Sola Scriptura: Are the Scriptures Sufficient as a Rule of Faith?

Tradidi · Jul 12, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
Actually I said that Scripture was God Breathed. I was very specific because Paul was specific. And he said All scripture. Unless you believe some scripture was not God breathed. Does it matter when it was written down? If so does that mean the NT is less God Breathed? Does not All mean All?

Hence the word “All”. And is supernatural in origin. Again. God Breathed.

So there are books that are not God Breathed? Which ones? Again the operative word is “All”. Does God exist outside or inside of time. Did God not know what the canon of scripture would be when He Breathed our the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation? Again you are trying to argue “All” doesn’t mean “All”.

Sure it does. Again “All” means “All”. Paul could have said “Those scriptures” but he did not. He said “All”. Why? Because God was not finished in time and space Breathing out scripture for his church. Did Paul understand this? What difference would it make. Does Paul’s opinion make scripture or God? Unless you want to try and argue NT scripture isn’t scripture or somehow lesser than the OT.

Sorry brother. That’s a swing and a miss.

I don't think you understood.

Check out the definition of the word all in the dictionary.

1. When we say "all apples grow on a tree", we mean that each and every apple grows on a tree. This is a general statement, talking about the nature of things. That's where apples come from, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

2. When we say "all my friends agree", we are speaking about a very specific and limited set of friends, not the nature of a friend. It is possible to have a friend who disagrees.

So yes, "all" in the sense of #1 does not mean "all" in the sense of #2.

When we say that "all Scripture is inspired", we are making a general statement, meaning each and every book of Scripture is inspired. We are not saying Scripture is only inspired once we take all the books together. That would be the implication of what Protestants are trying to claim.

Athanasius377 · Jul 12, 2020

Tradidi said:
I don't think you understood.

Check out the definition of the word all in the dictionary.

1. When we say "all apples grow on a tree", we mean that each and every apple grows on a tree. This is a general statement, talking about the nature of things. That's where apples come from, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

2. When we say "all my friends agree", we are speaking about a very specific and limited set of friends, not the nature of a friend. It is possible to have a friend who disagrees.

So yes, "all" in the sense of #1 does not mean "all" in the sense of #2.

When we say that "all Scripture is inspired", we are making a general statement, meaning each and every book of Scripture is inspired. We are not saying Scripture is only inspired once we take all the books together. That would be the implication of what Protestants are trying to claim.

I never said inspired. I said God Breathed. Here is the Greek definition of all

πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν gen. παντός, πάσης, παντός (dat. pl. πᾶσι and πᾶσιν vary considerably in the mss.; s. W-S. §5, 28; cp. Rob. 219–21; on the use of the art. s. B-D-F §275) (Hom. +).
① pert. to totality with focus on its individual components, each, every, any

And I never said that scripture was god breathed only when taken together. You said that.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 12, 2020

Tradidi said:
I don't think you understood.

Check out the definition of the word all in the dictionary.

1. When we say "all apples grow on a tree", we mean that each and every apple grows on a tree. This is a general statement, talking about the nature of things. That's where apples come from, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

2. When we say "all my friends agree", we are speaking about a very specific and limited set of friends, not the nature of a friend. It is possible to have a friend who disagrees.

So yes, "all" in the sense of #1 does not mean "all" in the sense of #2.

When we say that "all Scripture is inspired", we are making a general statement, meaning each and every book of Scripture is inspired. We are not saying Scripture is only inspired once we take all the books together. That would be the implication of what Protestants are trying to claim.

Are you trying to argue that the written Words of Jesus who is Gods' Word and the Apostles who recorded God's Word in the new testament are not God's Word and not scripture and that the new testament is not God's Word or inspired? Think about what your trying to argue here. If you cannot I am sure others can.

thecolorsblend · Jul 12, 2020

Tradidi said:
I don't think you understood.

Check out the definition of the word all in the dictionary.

1. When we say "all apples grow on a tree", we mean that each and every apple grows on a tree. This is a general statement, talking about the nature of things. That's where apples come from, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

2. When we say "all my friends agree", we are speaking about a very specific and limited set of friends, not the nature of a friend. It is possible to have a friend who disagrees.

So yes, "all" in the sense of #1 does not mean "all" in the sense of #2.

When we say that "all Scripture is inspired", we are making a general statement, meaning each and every book of Scripture is inspired. We are not saying Scripture is only inspired once we take all the books together. That would be the implication of what Protestants are trying to claim.

I agree.

And something I don't think a lot of Protestants take the time to consider is the fact that the Church can (and did) exist without Sacred Scripture being collected into a single volume called "the Bible". Rather, a lot of Protestants seem to view the Bible as a sort of constitution upon which the Church is founded. I have to wonder if their fundamental misunderstanding of the Church's origin isn't a major factor in their fundamental misunderstanding of what Sacred Scripture is and what it isn't.

Tradidi · Jul 12, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
I never said inspired. I said God Breathed.

Is there a significant difference? Or is this a diversion tactic?

thecolorsblend · Jul 12, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
I never said inspired. I said God Breathed.

The choice sections are highlighted for your convenience.

Biblical inspiration - Wikipedia.

Athanasius377 · Jul 12, 2020

Tradidi said:
Is there a significant difference? Or is this a diversion tactic?

No. I was correcting a statement I never uttered.

Tradidi · Jul 12, 2020

thecolorsblend said:
I agree.

And something I don't think a lot of Protestants take the time to consider is the fact that the Church can (and did) exist without Sacred Scripture being collected into a single volume called "the Bible". Rather, a lot of Protestants seem to view the Bible as a sort of constitution upon which the Church is founded. I have to wonder if their fundamental misunderstanding of the Church's origin isn't a major factor in their fundamental misunderstanding of what Sacred Scripture is and what it isn't.

Yes, the logical conclusion for Protestants is that before the canon of Scripture was established, Christians were not "fully equipped" for salvation, because they did not yet have "all Scripture". Therefore, Paul's words to Timothy could not have applied to Timothy but were some sort of a "prophetic statement" thrown in there to confuse future Catholics. Go figure!

Athanasius377 · Jul 12, 2020

thecolorsblend said:
The choice sections are highlighted for your convenience.

Biblical inspiration - Wikipedia.

Wikipedia? Really? Now you’re just being silly. Or do you want me to remind you the next time some IFB starts throwing wiki articles over catholic distinctives and you object to the source.

thecolorsblend · Jul 12, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
Wikipedia? Really? Now you’re just being silly. Or do you want me to remind you the next time some IFB starts throwing wiki articles over catholic distinctives and you object to the source.

I can understand your reluctance.

But with all due respect, I'm not the one implying a difference between "God-breathed" and "inspired". Both terms are perfectly acceptable to use in translation of that passage... as is demonstrated in the wiki article.

In other words, yes, really.

Tradidi · Jul 12, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
And I never said that scripture was god breathed only when taken together. You said that.

Protestants imply it by claiming that the man of God is only fully equipped once he has all of Scripture taken together. Because that is the reason they/you bring up 2 Timothy 3:16-17, to argue for the sufficiency of all of Scripture taken together.

If you disagree, simply answer this one question: if we leave out one book of Scripture, is the man of God still "fully equipped"?

Athanasius377 · Jul 12, 2020

Tradidi said:
Yes, the logical conclusion for Protestants is that before the canon of Scripture was established, Christians were not "fully equipped" for salvation, because they did not yet have "all Scripture". Therefore, Paul's words to Timothy could not have applied to Timothy but were some sort of a "prophetic statement" thrown in there to confuse future Catholics. Go figure!

Not my argument. But hey let’s go for cheap points. What I said is that “all” meant and still means “All”. Unless you want to prove God didn’t know what scripture he was going to breath out next. And again I will say we don’t deny apostolic teaching existed in oral form before it I was written down.

another swing and a miss.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 12, 2020

Tradidi said:
Yes, the logical conclusion for Protestants is that before the canon of Scripture was established, Christians were not "fully equipped" for salvation, because they did not yet have "all Scripture". Therefore, Paul's words to Timothy could not have applied to Timothy but were some sort of a "prophetic statement" thrown in there to confuse future Catholics. Go figure!

Are you not contradicting yourself again here. Did you not just say that the old testament scriptures were sufficient for salvation in regards to Timothy?

Radagast · Jul 12, 2020

thecolorsblend said:
And something I don't think a lot of Protestants take the time to consider is the fact that the Church can (and did) exist without Sacred Scripture being collected into a single volume called "the Bible".

In the time of Jesus, the Old Testament was indeed so collected, at least in a logical sense (and Paul refers to it when he says πᾶσα γραφὴ). In a physical sense, "single volumes" came only with the invention of the codex, of course.

Similarly, the collection of "Apostolic Writings" which we now call the New Testament was a logical unit from the very beginning. It wasn't just a random set of stuff selected by a later editor.

Tradidi · Jul 12, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
Not my argument. But hey let’s go for cheap points. What I said is that “all” meant and still means “All”. Unless you want to prove God didn’t know what scripture he was going to breath out next. And again I will say we don’t deny apostolic teaching existed in oral form before it I was written down.

another swing and a miss.

Were the first Christians "fully equipped" or not?

DamianWarS · Jul 12, 2020

thecolorsblend said:
I'm a member of the Church he founded.

Your move.

so am I

thecolorsblend said:
I stand by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Her interpretations are the products of many men discussing many issues many times over many years, sometimes even centuries.

Frankly, I find that far more trustworthy than some evangelical hipster who graduated from "Bible college" making stuff up as he goes along during his Sunday sermons. There's no accounting for taste tho.

we must critically look at all things, the hipster preacher and the tradition as well. what were their motivations? perhaps for the hipster, it's likes on his youtube account but not all early church discussions were free of personal agendas, not unlike that hipster that you so broadly paint all protestants with. you only present an inheritance argument but that didn't work out all that well for the Jews nor does it work out for you certainly not on a critical level and in the end are you no better than that hipster?

The church you are a part of is unrecognizable from its simple origins and your membership of this doesn't invoke some free pass. you're refusable to critically discuss this leads me to believe there is nothing critical in your argument.

Athanasius377 · Jul 12, 2020

Because scripture is the only God Breathed source we have

Tradidi said:
Were the first Christians "fully equipped" or not?

Yes. Based on the OT and apostolic teaching that was later recorded for us in the NT But again you asked if SS was sufficient to function as a rule of faith.

Tradidi · Jul 12, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
Because scripture is the only God Breathed source we have

Yes. Based on the OT and apostolic teaching that was later recorded for us in the NT But again you asked if SS was sufficient to function as a rule of faith.

Thank you. If the first Christians were fully equipped, and we both agree they were, then it follows that the New Testament Scriptures were "additional equipment" and not "essential equipment". Correct?

DamianWarS · Jul 12, 2020

Philip_B said:
History and tradition, whilst not perfect, do show us something of the collective mind of the people of God. To hold 'private interpretation' above the collective mind of the people of God as a default position is to my mind a dangerous position, however there is a time for it, for there must always be space in the Church for the prophetic voice.

There is a dynamic tension, as the Gospel calls each of us the change, whilst held too harshly tradition can call us to stay firm.

many good things came from these collective minds that all brands of churches owe a great deal to, that doesn't make it all "in stone" or critically unapproachable. Some things were contextually based with no thought of it going for 1000s of years ahead and they probably should have remained in that context or if not be reevaluated today.

Paul certainly didn't mean women to continue to wear head coverings for all of eternity, we need to be wise when we evaluate these things so why is it what the early church says cannot be critically discussed when even Paul's word can be?

SS actually keeps these things in check even if the tradition rejects it but because of SS the church, regardless of brand, cannot veer to far without a billion people calling them into account.

Athanasius377 · Jul 12, 2020

Tradidi said:
Thank you. If the first Christians were fully equipped, and we both agree they were, then it follows that the New Testament Scriptures were "additional equipment" and not "essential equipment". Correct?

No. That’s what you are trying to make me say. A variation colors sidestep of the issue and thus creating a strawman. I said Paul said “all” scripture. You are trying to get me to agree to something other than scripture. But again the verse says.
2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV): All Scripture is breathed out 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.

that is sufficient for a rule of faith. “All” no matter how much you wish that the word isn’t there.

Sola Scriptura: Are the Scriptures Sufficient as a Rule of Faith?

Active Member

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Well-Known Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Active Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Active Member

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Active Member

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Active Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Active Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency