It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[bbyrd009]

so it is sola scripture "Word of God" if you like. even what happened in the garden is the first example.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, (hence not the Voice of the Lord.)

not sure why i quoted this incompletely before; but hopefully the inconsistency here is pretty obvious anyway

 

[OzSpen]

And "Footnotes" is the incorrect answer . . .

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote this about the Catholic Church Catechism:

1. What is a brief history of the Catechism?
   The Catechism of the Catholic Church originated with a recommendation made at the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985. In 1986 Pope John Paul II appointed a Commission of Cardinals and Bishops to develop a compendium of Catholic doctrine. In 1989 the Commission sent the text to all the Bishops of the world for consultation. In 1990 the Commission examined and evaluated over 24,000 amendments suggested by the world's bishops. The final draft is considerably different from the one that was circulated in 1989. In 1991 the Commission prepared the text for the Holy Father's official approval. On June 25, 1992 Pope John Paul II officially approved the definitive version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On December 8, 1992 Pope John Paul II promulgated the Catechism with an apostolic constitution.

This demonstrates the CCC is a secondary source because a Commission of Cardinals and Bishops was appointed "to develop a compendium of Catholic doctrine". So the CCC is based on other documents that were explained and amendments were evaluated.

Oz​

 

[OzSpen]

Ozspen
8% have to do with what a primary source is. 6% have to do with an extremely illogical claim that if you agree with one thing Calvin said you must agree with everything he said.

Are you pointing to something I wrote about Calvin that was illogical? If so, please refer me to the post #.

Oz

 

[BreadOfLife]

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote this about the Catholic Church Catechism:

1. What is a brief history of the Catechism?
   The Catechism of the Catholic Church originated with a recommendation made at the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985. In 1986 Pope John Paul II appointed a Commission of Cardinals and Bishops to develop a compendium of Catholic doctrine. In 1989 the Commission sent the text to all the Bishops of the world for consultation. In 1990 the Commission examined and evaluated over 24,000 amendments suggested by the world's bishops. The final draft is considerably different from the one that was circulated in 1989. In 1991 the Commission prepared the text for the Holy Father's official approval. On June 25, 1992 Pope John Paul II officially approved the definitive version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On December 8, 1992 Pope John Paul II promulgated the Catechism with an apostolic constitution.

This demonstrates the CCC is a secondary source because a Commission of Cardinals and Bishops was appointed "to develop a compendium of Catholic doctrine". So the CCC is based on other documents that were explained and amendments were evaluated.

Oz​

​

First of all - this is the history of the CURRENT edition of the Catechism.

Secondly - the Catechism is a primary source for Catholic doctrine.
NOT everything that is in the Catechism is explicitly stated in Scripture. Some of it is implicitly taught from Scripture and some of it comes from Sacred Tradition.

YOU keep ignorantly referring to the Catechism as a "secondary source".
Tell me - where do you find explicit teaching about Infant Baptism in Scripture?

You keep conflating "primary document" with "primary source".
Do your homework . . .

 

[OzSpen]

​

First of all - this is the history of the CURRENT edition of the Catechism.

Secondly - the Catechism is a primary source for Catholic doctrine.
NOT everything that is in the Catechism is explicitly stated in Scripture. Some of it is implicitly taught from Scripture and some of it comes from Sacred Tradition.

YOU keep ignorantly referring to the Catechism as a "secondary source".
Tell me - where do you find explicit teaching about Infant Baptism in Scripture?

You keep conflating "primary document" with "primary source".
Do your homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thanks for yet another impotent non-answer . . .

 

[epostle1]

The catechism cannot be evaluated in the confines of the rules of evidence alone. Truth stands on its own merits or its not truth. There are numerous approaches to evaluating the catechism; the primary/secondary controversy is to suggest what is secondary has inferior weight-i-ness on the topic or religion. This has nothing to do with the rules of evidence, which is not related to any metaphysical science. In other words, the catechism cannot be evaluated on those terms.
There are lots of good sites out there; beware of imitations.

 

[OzSpen]

The catechism cannot be evaluated in the confines of the rules of evidence alone. Truth stands on its own merits or its not truth. There are numerous approaches to evaluating the catechism; the primary/secondary controversy is to suggest what is secondary has inferior weight-i-ness on the topic or religion. This has nothing to do with the rules of evidence, which is not related to any metaphysical science. In other words, the catechism cannot be evaluated on those terms.
There are lots of good sites out there; beware of imitations.

kepha,

You stated: "Truth stands on its own merits or its (sic) not truth".

You miss the point. How do you and I determine it is truth? You accept the truthful authority of the Pope and RCC authority. I don't.

I accept the Scripture as the final authority of truth because it is God-given (2 Tim 3:16-17) and emanates from God who is truth (Jn 14:6-7; Ps 86:11 ESV; 2 Cor 13:8) and He's the God who does not lie (Num 23:19; Heb 6:18).

Relying on frail human opinion for truth is a recipe for disaster.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

kepha,

You stated: "Truth stands on its own merits or its (sic) not truth".

You miss the point. How do you and I determine it is truth? You accept the truthful authority of the Pope and RCC authority. I don't.

I accept the Scripture as the final authority of truth because it is God-given (2 Tim 3:16-17) and emanates from God who is truth (Jn 14:6-7; Ps 86:11 ESV; 2 Cor 13:8) and He's the God who does not lie (Num 23:19; Heb 6:18).

Relying on frail human opinion for truth is a recipe for disaster.

Oz

There is a very critical distinction which Catholics must always keep in mind when discussing the topic of Sola Scriptura. This distinction determines whether the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true or not. The distinction is "material" versus "formal" sufficiency of Scripture.

On his wonderful blog, Dr Michael Liccione was having a discussion with a Protestant systematic theology professor on this very subject. The Protestant professor succinctly explained the difference between the two understandings of Scripture (highlights by me):

The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this.
The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).

What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.

Among Protestants there are five camps regarding baptism. They just can’t figure out the truth of this matter.

• Luther (as well as some “high” Anglicans and Methodists) held to (infant) baptismal regeneration,
• Calvin to symbolic infant baptism.
• Then there is the position of Baptists and some others: adult “believers” symbolic baptism.
• Yet others believe in adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Disciples of Christ and Church[es] of Christ).
• A fifth position is denying the necessity of baptism altogether (even though it is clearly a command in the New Testament). This is held by Quakers and The Salvation Army.

Relying on frail human opinion for truth is a recipe for disaster.

"The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."

Other examples (among many) that contradict the notion of formal sufficiency are especially those texts discussing interpretation of OT prophecy, which the NT shows was very often missed by the Jews who knew the OT quite well. The Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-27), the Bereans (Acts 17:1-5,10-12), and Apollos (Acts 18:24-26) demonstrate the problem quite well.

One last important thing to note is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium - fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure. That "fear" can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be true - and until then is fallaciously fear mongering.

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency

 

[epostle1]

kepha,

You stated: "Truth stands on its own merits or its (sic) not truth".

You miss the point. How do you and I determine it is truth? You accept the truthful authority of the Pope and RCC authority. I don't.

"authority of the Pope and RCC authority" doesn't invent or determine truth. That is a Protestant myth. God reveals truth to Jesus who reveals it to the Apostles and by default, to their successors. This is a divine pattern. There is an earthly authority clearly indicated in the Bible that sola scriptura constantly seeks to undermine.

I accept the Scripture as the final authority of truth because it is God-given (2 Tim 3:16-17)

First, 2 Tim 3:16-17 doesn't say Scripture is the final authority. In verse 14 Paul appeals to Tradition which alone demolishes sola scriptura. That's why verse 14 is ignored whenever you guys quote 2 Tm. 3.

2 Tim 3:14
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[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. (Scriptures)
[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.

Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:
1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Reformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses, still taught today.
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16!!!

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although you use it to prove your case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, you cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

and emanates from God who is truth (Jn 14:6-7; Ps 86:11 ESV; 2 Cor 13:8) and He's the God who does not lie (Num 23:19; Heb 6:18).

None of these verses restricts the Word of God to scripture alone. In fact, scripture isn't even mentioned in any of these verses.

Relying on frail human opinion for truth is a recipe for disaster.

Where do you think sola scriptura came from? Is that why you are forced to re-write history? It didn't exist anywhere at any time until Martin Luther invented it. Relying on frail human opinion on formal sufficiency for truth is a recipe for disaster, as history clearly demonstrates.

Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

​

 

[OzSpen]

There is a very critical distinction which Catholics must always keep in mind when discussing the topic of Sola Scriptura. This distinction determines whether the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true or not. The distinction is "material" versus "formal" sufficiency of Scripture.

On his wonderful blog, Dr Michael Liccione was having a discussion with a Protestant systematic theology professor on this very subject. The Protestant professor succinctly explained the difference between the two understandings of Scripture (highlights by me):

The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this.
The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).

What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.

Among Protestants there are five camps regarding baptism. They just can’t figure out the truth of this matter.

• Luther (as well as some “high” Anglicans and Methodists) held to (infant) baptismal regeneration,
• Calvin to symbolic infant baptism.
• Then there is the position of Baptists and some others: adult “believers” symbolic baptism.
• Yet others believe in adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Disciples of Christ and Church[es] of Christ).
• A fifth position is denying the necessity of baptism altogether (even though it is clearly a command in the New Testament). This is held by Quakers and The Salvation Army.

"The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."

Other examples (among many) that contradict the notion of formal sufficiency are especially those texts discussing interpretation of OT prophecy, which the NT shows was very often missed by the Jews who knew the OT quite well. The Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-27), the Bereans (Acts 17:1-5,10-12), and Apollos (Acts 18:24-26) demonstrate the problem quite well.

One last important thing to note is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium - fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure. That "fear" can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be true - and until then is fallaciously fear mongering.

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency

Dr William Witt of Trinity School of Ministry (evangelical Anglican) is a supporter of Karl Barth and Thomas Aquinas. That is his point of view but I don't know of how many evangelical systematic theologians who would support his view of the Magisterium.

I don't!

Oz

 

[bbyrd009]

"The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date)."

shouldn't be a problem, imo

"One last important thing to note is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium"

funny, as in haha funny, but dangerously ignorant of reality, seems to me?

"The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure."

iow "give us a king, to fight our battles for us!"

 

[OzSpen]

First, 2 Tim 3:16-17 doesn't say Scripture is the final authority. In verse 14 Paul appeals to Tradition which alone demolishes sola scriptura. That's why verse 14 is ignored whenever you guys quote 2 Tm. 3.

kepha,

I agree that 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not say explicitly that 'Scripture is the final authority' (your words).

However, neither do verses such as John 10:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 2:8 and Isa 9:6 explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity. The true biblical teaching of the Trinity is deduced/inferred throughout Scripture.

A doctrine doesn't have to be explicitly taught with exact words we seek to be true to Scripture.

2 Tim 3:16-17 states: 'All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work' (NABRE).

• Here we have the assurance that 'all scripture' prepares us so that we are 'equipped for every good work'. This is not a partial equipping for good works, but an equipping 'for every good work'.
  
• It doesn't say that tradition or the magisterium is necessary to equip Christians for 'every good work'. It is 'all Scripture' that does this.
• Imagine you were equipped to become an electrician at the local TAFE here in Queensland. You graduated with your diploma and you turned up for your first day of work as an apprentice with an electrician. But something was wrong. It was deficient. On the first day, the electrician asked you to complete a basic electrical job but you did a shoddy job that needed the electrician's supervision. Why was it badly done? Your TAFE training was deficient in its ability to prepare you for 'every good electrical job'.
• That is not so with Scripture. It equips us 'for every good work'. It is not Bible + Tradition + Magisterium.

So 'all Scripture' here infers that for the Christian it is all that is needed/sufficient 'for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness'. Sola scriptura is inferred.

2 Tim 3:14
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[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. (Scriptures)
[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.

What you have highlighted as Tradition & Magisterium is your interpretive imposition on the text with your RC theology. There is not a word in the text that infers that. That's called eisegesis - reading into the text what is not there.

Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:
1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures

Again you have imposed your RC theology onto the text with Tradition and Magisterium.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

Dr William Witt of Trinity School of Ministry (evangelical Anglican) is a supporter of Karl Barth and Thomas Aquinas. That is his point of view but I don't know of how many evangelical systematic theologians who would support his view of the Magisterium.

I don't!

Oz

If I had your Protestant view of the Magisterium, I wouldn't accept it either.

kepha,

I agree that 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not say explicitly that 'Scripture is the final authority' (your words).

However, neither do verses such as John 10:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 2:8 and Isa 9:6 explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity. The true biblical teaching of the Trinity is deduced/inferred throughout Scripture.

Sola scriptura is not deduced/inferred/implied anywhere in scripture. The Trinity is a red herring to the discussion (which can be found explicitly in scripture anyway)

A doctrine doesn't have to be explicitly taught with exact words we seek to be true to Scripture.

It seems you guys rail against Catholicism over this very thing.

2 Tim 3:16-17 states: 'All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work' (NABRE).

• Here we have the assurance that 'all scripture' prepares us so that we are 'equipped for every good work'. This is not a partial equipping for good works, but an equipping 'for every good work'.

• It doesn't say that tradition or the magisterium is necessary to equip Christians for 'every good work'. It is 'all Scripture' that does this.
• Imagine you were equipped to become an electrician at the local TAFE here in Queensland. You graduated with your diploma and you turned up for your first day of work as an apprentice with an electrician. But something was wrong. It was deficient. On the first day, the electrician asked you to complete a basic electrical job but you did a shoddy job that needed the electrician's supervision. Why was it badly done? Your TAFE training was deficient in its ability to prepare you for 'every good electrical job'.
• That is not so with Scripture. It equips us 'for every good work'. It is not Bible + Tradition + Magisterium.

• Yes, it is. That's the BIBLICAL rule of faith. It's worked for 2000 years while sola scriptura as a principle fell apart immediately.

So 'all Scripture' here infers that for the Christian it is all that is needed/sufficient 'for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness'. Sola scriptura is inferred.

Already discussed. See post #1330

What you have highlighted as Tradition & Magisterium is your interpretive imposition on the text with your RC theology. There is not a word in the text that infers that. That's called eisegesis - reading into the text what is not there.

Again you have imposed your RC theology onto the text with Tradition and Magisterium.

Because you change definitions to fit your preconceptions. Tradition and Teaching Authority (Magisterium) jump directly out of scripture, which makes sola scriptura illogical and contradictory. No, Tradition, no Scripture. Try reading a history of the Canon of "Scripture.

kepha,

I agree that 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not say explicitly that 'Scripture is the final authority' (your words).

However, neither do verses such as John 10:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 2:8 and Isa 9:6 explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity. The true biblical teaching of the Trinity is deduced/inferred throughout Scripture.

A doctrine doesn't have to be explicitly taught with exact words we seek to be true to Scripture.

2 Tim 3:16-17 states: 'All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work' (NABRE).

• Here we have the assurance that 'all scripture' prepares us so that we are 'equipped for every good work'. This is not a partial equipping for good works, but an equipping 'for every good work'.
  
• It doesn't say that tradition or the magisterium is necessary to equip Christians for 'every good work'. It is 'all Scripture' that does this.
• Imagine you were equipped to become an electrician at the local TAFE here in Queensland. You graduated with your diploma and you turned up for your first day of work as an apprentice with an electrician. But something was wrong. It was deficient. On the first day, the electrician asked you to complete a basic electrical job but you did a shoddy job that needed the electrician's supervision. Why was it badly done? Your TAFE training was deficient in its ability to prepare you for 'every good electrical job'.
• That is not so with Scripture. It equips us 'for every good work'. It is not Bible + Tradition + Magisterium.

So 'all Scripture' here infers that for the Christian it is all that is needed/sufficient 'for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness'. Sola scriptura is inferred.
What you have highlighted as Tradition & Magisterium is your interpretive imposition on the text with your RC theology. There is not a word in the text that infers that. That's called eisegesis - reading into the text what is not there.

Again you have imposed your RC theology onto the text with Tradition and Magisterium.

Oz

2 Tim 3:14
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, IS A BRIEF DEFINITION OF TRADITION. Your problem is adhering to a definition of Tradition that is neither biblical nor historical. See the above chart, post #1330

15) Know from whom you learned it. IS A BRIEF DEFINITION FOR MAGISTERIUM
The Jews had a Magisterium but they didn't use that word. They called it "The Seat of Moses". When Timothy was a child the NT didn't exist. But a teaching authority did exist. Are you going to argue that the OT is the sole rule of faith??? Again, you have an unbiblical and unhistorical definition for Magisterium.

