So according to your understanding of the principle of Sola Scriptura the Scripture is sufficient by itself, but without the guidance of the Holy Spirit we just cannot understand it sufficiently? The concequence of this would be to claim that all wisdom and knowledge of the will of God actually is packed in the Bible, but we just struggle to understand it, and the Holy Spirit helps us in understanding.

So in theory the Bible alone would actually be sufficient (if only we could be smart enough!), but in practice (because we're not smart enough) it must be the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

Hence one can appeal to the Bible text as the ultimate objective authority – in other words, hold the principle of SS.

This would be the understanding of Sola Scriptura that I could endorse.

Did understand it correctly?

I think sole - 'sola' - 'relative to what?' is part of the question.

We need God's Word and the Holy Spirit; one does not exclude the other.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Because I love wolves, the animals, because they are the ancestors of dogs which are my favorite animals. Why does everybody have to criticize my name~~ >_< lol.



Why did Paul write? He wrote for 1 of 2 reasons.

Reason 1) He was writing to give corrections to a place that he had already visited, and taught with the OT.

Reason 2) He could not get to a place or wrote about his coming.

Paul never considered his letters to be sacred scripture. Paul and the other apostles considered the OT to be sacred scripture.

I never said he didn't know what he was talking about. Of course Paul knew what he was talking about, but can you tell me that Paul knew he was writing the NT of the Bible? I'm pretty sure he didn't. He wrote letters to specific people or specific groups, hence the book names.

So when Paul says "All scripture" what do you think Paul is referring too? What was around during this time period that was considered scripture by jews and early Christians? The OT! How could Paul possibly be referring to something (the NT) that was not complete, and not declared sacred scripture?

Logically, we cant. If you choose to ignore historical fact and context, then I can see how that could be a defense of SS. But then we are not getting the full picture, because historical context matters.

The NT was not canonized, declared sacred scripture, or called divinely inspired until the 4th century when the Bible was finally placed together.

What was around when Paul was writing Timothy was the OT, which was seen as sacred scripture. Paul knew this, and this is what Paul was referring too because to him and Timothy, the OT was "All scripture".

There is no biblical verse of Paul saying "I am talking about the current Bible, but the future OT when the NT is completed and declared scripture and joined to form a new Bible" just as there is no verse in which Paul states that he is talking about the future NT.

So, please, how do I need to do better?

Hi; looks like your wolf avatar would make an effective tribal style tattoo.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Hi; looks like your wolf avatar would make an effective tribal style tattoo.

Thanks, found it on google I really like the look of it.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Ok, now I think I know what you mean.

So according to your understanding of the principle of Sola Scriptura the Scripture is sufficient by itself, but without the guidance of the Holy Spirit we just cannot understand it sufficiently? The concequence of this would be to claim that all wisdom and knowledge of the will of God actually is packed in the Bible, but we just struggle to understand it, and the Holy Spirit helps us in understanding.

So in theory the Bible alone would actually be sufficient (if only we could be smart enough!), but in practice (because we're not smart enough) it must be the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

Hence one can appeal to the Bible text as the ultimate objective authority – in other words, hold the principle of SS.

This would be the understanding of Sola Scriptura that I could endorse.

Did understand it correctly?

No sola scriptura is saying that ALL the Bible is true. That none of the Bible is wrong in it's original language. That would be Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Hebrew for all of the Old Testament, Aramaic for some of the New Testament and Greek for the majority of the New Testament.

That is why I took the person questioning to the Greek on Biblehub. That is the original language for Paul's writings.

That is the argument of Sola Scriptura.

That is why I am holding each comment that it is saying the Bible is false to proving it is false. That is why it is so incredibly detailed. Showing ALL the Bible to be true in it's correct context. Details matter.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

the apostles of the NT were led by the Holy Spirit to speak God's words just as the prophets of the OT were led by the Holy Spirit to speak God's words.

thus, pointing out that the NT was not canonized at the time of Paul's letter to timothy is immaterial.

sola scriptura is the bible being the only rule of faith and life for followers of Christ in that it is God's Word. any ruling that is contradictory to what is written in the bible is not from the LORD and has no divine authority.

 

[Wolf_Says]

the apostles of the NT were led by the Holy Spirit to speak God's words just as the prophets of the OT were led by the Holy Spirit to speak God's words.

thus, pointing out that the NT was not canonized at the time of Paul's letter to timothy is immaterial.

sola scriptura is the bible being the only rule of faith and life for followers of Christ in that it is God's Word. any ruling that is contradictory to what is written in the bible is not from the LORD and has no divine authority.

No, especially when the quoted post says "All scripture" we must define what Paul means by all scripture, and therefore look into the historical context of the letter. Which I did.

SS is also taught nowhere in the Bible, and the concept of SS falls on its face when met with logical thinking. How does a book interpret itself? It cannot. We interpret the Bible as we read it, and how are we to determine who has the Holy Spirit in regards to their interpretation?

Clearly we cannot, otherwise this forum would not exist because we would all agree on the interpretation of the Bible.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

No, especially when the quoted post says "All scripture" we must define what Paul means by all scripture, and therefore look into the historical context of the letter. Which I did.

yeah, and you mis-interpreted it. the OT prophets wrote Scripture and the NT prophets wrote scripture. they were both inspired by God in being led by the Holy Spirit.

SS is also taught nowhere in the Bible, and the concept of SS falls on its face when met with logical thinking. How does a book interpret itself? It cannot. We interpret the Bible as we read it, and how are we to determine who has the Holy Spirit in regards to their interpretation?

the bible is the Word of God. the only voice believers are to listen to is the voice of God which is contained in the bible. anything said that is not written that contradicts what has been written is not from God.

 

[JohannaSK]

No, especially when the quoted post says "All scripture" we must define what Paul means by all scripture, and therefore look into the historical context of the letter. Which I did.

SS is also taught nowhere in the Bible, and the concept of SS falls on its face when met with logical thinking. How does a book interpret itself? It cannot. We interpret the Bible as we read it, and how are we to determine who has the Holy Spirit in regards to their interpretation?

Clearly we cannot, otherwise this forum would not exist because we would all agree on the interpretation of the Bible.

So Wolf_Says, what is your ultimate authority in understanding the will of God? The traditions and doctrine of the Catholic Church + the Bible / certain parts of the Bible?

 

[Thursday]

I have a question about the definition of sola scriptura.

Am I not a "sola scriptura -Christian" if I believe, that to understand the will of God and to get to know the truth, the text in the Bible in itself isn't sufficient, but that one must be guided by the Holy Spirit to understand what the Bible text actually says?

I just watched a debate between a Protestant and a Catholic on the subject of sola scriptura. I was surprised that neither one of them claimed that God's Spirit is the one who is above the written Bible text – and not that the Bible text is the only authority (the view of the protestant debater) nor that the Church doctrine and tradition have the same authority as the Bible text (the view of the Catholic debater)!

It can be seen clearly that if someone who isn't born again from above, from the Spirit of God, reads the Bible s/he most definately doesn't understand the core message: the redemption from sin and death in the Son, Jesus Christ.

I also remember from the time before I became a Christian myself that I didn't understand the Bible at all, even though I read it every now and then (because the text was aesthetically and emotionally appealing on many parts). But when I became a Christian, I immediately began to see God's message.

So if I believe like this am I or am I not "sola scriptura"?

Many sincere Christians reach opposite conclusions from identical passages of scripture.

That's why Jesus didn't give us a book, he gave us a Church with his authority to bind and loose and to forgive sins. Listen to the Church.

 

[Thursday]

the bible is the Word of God. the only voice believers are to listen to is the voice of God which is contained in the bible. anything said that is not written that contradicts what has been written is not from God.

Can you give me a scripture that says that? In the meantime, consider these:

2 Thes 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

[JohannaSK]

Many sincere Christians reach opposite conclusions from identical passages of scripture.

That's why Jesus didn't give us a book, he gave us a Church with his authority to bind and loose and to forgive sins. Listen to the Church.

Will any Church do, or do you claim that only the Roman Catholic Church should be listened to?

I'd say, rather, that Jesus left us the Holy Spirit to guide us and bind the true Church of Christ as well! This is the understanding I referred to in my original post, but I struggle to make people understand it.

 

[Thursday]

Will any Church do, or do you claim that only the Roman Catholic Church should be listened to?

I'd say, rather, that Jesus left us the Holy Spirit to guide us and bind the true Church of Christ as well! This is the understanding I referred to in my original post, but I struggle to make people understand it.

Jesus only started one Church and he promised the leaders of his Church that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.

So, if two Churches teach contradictory doctrines, one or both must not not be the Church Jesus started, right?

 

[Wolf_Says]

So Wolf_Says, what is your ultimate authority in understanding the will of God? The traditions and doctrine of the Catholic Church + the Bible / certain parts of the Bible?

I believe in the entire Bible, but and there is no doubt that the Bible is the Word of God.

However Jesus never wrote a single page in the Bible, instead He founded His Church, and that Church, granted by Jesus, has authority.

It was this Church that developed the Holy Bible as we know it today, finally piecing it together and declaring it sacred scripture in the late 4th century. It is this Church that has authority over what the Bible says, and it's interpretation.

The best way for me to describe it is a 3 legged stool. This is the stood of authority, giving to us by God to reach heaven. The 3 legs are 1) The Bible, 2) Tradition, and 3) The Church. One cannot exist without the other 2, and together they for a stable seat. Take one away, you can no longer sit on the stool.

I realize alot of people will say something in regards to the Tradition part, but I am simply answering the question asked of me. I am not talking about traditions of men, but Traditions that Jesus has placed with us, shown through the Church, and supported by the Bible. All 3 work together.