Again, citing Scripture in a treatise or debate is not proof of Sola Scriptura. I myself cite Scripture in all my debates.
I wasn't quoting Paul's use of scripture in support of SS rather demonstrating that Paul Himself quoted scripture with no reference to "direct revelation" to set Paul's use of scripture in context.
What we need is prophecy. Read that verse again. The expression "man of God" is an OT expression for a prophet. What Paul is saying is that, in the hands of a prophet, Scripture is a useful and productive pedagogical instrument. In the hands of a fallible Bible scholar (a Sola-Scriptura scholar), Scriptura is potentially a recipe for disaster.
That verse is from a letter written to the
prophet Timothy - it wasn't written to the whole church. Joshua became a prophet under Moses' tutelage. Similarly, Timothy presumably became a prophet under Paul's tutelage.
Here's what Paul commanded the whole church - it certainly wasn't Sola Scriptura:
"Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (
1 Corinthians 14:1).
Firstly, the NT term "man of God" is not found anywhere in the OT.... nowhere! The NT says here "
theos anthrōpos" and the conjecture that this is the same as the OT term "ish Elohim" is just that, conjecture. In fact, the term "man of God" is only found in Timothy in the NT
Secondly, there is nothing scripture that even hints that Timothy was a prophet and if he wasn't a prophet then this negates your inferred constriction that the instruction regarding scripture here is confined to prophets. The problem in this regard doesn't stop here. If indeed 1Ti was written just for prophets, then for 1,000+years the historical record of this being understood and applied as such is woefully absent. It seems nobody actually believed that then.
Thirdly, the definition and reality of prophecy in the OT and NT is vastly different. In the OT, a prophet was chosen and directed by the Lord, whilst in the NT we are urged to seek the gift of prophesy!
Fourthly, to argue this letter was written simply to Timothy and, therefore, only applies to prophets is clearly contrary to much of the instruction and teaching of most of the letters to Timothy. In the absence of clear indication within the text itself, either all Timothy applies to all of us, or none of use save prophets. You might like to try to argue the term "man of God" is the designation here that limits the instruction but then you'd have to argue that the whole of 1Ti 6 only applies to prophets, because prior to v11 the implication is instruction to the "man of God" and post v11 is definitely for the "man of God". To ensure we didn't make that mistake, Paul shows he does not intend this to be just for prophets and that many others will read it, as he ends with "Grace be with you ALL"
.
Fifthly, read the whole verse! "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God
may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." I can no reference or historical precedence for prophecy being called "good work". There is prophecy and work but they are not the same and they are interchangeable. Thus scripture equips the "man or servant of God" for good work not prophecy... and this verse is weird if it's written to an trainee prophet. Moreover, where is there any example of how scripture was used to train prophets in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness? None of the OT prophets were directed in this way nor did they teach it.
Thus trying to constrain this verse just to Timothy and prophets not only doesn't fit the context of the whole letter but has no scriptural support that should be evident if it was only for prophets!
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.Oh I see. Paul had it wrong at
1 Cor 14:1. And 2000 years of endless doctrinal division have proven that Sola Scriptura succeeds brilliantly, correct?
It's sad when someone tries to resort to the "we're better than you argument" as some kind of evidence of being better. I could resort that 2,000 years of "sola ecclessia" hasn't exactly fared well because it hasn't even produced unity amongst those who believe in it, but then it's likely you'd try to jump to the defense and it would get silly.
Look, the bible is perfect. It is God's "living and active" word but that doesn't mean that men who read it aren't without fault... so how does men with sin reading the bible and squabbling means SS can't be true?
Here's what Paul commanded the whole church - it certainly wasn't Sola Scriptura:
"Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (
1 Corinthians 14:1).
If that's the scripture you use to contend that Paul didn't teach SS then you've connected two dots that aren't connected.
How does Paul convey the idea that scripture is not our ultimate authority by talking about gifts and direct instruction to act in love? It's like saying "Rubber tyres are good for the road and therefore Paul wasn't endorsing petrol engines"!!