The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sola Scriptura

I don't see any biblical basis for sola scriptura. I think it is a human tradition. What do you think are the strongest verses which support this idea?

No offense... really, I don't intend to make light of your statement-question, but don't you think it is rather self-contradictory? I mean you reject "Sola Scriptura" (grounds not provided) which is the doctrine that says the inspired, infallible and inerrant written Word of God, the Bible, is the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. But, then you ask for verses from the very source which you reject as being ultimately authoritative.

Now, I would like to ask this very sincere question of you... What is your purpose in asking about "Sola Scriptura"? Is it because you enjoy debating with Protestants on this and other issues which are contrary to Rome's doctrines/practices? Or, are you questioning the position of the Roman State Church and thus are wanting answers? If the former, then personally, I don't have the time to enter into fruitless debates. If the latter, then I will certainly make the time to try and provide biblical, rational and historical arguments for the doctrine. Doubtless, the others here would be in agreement as well re: spending time.

For a brief defense of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura see here:

1. The Authority of Scripture, by William Webster
2. Sola Scriptura and the Church, by William Webster
3. The Authority of Scripture, by John Armstrong
4. The Authority of Scripture, by Paul Cook
5. What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?, by Robert Godfrey

For a definitive defense of Sola Scriptura, I would point you to the 3-volume work by William Webster and David King (I have an inkling you know about this set already. ), Sola Scriptura [Book Review].

Thanks, Pilgrim. Message recieved.

Are you guys willing to discuss Sola Scriptura at this point?

A few things about me: I am a reformed Christian. I don't believe that Sola Scriptura is a part of the reformation of the Catholic (i.e. Christian) Church.

Any reason why you say so?

Johan

Patricius,

First, did you read the articles Pilgrim recommended?

Second, what is your point in referring to yourself as a "reformed Christian"?

Yes. The reason is because it is not a constant belief of the historic Pillar and Ground of the Truth, the Light of the Word (1 Tim 3:15, Mt 5:14).

The other--related--reason is because it is not stated in the Catholic Scriptures.

Thus the doctrine of S.S. is self-contradictory.

1. S.S. says the Bible is the only source of Christian doctrine.
2. the Bible does not teach S.S.
3.Therefore S.S. says that S.S. is not Christian doctrine.

Firstly, no, since S.S. Christians have to go by Scripture alone. Just give me one Biblical verse, please. If this is a fundamental rule of faith, there must be at least one explicit verse.

Secondly, my point is that I am a reformed Christian, meaning that I agree that those within the Christian Church needed much reform at the time of "the reformation", which was really doctrinal "deformation".

The true reformation was worked by those that were loyal to Christ. Though, I am no bigot. I see all true Christians as members of the Catholic Church, even if they have been confused by the S.S. doctrine or other a-historical propaganda given by those they had a right to trust.

I am also "reformed" in the sense that I know I deserve Hell. And for this, reason, I don't consider myself superior to anyone.

May we all come to the fulness of the constant, historic Christian faith.

P.S. Pilgrim Wrote:

Going by the Scriptures does not mean going by the Scriptures alone, unless you have a syllogism which shows otherwise. My point is not to prove my case at the moment, but to show that Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory, since it is not stated in Scripture.

I accept the Bible as history, and then from there deduce the whole picture of Jesus and teh Church, and the Church's Book, and that it is inerrant.

patricius,

Let me simply reply that there is no explicit verse that teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, yet it is an incontrovertible truth taught by Scripture. Does your assent to the doctrine of the Trinity rest in church councils or in God's inspired, infallible, inerrant written Word, aka: the Bible?

Secondly, given that there is no explicit verse which you nor the Roman State Church would accept as teaching Sola Scriptura, although we believe there are myriad passages when taken as a whole; something which most RC's and Fundamentalists seem to reject or ignore (aka: the Analogy of Faith), I would like to point out, hopefully by reminder at least, that the Lord Jesus Christ did not look to tradition, good or bad, as His authority. His authority was directly from God the Father. And yet, the Lord Christ equated what was written by Moses and the Prophets, vis a vis... the Old Testament scriptures as the very words of God.

Now, I have to ask, 'Why would I look to another source of alleged truth different from what my Lord looked?' Even the disciples of the Lord Christ were of this mind when they confessed, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." (Jh 6:68) And later, the Lord Christ affirmed this truth and confirmed it with these words, "Sanctify them in the truth, Thy Word is truth." (Jh 17:17) And lastly, Peter counseled all his readers that they should look no further for any communication with God with these amazing words,

Don't you find that an amazing statement? Peter says, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the written Word of God is more sure than the audible spoken word of God from heaven, for its origin is God the Spirit Who guided without error those who penned the Scriptures which would reach throughout the entire world and not be restricted to that place where Peter, James and John accompanied Christ and witnessed His transformation, cf. Matt 17:1ff.

The Church is not infallible and has clearly erred in both doctrine and life since the beginning. I put no trust in man... any man, yet but one man, the man Christ Jesus and His Word.

Some scripture for thought. - Gabriel.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [His] disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in His name. - John 20:30-31

Is Sola Scriptura scriptural?

Protestant Response: Yes.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
John 20:31

Catholic Response: No.
1 Timothy 3:15
2 Timothy 3:15
John 20:30

Sacred Tradition is Scriptural
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Timothy 2:2
1 Corinthians 11:2
1 Thessalonians 2:13
Acts 2:42

The Authority of the Church

Principle #1: Jesus founded one Church.
Matthew 16:18

Principle #2: The Church is authoritative.
1 Timothy 3:15
Matthew 18:15-17

Principle #3: The Church is called to show a visible unity.
John 17:11
John 10:16
Ephesians 4:4-5
John 17:21
John 17:23

And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:18

The Authority of the Church

Principle #4: The authority of the Church is Apostolic.
Matthew 28:18-19
John 20:21
Luke 10:16
Acts 1:15-26
1 Timothy 1:3
1 Timothy 4:11-13
1 Timothy 5:22
2 Timothy 1:13-14
2 Timothy 2:2
Titus 1:5-7

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” - John 20:21

Martin Luther & the Bible
Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Old Testament:
Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Baruch & Judith.
Revelation 22:18-19

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
- Revelation 22:18-19

General Rules for Scriptural Debates
1. Not all Christian Beliefs are found directly in Scripture.
Example: “Trinity” is not in Scripture

2. The Bible is NOT the sole rule of Faith.
Example: 1 Timothy 3:15

The doctrine of the Trinity—like the Biblical Canon--cannot be derived from Scripture alone. See the N.T. (esp. Mt 28:19) and these sites for to see evidence of the Church’s constant oral Word about God:.
http://www.catholic.com/library/god_christ.asp

or

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/god.htm

The Scriptures are the written Word of God. The oral Word of God is the spoken Word of God. The two never disagree, which is why the Catholic Biblical interpretations are constantly in evidence throughout history (cf. Is 59:21, Is 9:7), while nobody in Jesus took the protestant position between 100 and 1100 A.D., for example. See:
http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

or

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm

The Catholic Church—the only historical Christian group which lives up to Mt 5:14--historically has always believed that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Son is God, and likewise the Father. Pope Dionysius was writing about his in the 200s, for example. She has also always seen the Scriptures as inseparable from the oral Word taught by “the fathers” (2 Tim 1:13, 2:2).


This assumes the Sola Scriptura oral tradition. The Word of God is expressed in two forms which are equally indispensable and equal: Scripture and Tradition.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

In fact, there is no non-Catholic historical source of the N.T. Canon, and the earliest complete version of the N.T. Canon I know of is the Pope Damasus’s list from the Synod of Rome.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/canon.htm

The fact that the Bible does not give it’s own Canon proves that Sola Scriptura is false. (Very few Biblical books—at best—claim to be the inerrant Word of God. The Bible doesn’t even teach that the Canon is closed at a certain point. Jude 3 doesn’t say that of itself. The Word as a whole, in union with the Father and Spirit, does say this explicitly.

Many early Christians didn’t go by S.S. ,since many were illiterate, and since Christ never taught this. God wouldn’t give a doctrine condemnatory of any human being.

[i]“Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition [cf 2 Thes 2:15 and 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2, 34; 2 Tim 1:13 and 2:2] anifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.”[i]
For more of this article: [“Scripture and Tradition”. Catholic Anwers. San Diego, 2004:]
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp


I don’t know what you mean by Roman state Church. The idea that the Catholic Church changed her doctrines at the time of Constantine—or lost her spiritual purity—seems to be a convenient historical myth to perhaps distract from the total incoherence of the distinctive reformation doctrines with early Church history and the Scriptures.
http://www.catholic.com/library/faith_tracts.asp


I’m all about the analogy of faith. There are many verses teaching us to go by the Scriptures, but none saying that the written Word is more reliable or superior than the oral Word, or that an individual—apart from the Body of Christ—is the best interpreter of Scripture. Cf. 2 Pt 1:20.

As to the analogy of faith—another non-explicit idea: this is constant Catholic teaching. That is one of the main principles of Biblical interpretation. The other one—which many are missing--is that you must do as the good Jews and the Apostles did, which is to read the Scriptures in union with the oral Word (cf. 2 Tim 2:2, Gal 1:8.)


Jesus was the Word. He went by the Scriptures as they are indispensable to the Church, but he did not look to them alone! Cf. Jn 8:26. He looked to what the Father taught Him, and to the Scriptures, as interpreted by what he heard from the Father, His Magisterium. This is what historical Christians do. Cf. 1 Cor 4:15, which shows how Paul reflects the fatherhood of God to the Church. Jesus’s disciples didn’t go by the Scriptures “alone”. They went by the Scriptures and what they learned from Jesus’s words and example.


Exactly. This is the oral Word. And we know that everything Jesus said is the Word of God, though much of it is not explicitly stated in Scripture. Cf. Jn 20:30, Jn 21:25. I think that if Covenant were based on Scripture alone, Jesus would have written the N.T. from the start.


Right, and this Word is written and oral. Cf. 2 Thes 2:15, 1 Thes 1:8, 2:13, Dt 6:6-7.


Well done. I think we are on the “same page”, meaning: interpreting the Scriptures the way the Church always has.

[quote’Martin Luther & the Bible
Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Old Testament:
Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Baruch & Judith.
Revelation 22:18-19

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
- Revelation 22:18-19

General Rules for Scriptural Debates
1. Not all Christian Beliefs are found directly in Scripture.
Example: “Trinity” is not in Scripture

2. The Bible is NOT the sole rule of Faith.
Example: 1 Timothy 3:15
_________________________
YBIC,
Gabriel [/quote]

Amen. That covers most of the verses I would usually bring up, other than 2 Jn 12 and 3 Jn 13, Neh 8:8, and so no.

May we all realize our weakness, equality, and seek the full unity of the Christian faith through the Holy Spirit.

P.S. The habit of citing Scripture through chapter and verse ,and with precision, is in itself an oral tradition not found in Scripure. Christ Himself did not quote Scripture precisely. Cf. Jn 7:38. Personally, I think it detracts as much as it adds to discourse. It has a tendency to make us very un-childlike. However, I do it when necessary, I hope.

You need to read the sources to which you have been directed so that you can put aside your misconceptions about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Otherwise, there is nothing further to discuss with you.

hi Kyle,

My apology for taking so long ... I started readin the article by Webster ... the first one recommended ...

it reads


Why is Webster changing the word used there from "useful" to "sufficient"? And why does Webster ignore the context which shows how we need both the Scriptures and the Church's authority?(Cf. 2 Tim 1:6,13, 2:2, 3:10, 14-17) ... Cf. Luke 10:16, Mt 28:18-20.

But in any case, I do agree that the Scriptures are materially sufficient to understand everything about God ... and that there must be somebody qualified to interpret them and share them with others through the Spirit...because

faith comes from what is heard Roman 10:17

... which is why Paul says that "teaching, correction, rebuke, and training in righteousness" render a man "complete".etc

He is also suggesting the Truth that the Scriptures are both profitable and absolutely indispensable to the Body of Christ ... because this Book is God-breathed (as Paul here says) ... which is why we call It by the name of the Son of God ...

What do you think? I hope I'm not coming off rudely ... I am by nature over-excitable and prone to such things ... In Christ, Pat

Webster doesn't change the meaning of the word ophelimos from "profitable" to "sufficient", but rather he is interpreting the passage to mean that the Scriptures are 'sufficient'. There is a world of difference between changing a word's obvious and accepted definition and understanding what a passage means in which the word appears.

Now, the text in question certainly does teach the "sufficiency" of the WRITTEN Word of God, for 1) the word translated as "Scripture" in our English Bibles is graphe "writings"; that which was set down in writing. 2) those writings which came through holy men of God (2 Peter 1:21) were the result of God the Spirit "moving" them along to put in writing what God desired to reveal. Paul uses the word, theopneustos; God breathed. Please take special note of the fact that this is to be understood correctly as a passive verbal adjective and not active (cf. Matt 1:22; 2Pet 1:21; et al). Put in layman's language, "God is the speaker and men are but the instruments or mediums through Whom God speaks." The Scriptures are therefore ultimately authoritative and thus sufficient in and of themselves. There is no need of one to "interpret" them in order to make them authoritative or sufficient or even profitable. The Scriptures are self-sufficient, self-interpretative, self-explanatory for they originate with God.

Notice carefully also that it is the WRITINGS, and them only, which came first orally but were put into written words that are God-inspired. No oral tradition! No interpretation! No second-hand teaching! is inspired and thus all else compared to the Scriptures is errant, fallible and thus has no inherent authority or ability to convert the soul or sanctify it (Jh 17:17). This text teaches the "verbal inspiration" of the WRITTEN Word of God; the Bible, the Scriptures.

Thanks for participating and I am sure Kyle will be along to add his most welcomed thoughts.

Hi Pilgrim, Thank you for your good response.

We agree that the Scriptures are sufficient, though I disagree that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is commenting on this per se, since this idea is nowhere present, and the usefulness and Inspiriation of Scripture is commended to the power of the oral tradition.

useful for teaching correction rebuke and training in righteousness

As to the need of interpretation, I'm thinking of Nehemiah 8:8, where Nehemiah interprets the Scriptures, explaining them so that the people understand the sense. cf. Acts 8:31.

Your idea that the Tradition was at first inspired, and then later was referred to teh Scriptures alone, is somewhat different than Webster's (just below the quote in question), who denies any inspiration to the oral traditions, which Paul refers to in 2 Thes 2:15 ... but in any case, I don't find this idea of the ending of the Apostolic oral tradition (cf. 2 Tim 2:2) in Scripture, or in the early Biblical Church. Cf. Lk 8:16.

Now, the Pope's own preacher teaches the the Scriptures are an infallible spiritual direction--and amen--but, as with the Fathers, this is understood in the context of the Apostolic Kingdom ...Cf. Lk 1:31-33, Titus 1:5, Acts 1:20 ... rather than a private interpretive tradition ... Cf. 2 Pt 1:20-21; 3:16.

Thank you, Pat

You state that you agree that the Scriptures are sufficient[/b], however, it would be helpful if you defined what you mean by [i]sufficient... and sufficient for what?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the usefulness and Inspiriation of Scripture is commended to the power of the oral tradition." Are you asserting that "Inspiration" applies to something other than the written God-breathed (inspired) Word of God, aka: the Scriptures?

I would not deny the necessity of "teachers" within the Church (cf. Eph 4:11ff). However, it still remains true that the Scriptures are in and of themselves perspicuous and self-interpreting, else how would the teacher come to understand what they say? The "missing element" is of course, the Holy Spirit Who works through and by the Scriptures to enlighten the mind. (Jh 14:26; 1Jh 1:27) Without the initial work of regeneration, the Scriptures will not be able to be rightly understood and especially put into practice. (cf. Rom 8:7,8; 1Cor 2:14-16)

I'm not sure I suggested that "Tradition was at first inspired,... etc." Where did "tradition" come into this dialog? I surely didn't mention it.

Re: "Apostolic oral tradition" continues you say? How could that be since the Apostles have all died. Are you suggesting that the office of Apostle has continued, i.e., Apostolic Succession so that there are actual Apostles today who meet the qualifications of Apostle which the original 12 plus Paul had to meet, not excluding having been with the Lord Christ during His earthly ministry? Paul seems to refute any such idea of some apostolic tradition by finalizing their role in his letter to the Ephesians:

Once the foundation of a building is layed, it does not continue to be built. It's sole purpose is to undergird all that proceeds. Everything thereafter is built upon the foundation.

I believe that the Scriptures contain in some manner everything necessary for eternal life.


Yes. First, the Inspired Word of God is Jesus. We call the Scriptures "the Word of God" by analogy, since nobody believes that the Scriptures are the Second Person of God. I am saying that "the Word of God" applies to the oral Tradition as well as the Written one--as the Scriptures themselves testify (cf. 1 Tim 1:8, 2:13)--and that these two forms are inseparable in the life of the Church, which is "His Body, the Fulness of the One" Cf. Eph 1:22-23.


Your statement about summarizes the paradox of it. But a book or even the Book cannot interpret itself, or proclaim itself, but can only be interpreted by the Holy Spirit, and those with the Holy Spirit, Who scrutizes even God (Cf. Eph 2). This is why the Bereans and the Eunuch couldn't understand the Scriptures until they recieved those with the Holy Spirit. Cf. Acts 17:11, 8:31.


If the oral tradition wasn't inspired then the quotations of the Apostles may only tell us what the Apostles said, rather than what is inerrantly true. But you had said that Scriptures were given orally at first, then in writing, suggesting the Inspiration of the Apostles, as at Pentecost. Acts 2:1-3etc. I see no reason why God would have Inspired the Written Word rather than the oral Word, or how it could be called such if it were not inspired.


The Apostles died, but are not dead. "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Ephesians 2:19-22 says nothing against Apostolic Succession. In fact Eph 3:10 says that the wisdom of God is made known through the Church (Cf 1 Tim 3:15). And Eph 2:19 refers to "the household of God", which is elsewhere called "the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth". It also describes the development of doctrine, not as if anything can be added to the Apostolic deposit (verse 20), but as a "growing" (2:21-22; 4:13, 16). Cf. Mt 4:31=32, Luke 2:19, 51-52.

So just as every man grows in his understanding of what the Apostles left "once for all", so does the Church, which is why she needs concrete, visible authority in the Body to define this growth in understanding.

Historicaly, I think Church has always believed that the Catholic Bishops are these Successors of the Apostles (cf 2 Tim 1:6), with all Biblical interpretive authority. Cf. Titus 2:15. I find this idea both in the Scriptures, and in all the fathers: including the earliest, such as Clement Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus ...etc.

So we agree on the materially sufficiency of Scripture, and both want to know exactly what Scripture means.

That plainly isn't what Paul is writing to Timothy (3:16,17) nor to us. What Paul wrote was that the Scriptures are sufficient for ALL matters of faith and life, not just "eternal life". The inspired written Word of God as revelation is where God has given believers all that is necessary for both justification, sanctification and the hope of eternal life. Every matter for life and eternity is contained therein either by direct command or in principle.

I can't recall anywhere where the Lord Christ is referred to as "inspired". Could you point where you find this in Scripture, please? Secondly I have to assume that your references to 1Tim 18; 2:13 were not what you really wanted to refer to since neither has anything remotely to do with "oral tradition". You keep asserting that oral tradition is on the same level and authority of the inspired written Word, i.e., the Scriptures, but nowhere have you provided any indication that this is so. And where is this oral tradition? Do you have copies of it?

And, returning to "oral tradition", it seems to me that it was God's intention to preserve the inspired written Word and nothing else otherwise Jh 20:25; 1Jh 1:4; Lk 1:24; Acts 1:1, et al carry no weight. There is no possible way to discern what was actually done nor said by Christ, the Apostles concerning God's will outside of Scripture.

I disagree. The Scriptures are self-interpreting, aka: Scripture interprets Scripture. That men are to make use/apply the teachings of Scripture is not in dispute. We are to practice exegesis vs eisogesis, i.e., to bring our own ideas to the Bible and therein try to justify/prove our presuppositions. That certain men have been given a greater measure of understanding as gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church again is not a matter of dispute. But they too are to be judged according to what the Scripture says by ALL. This is possible since ALL true believers are given the same Spirit through and by Whom the Scriptures are to be read, understood and applied. Even Paul recognized this fact and counseled the Bereans to judge his teachings from the Scriptures. (cf. Acts 17:11; cp. Jh 8:31)

What I perhaps should have said is that the record of what the Apostles spoke as recorded in Scripture was inspired. There was no "oral tradition" only the inspired writings which record all that God intended for the Church to know. Not everything the Apostles spoke was "inspired" as in theopneumotos, i.e., inerrant and infallible and with full authority from God. For we have recorded instances where Peter, for example, spoke wrongly or acted sinfully. But the record of these events is inspired.

What does that have to do with Apostolic Succession? Re: the referenced passage speaks nothing of the Apostles continuing to be actively involved in the Church. Rather, even a cursory reading of the three places where this text appears (Matt 22:32; Mk 12:27 and Lk 20:28) reveals that Jesus was referring to the resurrection of the dead in answering the Sadducees who denied the resurrection.

Re: Ephesians 2:19-22 where you state that it "says nothing against Apostolic Succession but indeed it does as explained. The Apostles were called to establish the new covenant Church and to equip men to carry on. The foundation was laid, Christ being the Chief Cornerstone. The edifice, aka: Church was built UPON that foundation. There is no need for a continued building of the foundation.

After reading this dialogue, patricius79's arguments sound remarkably similar to the discussions I have had with JWs.
Just to mention one discussion that I had with a JW.
I believe he was reading from a Watch Tower. He said something to the effect that if one was stranded on a deserted Island and only had one book, they would be better off with Watch Tower material (can't remember the exact wording) than the Bible, because they would not be able to understand the Bible.
The person went on to tell me that there are only 12 people with in all the world that can rightly interpret the Scriptures, that is why they distribute material such as the Watch Tower.

Tom

I wanted to give a response briefly before I respond in depth.

Whenever I read Scripture with good intention I will see the Truth ... so my interpretation will always be correct, as far as it goes ... but that doesn't mean that I will see the whole Truth by myself ... rather I must read the Scripture until death looking always for the fulness of Truth ... and listening to others ... so that is what is at stake to me ... that I don't want to limit the Scripture ... but to be open to their whole meaning ... which required humility, and submission to the Holy Spirit ... rather than "O.K. I got it", and since I've got it, I can't learn from other Christians ... from today or what the Church has passed on since the beginning ...

... Paul says that the Scriptures--by which he clearly meant the O.T.--are "capable of giving you wisdom for salvation" ... but all this is said in the context of Paul's Gospel (cf. 2 Tim 1:6, 13;2:2;3:10-11, 14 ... so there is no Sola Scriptura message here ...since Scripture is "useful" for "teaching, correction, rebuke, and training in righteousness"--i.e. the oral Gospel--which perfects a man...

I agree... and would add that this Written Word is inseparable from the oral Word (i.e. "Tradition") ... referred to in Mt 16:18-19, 2 Tim 1:13;2:2, 2 Thes 2:15;3:6, 1 Cor 11:1-2, 16, 23, 34;2 Jn 12, Lk 1:1-4, Is 59:21, Luke 10:16, Mt 28:20, 1 Thes 1:8, 13; Acts 16:4, 2 Cor 3:2-3 ...

... in the context of 2 Tim 3:15-17, we should remember that Paul was referring to the O.T., and that nobody understood the Gospel from the O.T. alone, but only through the Magisterium (i.e. through the presence of word Jesus and His Apostles, those they appointed (cf. Acts 14:23), those their appointees appointed (cf. Titus 1:5) etc ... and of course all the good sheep ...

Methinks you are being rather presumptuous.

Agreed. It is a very widely held "opinion" today that a professed believer only needs "The Holy Spirit and my Bible" to be able to know all things. This opinion has been rightly labeled, "Solo Scriptura".

Again, I believe you have classically, as a RC, missed the meaning of the text. What Paul wrote Timothy in the previous verse:

transcends the narrow definition of "Gospel", i.e., repent and believe upon Christ for the remission of your sins, aka: justification. The CONTEXT demands that Paul is assuming the salvation of Timothy and thus the use of the word "salvation" here encompasses far more than justification. The meaning is, therefore, that the Scriptures to provide wisdom; application of biblical teaching, aka: doctrine, to ones life which is sanctification. The two verses immediately following show further that this understanding is the correct one as Paul says the Scriptures are profitable for:
- teaching
- reproof
- correction
- instruction which is in righteousness
with the end "That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." Clearly Paul is speaking of sanctification which is a true believer's preparation for heaven.

Those passages speak nothing of "oral tradition". Secondly, we have not been told what it was exactly which Paul or John taught their respective hearers. However, what we DO know is what Paul and John and the other inspired authors wrote by the inspiration of the Spirit. They alone are self-attesting to their origin, i.e., God. There is no possible way of determining what someone said nor if what they said was "inspired", i.e., infallible and inerrant. God is the author of the Scriptures and has in His infinite wisdom determined to preserve them and nothing else. Your argument holds no water as it has no bottom. The same argument is used by every sect and cult in regard to their epistemological sources.

