“It’s probably for the best that you waited, though. I can see by your definition that it could become the focus of the debate first. So let’s clear that up... Your definition isn’t one that I’ve read before on the subject. I don’t usually see the word “find” in front of salvation, for one thing. I also don’t remember Sola Scriptura adherents being all that concerned about pleasing God... after all, our works are as “dirty rags”, aren’t they? Lastly, I don’t see any mention of authority... and that is the biggest issue of all, really.”
Wikipedia’s description of Sola Scriptura:
“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”
My definition:
“The Bible contains all that is necessary to find salvation and to live a life that is pleasing to God.”
I think, though differently worded, they are almost exactly the same.
++++++++++++++++
“So I’ll ask a question of you to clear these things up... do you hold that Scripture is the only authority and that it alone is all Truth regarding salvation? If not, please clarify. If so, please tell me where you find that in the Bible.”
These issues, to my mind, fall outside of the scope of this argument. The Sola Scriptura argument is that “the Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life.”
Now for the Biblical proof...
2 Timothy 3: 15-17
“and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Statement: “The Bible contains all that is necessary to find salvation”
Proof: “the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation
+++
Statement: “...and to live a life that is pleasing to God.”
Proof: “All Scripture is ... profitable for ... instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work
Based on the above, Sola Scriptura is decidedly Biblical.
2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants’ often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
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. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
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 Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
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.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#scripture-II
My definition: “The Bible contains all that is necessary to find salvation and to live a life that is pleasing to God.”
I think, though differently worded, they are almost exactly the same.
Funny, though... your definition differs in exactly the ways I noted.
These issues, to my mind, fall outside of the scope of this argument. The Sola Scriptura argument is that “the Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life.”
If you were just going to swat my suggestions aside, why did you wait for my response?
Now, let's talk about what you posted from Scripture.
JustSayNoToNannies already posted some excellent Scripture refutations for the specific verses you cited. So I'll let those stand. Rather, I want to have a logical discussion with you. In Matt 16:18, Jesus said He would build His Church. If the underpinnings of this Church was that everyone must have a Bible in his hands to be complete for salvation... there was no Church until we got the printing press 1,500 years later. It would be very hard to argue that Christ built that church... it would be more closely built by Gutenberg.
Christ also promised in John 14:26 that the Father would send the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) to teach all things. We recognize the voice of the Holy Spirit in the Magisterium of the Church where we have learned an unfolding revelation which has deepened our understanding of Scripture, not contradicted it. The Sola Scriptura viewpoint is that only the Apostles were given this help in preparing Scripture for the rest of humanity to read. Since then, the Holy Spirit has not taught all things but has only been saying "read the Book." What's ironic is that much of the Protestant world has come to embrace the doctrine of the "rapture" which is a doctrine only taught since the 17th Century. Apparently, new teachings and revelations are allowed... as long as they don't come from the Catholic Church. The problem is, this doctrine is contradicted in Scripture whereas no doctrine of the Catholic Church is. Whereas Christ prayed that we would all be one (John 17:21), private revelation has brought disunity and division in the Protestant world with each congregation holding to their own narrow interpretations.
Logically, the Epistles were written to correct what was flagging in the early Church. Left to their own devices without the correction, the Church would have been left in disunity and disarray. The Epistles point to the authority of the Church to teach the Scriptures and correct abuses. If we are to follow Scripture alone, we need only follow the methods of the Gidians and leave a Bible where all can find it. But we don't do that. In addition to a Bible, one must teach and preach... that alone blows Sola Scriptura out of the water.
If the Bible is all we need, then Christ should have left us a cypher. If all the Ethiopian Eunuch needed was a Bible, then why did he need St Philip in Acts 8:26-40? The answer is because God gave us men to act as teachers and priests in carrying on His work of salvation. Left to our own devices, we distort Scripture in our lack of understanding to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). If the Bible is all we need, I thank God that He also gave us the Church to teach and understand it. Interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private revelation (2 Peter 1:20).
As noted by our other FRiend, St Paul never said he brought Scripture for the people to memorize. He brought traditions oral and written (2 Thess 2:15). This is because there was no widely used New Testament Scripture when he came. What he brought was his own testimony. In fact, in 1 Cor 5:9-11, St Paul references another of his letters that is equally authoritative... but we don't have that letter... this should be a huge glaring hole for a Sola Scriptura viewpoint. In 1 Thess 3:10, St Paul says that he wants to see them face to face because his letter is not enough for their instruction.
Sometimes St Paul's testimony actually relied on extra scriptural sources. When he spoke to the Athenians (Acts 17:28), he referenced their altar to "the unknown god" (an allusion to a tradition of theirs by which they were delivered from a deadly plague) to help them come to know that God. Rarely did St Paul appeal to Scripture and rarely did he tell the people to be true to anything but the Traditions he brought (Phil 4:9).
In short, as told by the Apostles themselves, they brought the Word of God, Jesus... not just the Word of God written. This Jesus spent 40 days from His Resurrection to His Ascension with His Apostles--with very little said in the Bible. What was He doing, playing the Wii? No, He was building His Church and instructing His Apostles. Just as John 20:30 and John 21:25 tell us, there are many more things that Jesus did that are not written down. The private instruction Christ gave the Apostles is the Deposit of Faith given to them which is the Tradition (Big T) brought by them to the world and still preserved by the Catholic Church today. The very fact that the Bible Itself tells you it is not all-inclusive should tell you there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura.