Where is it in Scripture?

[Jezz]

So are you saying that you don't believe that the NT is scripture? I realize that the scripture in view here is probably the OT, but the author of Timothy doesn't limit the properties of scripture to only the OT only. Surely you believe that the scriptures, both Old and New are God breathed... or do you believe only the OT is God breathed and the NT is something different?

The Tradition of our Church is also God-breathed. If we write it down, does this mean that our Tradition is also "profitable for teaching"?

[Bill the Cat]

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.

Yeah, well, there's no accounting for intelligence in MOST of what calls itself Christianity these days...

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.

Hence, all scripture is God breathed. All traditions are not. Some traditions CAN be, but not necessarily, but all scripture MUST be God breathed, or else it wouldn't be scripture. Look at the early councils. When they condemned heresies, did they use scripture or tradition as the final say on what the true doctrine was?

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.

I have no issue with that, why a new testament and covenant were necessary (even though the OT prophesies of it). What I am showing is why Sola Scriptura is consistent. scripture always trumps tradition when the two are in conflict.

[Bill the Cat]

The Tradition of our Church is also God-breathed. If we write it down, does this mean that our Tradition is also "profitable for teaching"?

Yet, your church denies the tradition of the Pope as the head of the church, does it not? So why is YOUR God-breathed tradition more correct than the RCC's?

[DanK]

Yeah, well, there's no accounting for intelligence in MOST of what calls itself Christianity these days...

True that.

Hence, all scripture is God breathed. All traditions are not. Some traditions CAN be, but not necessarily, but all scripture MUST be God breathed, or else it wouldn't be scripture. Look at the early councils. When they condemned heresies, did they use scripture or tradition as the final say on what the true doctrine was?

Already dealt with this.

Have you ever looked at other translations of 2 Timothy 3:16-17? Many scholars think it should be rendered as "All God-breathed scripture is also useful...", in which case it would say nothing about which writings are God-breathed, but rather would enumerate certain qualities of those which are. I think this rendering makes more sense, because the word rendered scriptures here is really more generic, something like writings, so the distinction that we are only talking about God-breathed writings is important.

Whichever way you view the rendering of the verse, however, being God-breathed and useful still says nothing about it being exclusively so.

I can also add that the American Standard Version translates 2 Timothy 3:16 that way, and Vincent's NT Word Studies also indicates that interpretation of it, if having a reference makes you give it more consideration. Vincent's Word Studies also notes that the Greek word for God-breathed (theopneustos) really doesn't specify about the nature of scripture beyond having authority from God (i.e. it doesn't specify whether that authority implies infallibility or exclusivity of inspiration).

Btw, God-breathed really is the better translation, considering that the word is comprised of the Greek words theos (god) and pneo (to breathe). This is much less specific than the popular rendering "given by inspiration of God", which is really an interpretation of the verse. When I hear God-breathed, it reminds me of God breathing life into Adam after he created him. I kind of view this the same way: men wrote the scripture, but God gave it authority by revealing himself to us through it, in a figurative sense making it "come alive" (also cf Hebrews 4:12). It is not some kind of special infallibility or sufficiency being referred to, but the fact that God shows himself to us through the scripture.

[Adrift]

I happened upon some notes on 2 Tim 3:16 in NET Bible that I thought were pretty interesting and somewhat related to the discussion at hand (or maybe not, I thought it was neat )

http://net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=%202Ti%203:15-17&mode=print

There is very little difference in sense between every scripture (emphasizing the individual portions) and "all scripture" (emphasizing the composite whole). The former option is preferred, because it fits the normal use of the word "all/every" in Greek (pa/j, pas) as well as Paul's normal sense for the word "scripture" in the singular without the article, as here. So every scripture means "every individual portion of scripture."
...
Inspired by God. Some have connected this adjective in a different way and translated it as "every inspired scripture is also useful." But this violates the parallelism of the two adjectives in the sentence, and the arrangement of words makes clear that both should be taken as predicate adjectives: "every scripture is inspired…and useful."

© source where applicable

[Shazard]

[QUOTE=JonLanceBarker;2431896]Will do.

My response:

1. There is one God, but he exists eternally in three hypostases.
2. There is one Source of truth, and that source is the Father.
3. The Father reveals truth, but both the Word and the Spirit are used to reveal truth.
4. There is one Source of truth, but two Agents of divine revelation.
5. While we know that Scripture is one record of this revelation, following from the above premises we cannot exclude tradition as another record of revelation.

#3 Does not revela different truth, there is no difference! If ther is, then it is not truth. So From #2 follows that #3 is unnecessary. There can be as many HSpirits as you wish, there is still one Truth!

#4 Is unnecessary, because if there is ONE Truth, then ONE Agent is sufficient. As no additional agents will reveal something different as the only and the same truth!