Really? Now that's revelatory, but clearly in direct contradiction to what the Scriptures teach concerning the saints that lived prior to the coming of Christ. They may not have known the details of what the types and shadows pointed to but they were well aware of what was required in the Gospel and what it was to live a life of righteousness. (cf. Jh 8:56; Gal 3:7-9; Heb 11:13,39; 1Pet 1:10-12; 3:19-20) They all were justified by faith in Christ and lived by faith unto holiness. (Hab 2:4; cp. Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38)

Lastly, your use of the word "Magisterium" to refer to the Lord Christ and His apostles is offensive, never mind unwarranted, as if the Roman State Church's "Magisterium" is to be equated with them.

... I simply mean that in Christ dwells the whole fulness of the Holy Spirit, bodily ... as Paul says in Colossians 2:8 ...


Sorry ... I mean 1 Thes 1:8, 2:13 ... the oral Word is certainly equal to the Written or it wouldn't be called the Word ... as it is here... and as to where this oral tradition is ... it is in the historical Kingdom, which is the Church ... cf. Is 9:7 ...

"Oral Tradition"? The text says that the Thessalonicans faithfully preached the Gospel, which Gospel is written in Scripture. What "sounded forth" is said to have been "the word of the Lord" which again is the Gospel and that which pertains to it. They spoke nothing that they weren't taught and which was written by inspiration. And again, if you want to continue to maintain that such texts "prove" oral tradition, there is absolutely no way you can verify what it was exactly that these Thessalonicans spoke which is different than Scripture. Secondly, Paul nowhere affirms that what they did speak was inspired but only that it was true and faithful to what he himself taught and which by the Spirit he wrote in his Epistles. (2Pet 3:16)

Here, it is Paul referring to his own preaching/teaching along with those who accompanied him which the Thessalonicans received as being from God. That which they were taught and which God deemed essential for all to know was written down through the ministration of the divine Spirit, aka: inspiration. There is no hint of an ongoing "Oral Tradition".

And here we are given a prophetic word concerning the Messiah who will come to establish His kingdom with all righteousness, which He did. It is known as the "invisible Church", i.e., the true Church which consists of all of God's elect. There isn't even a hint of "Oral Tradition" here either.

What you have consistently shown is your lack of understanding in biblical hermeneutics. You are simply trying to defend the error(s) of Rome which are indefensible. What we here have been witnessing is a classic example of "eisogesis" and a perfect example of what Peter wrote about in 1:20,21, which I had the privilege of preaching on just recently. What we have in Scripture did not come about by men who first dreamed up a thought and then found a way to prove it from Scripture. No, rather what the true prophets and teachers of God wrote/spoke came directly from God through the work of the Spirit. All that which they wrote is said to be divinely inspired; the inerrant and infallible written Word of God. There is no one aside from those authors who penned the Scriptures that can said to be "inspired". Neither anyone in the Roman State church nor anyone elsewhere has been divinely inspired to either speak or write inerrantly or infallibly from God. There is certainly something called "Oral Tradition" and it is fraught with the erroneous fabrications of corrupt and sinful men. Why would anyone want to embrace such a thing unless of course, they are listening to their "father" who is the father of lies. (Jh 8:44)

The Apostles continue to play a role in the Church, unless you think that a foundation has no role in the life of a house ... but they are alive ... cf. Jn 8:51, Rev 7:15

And since I am living by the Scriptures, I can only follow leaders that were appointed through the Apostles ... and must follow the Pillar of Truth(1 Tim 3:15), as the Israelites did (cf. Ex 13:20-22) ... the Catholic Church being the Church described in Holy Writ ... cf. Is 2:2, Mt 5:14...


The Scriptures cannot testify to themselves, any more than Christ can (cf. Jn 5:31) ... and as John and the Father testified to Christ, so do the Church Fathers, inspired by the Spirit (cf. Mt 16:19, Jn 14:26) testify to the Scriptures, their Canon and meaning ...

... but the reformers ...having tried to separate the authority of the Bible from the Biblical Church ... were not of one mind ... Cf. 1 Cor 1:10, Phil 2:2 ...


right, and this Gospel is the Written and Oral Tradition ... cf. 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor 11:1-2, 16, 23, 34)... while most were illiterate ... and the Canon was not completed for decades after Pentecost (nor the Canon discerned for centuries), even as the Gospel was being preached in its fulness (cf. Acts 5:20) ...

I don't see anything wrong with what you say here, since you are not making a case--based on 2 Tim 3:115-17--for separating the authority of Scripture from that of the Church. A correct interpretation of Scripture definitely gives everything a person needs for their life, justfication, salvation, etc ...

The chasmic difference between your view and mine is more than obvious. The Scriptures are "divinely inspired" and thus all-sufficient, inerrant and infallible. The Church, however, and I am referring to the visible Church is not vested with being inspired and thus has a delegated and subordinate authority since it is not inerrant nor infallible.

The point of my response was to correct your erroneous interpretation of the passage and its consequent fallible application.

just as “the Scriptures” refers to the oral Tradition of the Biblical Canon, so do these Scriptures refer to the Apostolic oral Tradition …

For instance, 2 Tim 1:13, 2:2,

Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us….And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Cf. also 2 Tim 1:6, 3:10-11, 14, 16

Taken with 1 Tim 4:14, 5:22 … we have strong testimony of Apostolic Succession, as prefigured by the O.T (cf. Ex 24:1, Lk10:1), the unanimity of the Church fathers, and the City of God (cf. Psalm 48:1-2, 12-14) … This Succession has the authority to “bind and loose ” (cf. Mt 16:19, Mt 18:18), i.e. interpret Scripture… and do so infallibly (“whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven”etc) … which leads us to the fullness of Life in the Church … in this sense the Scriptures are sufficient …but “Scripture Alone” is an un-Biblical phrase for this process …


it is very difficult to prove a negative, especially when the Scriptures testify to an infallible oral Message (cf. 1 Peter 1:25) and when the closing of the Canon is itself part of this Tradition ….

… we can know what they told their hearers, because the Lord promised to keep this oral Word of the New Covenant (cf. Is 59:21, Jn 14:26) … which is why the Scriptures talk about this oral Tradition: “I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink.” (3 Jn 13) … cf. Acts 16:4, 2 Cor 3:2-3

now the Fathers (cf. 1 Cor 4:15), such as St. Athanasius, kept this Word … yet none of them held to views approximating any of the false reformers: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli … though their views were very close to true reformers, like St. Francis or St. Carlo Borromeo …


The Scriptures alone cannot attest to themselves, nor do they claim to … since even the Word of God did not testify to Himself (Jn 5:30-31) … For example, 2 Timothy of itself does not claim inerrancy, though God attests its inerrancy through the Spirit which indwells the Church (cf. Col 2:9-10)… to which we should listen … Cf. Mt 18:17 …


Amen!


… where is this idea in Scripture? …


… I think the historical Church cannot be compared to sects, because her attributes—including continuity--have no parallel … and indicate a Divine origin …


… the Word was present to the O.T. believers, in the Cloud (cf. Num 12:5), and in the Tabernacle (Cf Ex 25:8, 22) … so they were not going by the Scriptures alone, but required the teaching authority of the Old Covenant (cf. 2 Chron 35:3, Neh 8:8), which Christ upheld (Mt 23:1-3) … even though it was enacted on lesser promises than those (cf. Is 27:2-3, Mt 16:18-19) of the New Covenant … (cf. Is 27:2-3, Mt 16:18-19)


I mean no offence … I believe that the authority of the Catholic Bishops (cf. 1 Tim 4:11, Titus 1:7,9; 2:15)) is the authority Jesus Christ given through the original Apostles of Jesus Christ, by His grace alone (cf. 1 Tim 2:5) … Paul himself having passed on Apostolic authority to Timothy and Silvanus (1 Thes 1:1, 2:6-7) … while the Bible describes those “appointed” (Mk 3:14) to “offices” (cf. Acts 1:20) within a “Kingdom” of “Apostles”(cf. 1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11) … with offices being always filled in the Old Covenant (e.g. Is 22:19-22) … so that we should compare our Biblical interpretations with the Apostolic teachings (cf. Acts 2:42) …

The idea that Apostolic Authority ended with the death of the last Apostle is false and un-Biblical , except in the sense that everything had been passed on by then … which is a correct oral Tradition …


… I know that the Roman Church before and after Constantine believed the same … as evidenced by the testimony of even Eastern Fathers like Theodoret, Sts. Maximus, Sophronius (560-638 A.D) or Cyril and Methodius , the Apostles to Russia… who testify about the constant fidelity of the Roman Church … as St. Irenaeus does in the 100s … and likewise, the authorities before Constantine teach the distinctively Catholic or Papist doctrines … like the great fathers of the 3 and 400s … and did not adhere to the protestant idea of the Church nor the S.S. principle …
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm
http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

… but if you are not willing to debate this with someone sincere, perhaps someone else can or I can go elsewhere …