Where is it in Scripture?

[Adrift]

Without a full NT, without even all of the Gospels being written yet, what else can he be referring to at this time?


In the context and purview of this verse, "all Scripture" would refer to "all the OT," or even "all the LXX." And yes, I would assume that if other writings are inspired, they would share the usefulness of the OT.



Yes, but in this verse, the "all Scripture" at this time would be "all the OT." That's my only point. This does not necessitate that I disbelieve in the inspiration of other writings than the OT, just that I understand exactly what Paul meant in this context.

I understand what you're trying to say, but again, I feel that this is intended to be a truism for all scripture regardless of the scriptures the author may have been familiar with at the time of writing. The reason I understand this to be a truism is because the NT fulfills the role of inspired revealed teaching that makes one wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus; is profitable for teaching, reproof, and correction, and training in righteousness; and makes the man of God competently equipped for every good work.

No. But my point is that the verse cannot support Sola Scriptura. That's all.

I believe that any discussion on the support for Sola Scriptura will need to start with what the scriptures have to say about themselves. I agree that this verse alone is probably not enough to close the case. It's certainly an important part of the case though.

Paul tells us that the Gospel he preaches comes from divine revelation.

But not that it was written revelation as of yet, correct?

Well, in any case, it was

Spot on. Now where does he specify only the written commandments?

Well, I'm not certain that he specifies only the written commandments, but since all we have of the Apostles are the written commandments... you know what I mean?

Other scriptures we might use to further Sola Scriptura would be the following:

2 Peter 3:15

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

2 Cor 4:5 5

For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 14:37

If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

John 20:30

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 3 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

And all of 1 Corinthians chapter 4... That's a good start anyways.

Thank you. And it looks like you were quickly misunderstood in your thread.

true, but I wouldn't mind taking that thread anywhere the other posters want to take it.

[Bill the Cat]

This is another discussion entirely, and is not within the scope of the thread.

You mention "tradition", I call you on it, and you dismiss it as off topic?

For this thread, it is enough to discuss the standpoint that Sola Scriptura is not founded in Scripture, but is a very recent (only 500 years old) human tradition.

I think the others have done a sufficient job of dismissing that claim, which I'll reiterate. Scripture is God-breathed, no matter when it was written. It matters not that the NT wasn't codified by the time Paul made the statement you dismissed. Scripture is either God-breathed, or it isn't. Sola Scriptura was what was assumed by Jesus when He said "it is written". In fact, His harshest words were against the traditions of the religious leadership of Israel because it put unnecessary additions onto written scripture. As Westley stated "In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church."

[Adrift]

This is another discussion entirely, and is not within the scope of the thread. For this thread, it is enough to discuss the standpoint that Sola Scriptura is not founded in Scripture, but is a very recent (only 500 years old) human tradition.

I can see where he's coming from and I think it's on topic. If Sola Scriptura is right on, and its based on the divinely revealed word of God to the Apostles, then where God stops revealing through the Apostles and where "Church Tradition" starts... well... this may mean something to those who believe in Sola Scriptura. Do you follow?

[Alsharad]

Imagine that you are taking a college course. You have a text book. The instructor teaching the course is a student of one of the book's authors. If the book is a sufficient authority for you to fully understand the course, does that detract from the authority of the instructor?

I just wanted to respond to this:

If the text is "fully qualified" (I like "perfect") to provide all the necessary information, then the author is of secondary importance. He might be nice to have, but he is supplemental at best. He draws his authority from the book, not from himself.

BTW, your analogy is flawed because you haven't clarified who is the author/instructor. If it is God, then you are correct. God DOES have authority. However, if it is "the church" or "divine revelation" or "tradition" or any other entity or ideal then you have created a circular analogy. You ASSUME that the instructor has parallel authority from the beginning without supporting it.

Here's the problem as I see it:
Scripture strongly indicates that it is sufficient. Even if scripture says that tradition is sufficient, tradition is still subject to scripture in order to draw authority. As such, why lean on tradition when we can lean directly on the authority?

Simply saying that scripture doesn't SAY that it ALONE is sufficient isn't enough. Scripture, in effect, endorses itself as sufficient but doesn't endorse anything else. As such, you can argue against sola scriptura all day long, but without an endorsement of any other type of revelation and support for it, you are wasting your breath. In effect, you are trying to argue:
1) Scripture is sufficient.
2) It is not the case that scripture states that it alone is sufficient.
3) Therefore, something else may be sufficient.

The problem is that you can't get from 2 to 3 without dealing with Scripture having the authority to declare sufficiency. The only thing that was declared sufficient was Scripture. That fact does not give defacto sufficiency to any other method of revelation. Scripture doesn't have to state that it alone is sufficient. All it has to do is not grant sufficiency to anything else.

But that's enough rambling from me...

[brother vinny]

If the text is "fully qualified" (I like "perfect") to provide all the necessary information, then the author is of secondary importance.

It would be nice (especially for Protestants) if the verse in 2 Timothy read "All Scripture provides all the necessary information to be fully qualified and/or perfect," but it doesn't. It says Scripture is profitable.

By analogy, water is profitable towards maintaining a perfectly healthy physique, but I'll wager no one on these boards is going to argue that it's solely sufficient. If God wanted to make a case for the sole sufficiency of Scripture, this would have been an ideal place to include it. Instead, He refers to it as merely "profitable".

This bores me, though. Sola Scriptura is untenable at its very root, as there is no way to determine from Scripture which works of the ancient near east ultimatlely belong to Scripture. No Protestant I've read has even come close to solving this dilemma.

[DanK]

Sola Scriptura was what was assumed by Jesus when He said "it is written". In fact, His harshest words were against the traditions of the religious leadership of Israel because it put unnecessary additions onto written scripture. As Westley stated "In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church."

Are you sure about that? There are also many places where Jesus mentions things in the OT and then goes on to speak against them. For example, in Matthew 5:38-42, he specifically contradicts Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:17-21, and Deuteronomy 19:21. That is where the whole idea of being under grace, not law (Romans 6:14) comes from. The OT Scriptures, while authoritative and inspired by God, were not considered to be the only source of doctrine for Jesus or the Apostles. If Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura, there would be no basis for a NT canon, because that would have meant that according to Jesus, the OT was all we needed. Also, as far as I know he never condemned extra-scriptural sources of doctrine, he condemned encouraging people to disobey the laws, and turning it into a tradition. For example, in Matthew 15:3-6, he never said that having a man devote himself to God was inherently sinful, only when he dishonored his parents by doing it.

Just an interesting note, though this kind of strays into the infallibility thing again, this is not necessarily referring to all of the OT. Jesus specifically mentions things that God was recorded to have spoken directly to Moses (Exodus 20:12, Exodus 21:17), not just general OT quotations, so that doesn't mean he is saying that everything in the OT should have that kind of authority.

[DanK]

This bores me, though. Sola Scriptura is untenable at its very root, as there is no way to determine from Scripture which works of the ancient near east ultimatlely belong to Scripture. No Protestant I've read has even come close to solving this dilemma.

This is one of the biggest problems I've been having with the prevalent protestant views of scripture lately.

[Bill the Cat]

Are you sure about that?

Yes.

There are also many places where Jesus mentions things in the OT and then goes on to speak against them. For example, in Matthew 5:38-42, he specifically contradicts Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:17-21, and Deuteronomy 19:21.

No, it isn't a contradiction.

Moses intended it to protect person and property by prescribing what punishment the law should inflict. He who took a life should lose his life; he who robbed another of an eye should be punished by the loss of an eye. The Jews perverted it to justify private retaliation.
The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson

That is where the whole idea of being under grace, not law (Romans 6:14) comes from.

Not really. The idea of being under grace meant that the Law was insufficient to bring righteousness.

The OT Scriptures, while authoritative and inspired by God, were not considered to be the only source of doctrine for Jesus or the Apostles. If Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura, there would be no basis for a NT canon, because that would have meant that according to Jesus, the OT was all we needed.

This is the kind of thing that drives me batty... Sola Scriptura does not mean that scripture was done, or even IS done if God so ordains. It means that scripture is the FINAL say on doctrine and that tradition could not trump it.

Also, as far as I know he never condemned extra-scriptural sources of doctrine, he condemned encouraging people to disobey the laws, and turning it into a tradition. For example, in Matthew 15:3-6, he never said that having a man devote himself to God was inherently sinful, only when he dishonored his parents by doing it.

This is a red herring. The main point is that Jesus saw scripture as the final say on matters of doctrine and that when tradition strayed from the intent, as seen in the "eye for eye" verse above, it was tradition that was wrong, not the Word. Jesus frequently pointed to traditions that were wrong, but He NEVER pointed to a scripture that was wrong. THAT is what Sola Scriptura rests solidly on.

Just an interesting note, though this kind of strays into the infallibility thing again, this is not necessarily referring to all of the OT. Jesus specifically mentions things that God was recorded to have spoken directly to Moses (Exodus 20:12, Exodus 21:17), not just general OT quotations, so that doesn't mean he is saying that everything in the OT should have that kind of authority.

He also quotes Psalms frequently, Daniel, Ezekiel, and a host of other scriptures as well as non-canonical sources, but again, that's a red herring. Scripture always holds the highest value when He is speaking of doctrine.

[DanK]

I just wanted to respond to this:

If the text is "fully qualified" (I like "perfect") to provide all the necessary information, then the author is of secondary importance. He might be nice to have, but he is supplemental at best. He draws his authority from the book, not from himself.

BTW, your analogy is flawed because you haven't clarified who is the author/instructor. If it is God, then you are correct. God DOES have authority. However, if it is "the church" or "divine revelation" or "tradition" or any other entity or ideal then you have created a circular analogy. You ASSUME that the instructor has parallel authority from the beginning without supporting it.

Here's the problem as I see it:
Scripture strongly indicates that it is sufficient. Even if scripture says that tradition is sufficient, tradition is still subject to scripture in order to draw authority. As such, why lean on tradition when we can lean directly on the authority?

Simply saying that scripture doesn't SAY that it ALONE is sufficient isn't enough. Scripture, in effect, endorses itself as sufficient but doesn't endorse anything else. As such, you can argue against sola scriptura all day long, but without an endorsement of any other type of revelation and support for it, you are wasting your breath. In effect, you are trying to argue:
1) Scripture is sufficient.
2) It is not the case that scripture states that it alone is sufficient.
3) Therefore, something else may be sufficient.

The problem is that you can't get from 2 to 3 without dealing with Scripture having the authority to declare sufficiency. The only thing that was declared sufficient was Scripture. That fact does not give defacto sufficiency to any other method of revelation. Scripture doesn't have to state that it alone is sufficient. All it has to do is not grant sufficiency to anything else.

But that's enough rambling from me...

Here's the thing. Your argument is just as circular as his, if not more so. First of all, you have to assume that scripture is authored by God and is sufficient before you can even begin to make an argument that what the scripture says about the matter can be the sole basis of determining what our doctrine about it should be. You are essentially saying, "Scripture is inspired by God and sufficient because it says it is inspired by God and sufficient and we know it is correct when it asserts this because it is inspired by God and sufficient." Seem convincing to you? The other possibility would be that you believe when a church/pastor/etc. says the Bible is sufficient, it is, and therefore you can use the Bible to justify this, but that makes no sense anyway, because in accepting someone else's word as authoritative to tell you about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you are acknowledging that other things besides the Bible can contribute to doctrine, which contradicts Sola Scriptura.

[DanK]

Moses intended it to protect person and property by prescribing what punishment the law should inflict. He who took a life should lose his life; he who robbed another of an eye should be punished by the loss of an eye. The Jews perverted it to justify private retaliation.
The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson

That isn't the point, Jesus was saying that even though the laws from the OT were considered sufficient and authoritative at the time, they weren't actually. If you try to deny that, you end up with Messianic Judaism.

Not really. The idea of being under grace meant that the Law was insufficient to bring righteousness.

In which case Jesus would not be considering the Scriptures that existed at the time sufficient.

This is the kind of thing that drives me batty... Sola Scriptura does not mean that scripture was done, or even IS done if God so ordains. It means that scripture is the FINAL say on doctrine and that tradition could not trump it.

In which case it is self-contradictory. One element of doctrine is which books are included in scripture, and the scriptures never say anything defining a specific set of books as the extent of scripture. Even if they did, that wouldn't mean anything, because you need to determine that what they say has authority (i.e. they are scripture) before you can accept what they say about this anyway. You are using an extra-scriptural source to determine your doctrine about which books are scripture, which means you cannot possibly say those books are the only source of doctrine if you want to consider them scripture.

This is a red herring. The main point is that Jesus saw scripture as the final say on matters of doctrine and that when tradition strayed from the intent, as seen in the "eye for eye" verse above, it was tradition that was wrong, not the Word. Jesus frequently pointed to traditions that were wrong, but He NEVER pointed to a scripture that was wrong. THAT is what Sola Scriptura rests solidly on.

He also quotes Psalms frequently, Daniel, Ezekiel, and a host of other scriptures as well as non-canonical sources, but again, that's a red herring. Scripture always holds the highest value when He is speaking of doctrine.

He was not simply saying that the traditions were wrong, he was saying that their scripture was insufficient. That is a central point of Christianity.

[Bill the Cat]

That isn't the point, Jesus was saying that even though the laws from the OT were considered sufficient and authoritative at the time, they weren't actually. If you try to deny that, you end up with Messianic Judaism.

No He wasn't. He was saying that the Pharisees (and the Jews in general) simply didn't get it. They took judicial reponsibilities into their own hands, and that was what Jesus was refuting.

In which case Jesus would not be considering the Scriptures that existed at the time sufficient.

I never said that. I said that He never CONTRADICTED the scriptures, but FREQUENTLY contradicted the established traditions.