"Know from whom you learned it" refers to teaching authority that Timothy learned from as a child. Magisterium is simply a developed form of the same thing. Peter, James and John functioned as the Magisterium in Galatians 2. Apostles and elders functioned as the Magisterium in Acts 15. It's not a theological invention, it's just a big word you have been conditioned to dislike.

2 Tim. 3:16 – this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 – further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:17 – further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 – steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” This verse is important because “teleioi”and “holoklepoi” are much stronger words than “artios,” but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 – good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 – prayer also makes men “fully assured.” No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.[/QUOTE]

 

[OzSpen]

If I had your Protestant view of the Magisterium, I wouldn't accept it either.
Sola scriptura is not deduced/inferred/implied anywhere in scripture. The Trinity is a red herring to the discussion (which can be found explicitly in scripture anyway)

It seems you guys rail against Catholicism over this very thing.

• Yes, it is. That's the BIBLICAL rule of faith. It's worked for 2000 years while sola scriptura as a principle fell apart immediately.

Already discussed. See post #1330

Because you change definitions to fit your preconceptions. Tradition and Teaching Authority (Magisterium) jump directly out of scripture, which makes sola scriptura illogical and contradictory. No, Tradition, no Scripture. Try reading a history of the Canon of "Scripture.


2 Tim 3:14
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, IS A BRIEF DEFINITION OF TRADITION. Your problem is adhering to a definition of Tradition that is neither biblical nor historical. See the above chart, post #1330

15) Know from whom you learned it. IS A BRIEF DEFINITION FOR MAGISTERIUM
The Jews had a Magisterium but they didn't use that word. They called it "The Seat of Moses". When Timothy was a child the NT didn't exist. But a teaching authority did exist. Are you going to argue that the OT is the sole rule of faith??? Again, you have an unbiblical and unhistorical definition for Magisterium.

"Know from whom you learned it" refers to teaching authority that Timothy learned from as a child. Magisterium is simply a developed form of the same thing. Peter, James and John functioned as the Magisterium in Galatians 2. Apostles and elders functioned as the Magisterium in Acts 15. It's not a theological invention, it's just a big word you have been conditioned to dislike.

2 Tim. 3:16 – this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 – further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:17 – further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 – steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” This verse is important because “teleioi”and “holoklepoi” are much stronger words than “artios,” but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 – good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 – prayer also makes men “fully assured.” No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

[/QUOTE]

Nice try but loaded with RCC definitions and presuppositions. I don't have the time or energy to comment on or refute what you've written.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

Nice try but loaded with RCC definitions and presuppositions. I don't have the time or energy to comment on or refute what you've written.
Oz[/QUOTE]
This won't take long. Go to any Bible search engine, biblegateway has a good one. Pick your favorite translation. Search for "word of God". You will get 180-200 results. Find one instance where "word of God" means the written word alone. I couldn't find any. Maybe you can.

 

[bbyrd009]

Nice try but loaded with RCC definitions and presuppositions. I don't have the time or energy to comment on or refute what you've written.
Oz[/QUOTE]

This won't take long. Go to any Bible search engine, biblegateway has a good one. Pick your favorite translation. Search for "word of God". You will get 180-200 results. Find one instance where "word of God" means the written word alone. I couldn't find any. Maybe you can.

a great study, regardless of which culture you choose to pursue imo

...But the word of God is not bound!

 

[bbyrd009]

Church Authority is another good one, imo; "Magisterium" disappears, at least until The Professors get to it, i guess; where i note that "rotten branches" only then become possible in the "church."

 

[bbyrd009]

so it is sola scripture "Word of God" if you like. even what happened in the garden is the first example.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, (hence not the Voice of the Lord.)

so its in scripture that God wants and expects and requires sola scripture, and anyone trying to justify anything else but the Word of God, intends to deceive.

um...

not sure why i quoted this incompletely before; but hopefully the inconsistency here is pretty obvious anyway

maybe you could rephrase some of that up there?

 

[mjrhealth]

so its in scripture that God wants and expects and requires sola scripture, and anyone trying to justify anything else but the Word of God, intends to deceive.

Yet here we have men deceiving people using the bible, it is by the Spirit we judge all things, God does not have to agree with the bible, no matter what men "demand" of Him.

Mat_4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Joh_6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Joh_6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

but denied by many, followed by few.