[theanonymouslurker]

Man, you sure twisted 2 Timothy 3 in trying to make it fit your own personal interpretation. But still, I can't read the verse in any way in which it provides real support of the radical notion of sola scriptura. Remember, I asked you for scriptual support of the following claim:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self- authenticating.

This is a very, very bold authoritative statement. As a result, I would expect it to be found clearly and consisely in scripture. Please show me where scripture says this.

As an aside, I do love how many Protestants deny real presence even though Christ states unequivically "this is My body, this is My blood" but will take strained approaches to scriptural interpretation when finding basis for sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.

[wagglebee]

The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self- authenticating.

Let's not forget that IF all Scripture was "self-interpreting" there would be exactly ONE Protestant church. The disagreements that Protestants have over varying interpretation of Scripture is, in itself, proof of the fallacy of "sola scriptura".

[Zionist Conspirator]

As an aside, I do love how many Protestants deny real presence even though Christ states unequivically "this is My body, this is My blood" but will take strained approaches to scriptural interpretation when finding basis for sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.

There you folks go again.

I do not believe in sola scriptura, but what is the difference between Protestants rejecting the real presence and you folks rejecting everything else?