#5 as I showed #3 and #4 is artifical construts. And my explaintion shows that if Scripture Is Truth, then it is Sufficient Truth. No additional Truth Revelations about the topic (it is important to mention the topic) of salvation is needed.
If we have Scripture as Source of Truth about Salvation, then it is sufficient and no oterh sources is needed. As any other source will not reaveal a bit of diferent information! So no matter what is your source, you can't get different information than Scriptural one. IF you get different information then by the very definitio of One Truth your source is not Divine!

But we have tradition too. You have failed to show why we must exclude it.

You can keep it. Only it does not add a bit to the Revelation abotu Salvation, as it is revealed in Scripture. So you can have tradition to talk about other topics, but when Tradition will speak about salvation and matter of faith (what gets and keeps you in Heaven) then Tradition may be silent or it will speak the same Words of God we read in Scripture. There is no additional information outside of Scripture that can somehow lead you to Salvation... Scripture leads to salvation, Scripture itself admits it (Gospel of John) so... IF Scripture is sufficient for salvation and ethernal life, then FOR salvation and ethernal life Tradition is uselsess. Why should I have two source of how to get nail into wall if I have one source which teaches me exactly how to do that and what is needed for such task. It is like you learn math from one book, then comes another dude and says - hey I can teach you math from other book. Well good, but why? I know math from this book. May be you can teach me how to FLY from other book, but all I am concerned about - is how to do math - coz math is essential in God's plan, not flying. And just because you can fly, that does not make you Church... Church is one who does math. Flying or Not Flying is irrivalent in this case

First of all, John said that he wrote his Gospel so that "you would believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
]

Does that guarantee salvation? (Oh wait, you're a Lutheran. Of course you believe it is.)

Lets get full context!

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Which part is so hard to understand. You asked me question if it guarantees salvation. Well why you ask me. John himself responds to it. Million dollar question - do you believe what John says here. So question then boils down Do YOU believe what God has reveealed here - can you say simple yes I believe that John 20:31 is true or you can say, NO I dont believe that by beliving we might have life through Christ name?

Regardless...one Gospel being able to convince people of Christ's divinity does not invalidate the other Gospels...why then does one record (Scripture) invalidate another, non-conflicting record (tradition)?

Here you get exactly logical error.
We do believe that Whole Scripture is this single sufficient revelation about Salvation. And there is no contradictions in the Scripture. One Gospel does not invalidates other Gospel. No other Gospels invalidates statement of John. There is no statemetns that - do not listen to John, coz he is lier! So there is no contradiction.
NOW if you come with your Tradition which says IT IS NOT sufficient to believe in Christ to gain salvation, then you get your contradiction in face. Coz when you say that I show you Word of God which says otherwise... and as you yourself admitted, that the Truth is One, then I reject your Tradition as I and even YOU admit that Scripture IS this revelation. But what you can't admit, that two agents of Truth can't reveal different truth's!
So if one says A and othere say NOT A, then it goes against law of contradiction, and God can't go against himself. Even God can't hold opposing opinions about single matter.
So if I have two contradictionary statements regarding salvation I go with one which is from Scripture. Then let God judge me!

You have yet to show an actual logic in your position.

I showed you didn't show contradiction in my logic. So if there is no contradiction and if ther is no error in premises, then my logic stays!

Do remember that I used to believe as you do.

So what? God himself revelade that ppl will fall away from faith. It is bad that you don't believe anymore the God of Bible, but some other man-made God... but I believe God can make you to return to the faith in Christ and regain your salvation!

Was it some conviction foreign to me that changed my mind, or was it logic, dear Mind-Reader?

Dunno what made you to reject what God revealed! It wasn't God definetly... then again... it can't be Devil, as he has no greater power. Then only is left -it was you yourself.

[Shazard]

Will it be a sin to misunderstand God if his meaning in "moon is from green cheese" is not immediately obvious?

No! It is not sin to believe whta God writes. It is God's own work to put this underatnding. Understanding is subjective cognitive act. So HSpirit makes us understand. As John reaveals in his 1st letter 2nd chapter... we don't need teachers as we have the teacher allready!

Follow-up question: What is it written as, and how must we understand it?

Let's assume your answer to my original question was NO! You didn't explained why.
Written is sentences in not so dead language, normal meaningfull sentences of letters and words. How we must underatynd it. Just like any text intendet for us as audience. You read and assume that the author writing the text did not lie and really ment what he has written! Golden rule of hermaneutics - If it makes perfect sense do not seek another sense.

Can we do this? Or not? Why not? When Christ asked his followers and even to his opponets - "What is written, how do you read it" - did he was asking for interpetative aparatus or just asked what you read? And what did they responded and did Christ accepted the response? Can WE do the same or not? If not then why NOT?

Yes, but what does the Holy Spirit mean by it? Does he mean what even Luther thought he meant, or what you think he meant?

As we are not telepats and can't read the mind of God, then we go with what he writes. And assumes that what he writes is what he means he writes. If he means something diffent then he writes, then why he writes what he does not means? Does HSpirit is spirit of deception? And word adelphos has particular meaning in koine greek which is independent of Luther!

Do you understand the difference between "correction" and proper interpretation?

Yes I do.
Correction is when one writes what he does not mean, so we change the word or meanign so it corresponds to what one means. That means whe KNOW what HSpirit means before he writes. I don't believe you are able to do so or convince me that you can do.
Proper interpetaion is seeking the meaning of word through observation of context, it's usage in different written sources etc. That's why we know what exactly word "adelphos" means! More the correct interpreter of ANY text is Author of the text himself in the first place.

No, but when one man uses Scripture to make one argument, and another uses Scripture to make a contradictory argument, what authority will you trust to then?

Then we trust authority of logic. We then examine exactly how conclusions are made from scriptural premises! Because remember rule of decuction - by correct methods using correct premises you can get only and only correct answers. In case if methods or premises are incorrect you will allwasy get incorrect conclusion. So, if the premises are common - scriptural - but conclusions are different, then only source of differecne can be methods. So we examine methods of conclusionmaking and will reveal the error. So bottomline - authority is still God, as author of logic is God himself. John does not lie when he says

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

No man can be authority of God's Word. No man can substitute Word of God. Man can lead us or point us to Word of God, but man can't substitute it. So if I go to you as authority and you can't produce Word of God to make your case, I will not believe you in matter of salvation.

Counter: Is it a sin to believe in God's ability to communicate in other ways as well?

You didn't responded to my question.

No it is not Sin to believe in God's ability to do so. But to claim that God actually did so, you have to produce some base for it. The written case of communication we have on our table as mere fact which even you do not denie.
There is difference between what God can do and what God does actually. So to proove that God actually produced another means of communication of the message besids written Word of God and that this source appends something to written word or corrects the word, you have to show somehow besides mere claims.

[Shazard]

Hey I noticed once again the error of EO and RCC

They rely on Scripture to proove, that THEIR Tradition is source of Word of God. That is First Of All they cling to the Scripture to reject Scripture and to step on "Tradition"

But what haven't EO and RCC prooved, that by word "Tradition" Paul means the same meaning EO and RCC want's us to believe! More... EO and RCC themselves believe and teach, that Scripture is "Written Tradition", so why should Paul use another meaning for the word? The meaning which weren't there until RCC and EO came with their interpretation of the word?

What forbids us to udnerstand Pauline Tradition as Written Tradition - thus The Scripture!

Common, even Ireneus when reffering to Tradition clearly means Scripture by it! Maxentius can eleborate on this more!

[brother vinny]

Hey I noticed once again the error of EO and RCC

They rely on Scripture to proove, that THEIR Tradition is source of Word of God. That is First Of All they cling to the Scripture to reject Scripture and to step on "Tradition"!

We rely on the historicity of Scripture to lend credence to Tradition, though, not its inspiredness. The books of the New Testament are the most historically accurate works of antiquity we have. They relate to us (historically) the life and work of Jesus Christ and His apostles, including the building of His Church, which one apostle called "the pillar and ground of truth." This Church, under the authority vested in her by her Savior, codified the canon, giving us a reliable reference for which books were inspired.

[JonLanceBarker]

We rely on the historicity of Scripture to lend credence to Tradition, though, not its inspiredness. The books of the New Testament are the most historically accurate works of antiquity we have. They relate to us (historically) the life and work of Jesus Christ and His apostles, including the building of His Church, which one apostle called "the pillar and ground of truth." This Church, under the authority vested in her by her Savior, codified the canon, giving us a reliable reference for which books were inspired.

What he said, more or less.

[Alan3838]

We rely on the historicity of Scripture to lend credence to Tradition, though, not its inspiredness. The books of the New Testament are the most historically accurate works of antiquity we have. They relate to us (historically) the life and work of Jesus Christ and His apostles, including the building of His Church, which one apostle called "the pillar and ground of truth." This Church, under the authority vested in her by her Savior, codified the canon, giving us a reliable reference for which books were inspired.

What is the"pillar and ground of truth"? Your wording of that sentence in not clear in meaning. Is the church the truth or is Christ the truth?
Thanks

[JonLanceBarker]

What is the"pillar and ground of truth"? Your wording of that sentence in not clear in meaning. Is the church the truth or is Christ the truth?
Thanks

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

[Alan3838]

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Thank you Jon,
I appreciate your comment however the question remains.


What is the"pillar and ground of truth"? Your wording of that sentence in not clear in meaning. Is the church the truth or is Christ the truth?

[Shazard]

We rely on the historicity of Scripture to lend credence to Tradition, though, not its inspiredness. The books of the New Testament are the most historically accurate works of antiquity we have. They relate to us (historically) the life and work of Jesus Christ and His apostles, including the building of His Church, which one apostle called "the pillar and ground of truth." This Church, under the authority vested in her by her Savior, codified the canon, giving us a reliable reference for which books were inspired.

Yes, but pillar and ground is not the same as source!

[JonLanceBarker]

Yes, but pillar and ground is not the same as source!

Well, DUH. Who said the Church was the SOURCE of truth?