In which case it is self-contradictory. One element of doctrine is which books are included in scripture, and the scriptures never say anything defining a specific set of books as the extent of scripture. Even if they did, that wouldn't mean anything, because you need to determine that what they say has authority (i.e. they are scripture) before you can accept what they say about this anyway. You are using an extra-scriptural source to determine your doctrine about which books are scripture, which means you cannot possibly say those books are the only source of doctrine if you want to consider them scripture.

Please stop burning the strawman! :strawman: Sola Scriptura does NOT, I repeat NOT say that scripture is the ONLY source of doctrine. It says that it is the FINAL SAY on doctrine, meaning tradition can not override it.

He was not simply saying that the traditions were wrong, he was saying that their scripture was insufficient. That is a central point of Christianity.

He was saying that their interpretation of scripture and their add-on traditions were wrong. THAT was the central point of His message to the Pharisees and scribes. If they rightly understood the scriptures, they would see that they were what testified of Him. Their traditions did NOT testify of Him, thus their traditions were not the final say on doctrine.

[Johnny MacManky]

. . . No Protestant I've read has even come close to solving this dilemma.

If one were to consider John Wesley to be a "Protestant", then I suggest that he does solve the dilemma. Wesley recognised scripture as the primary source of his theology, but recognised the roles of Tradition, Experience and Reason in working through that theology.

As I read Shazard's posts above I figured that (within the strict bounds of the OP) he wasn't applying sola scriptura, but was using his own Reasoning, as well as the Tradition of Lutheranism in order to reach his theological position.

Now if, as the OP argues, there was a verse in the Bible which said "thou shalt use scripture and scripture alone in order to establish your doctrines" then the argument would be over.

Were we to truly abandon Tradition, Reason and Experience then the only means by which we could present our beliefs would be by quoting proof texts - and I think we all know that doesn't work. In effect, each individual would also have to start from scratch and work out what it all means for themselves because as soon as another individual explains the meaning of a verse or passage, then Tradition, Reason and Experience all come into play.

:johnny:

[DanK]

Please stop burning the strawman! :strawman: Sola Scriptura does NOT, I repeat NOT say that scripture is the ONLY source of doctrine. It says that it is the FINAL SAY on doctrine, meaning tradition can not override it.

That may be what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura formally is, but the overwhelming majority of Christians who profess Sola Scriptura do not actually look at things that way, or else many of the protestant arguments against the RCC would be very different.

But that is not really the point anyway. The point is that Scripture cannot be the final say above all others when it comes to doctrine, because those other sources of doctrine are what validate the Scripture in the first place. Considering anything except God himself to be the final say on doctrine makes no sense.

He was saying that their interpretation of scripture and their add-on traditions were wrong. THAT was the central point of His message to the Pharisees and scribes. If they rightly understood the scriptures, they would see that they were what testified of Him. Their traditions did NOT testify of Him, thus their traditions were not the final say on doctrine.

I agree that their traditions were not the final say on doctrine. I never took issue with that. But throughout his ministry, one of the prevailing themes is that the OT was not sufficient; that is the entire reason why he came.

[DanK]

If one were to consider John Wesley to be a "Protestant", then I suggest that he does solve the dilemma. Wesley recognised scripture as the primary source of his theology, but recognised the roles of Tradition, Experience and Reason in working through that theology.

As I read Shazard's posts above I figured that (within the strict bounds of the OP) he wasn't applying sola scriptura, but was using his own Reasoning, as well as the Tradition of Lutheranism in order to reach his theological position.

Now if, as the OP argues, there was a verse in the Bible which said "thou shalt use scripture and scripture alone in order to establish your doctrines" then the argument would be over.

Were we to truly abandon Tradition, Reason and Experience then the only means by which we could present our beliefs would be by quoting proof texts - and I think we all know that doesn't work. In effect, each individual would also have to start from scratch and work out what it all means for themselves because as soon as another individual explains the meaning of a verse or passage, then Tradition, Reason and Experience all come into play.

:johnny:

Really, as far as I can tell, Wesley only validates Prima Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura. Unless there's some other source of doctrine that can be the final say on something, there's no way to say that scripture is scripture. After all, if the source you're using to validate scripture isn't the final say on that doctrine, then we don't have surety about it.

[Jezz]

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2Tim 3:16-17)

BTW the ESV translates "artios" as competent, however it is much stronger than that in the greek. The KJV uses "perfect" for example. A more accurate rendering would be something like "fully qualified".

Therefore if scripture has the authority unto full qualification, then what authority is left for the Church?

The problem is that this passage is missing the word "only" or "alone". St Paul does not say that only Scripture is "perfect" or "fully qualified" or "<insert preferred translation here>".

The fact that it does not say that Scripture alone has this property of being "God-breathed" means that this passage does not exclude the possibility of something else having this property.