Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

What else do you need for the perfection of man of God?
TV? Radio? History Book? Internet? Law Schhool? medicine? or Marijuana?

or Apocrypha? or ECF's writings?

 

Argument from silence; you still can't cite II Tim 3:15-16 as a proof-text for SS

[ETA - reply to your first post; re your second post, I note you don't address the epistemological problem. What is your solution to it?]

 

Why is it that when I walk into any Christian bookstores there are books upon books regarding doctrine and Christian living? I have a bookshelf full of J. Vernon McGee commentaries and a number study Bibles I’ve collected as a Protestant.

Why do we need all these, when all that is necessary is the Bible?

Why all the Roman Road tracts? Why not just hand out Bibles? What’s the purpose of Seminary? Why preach at all, why not just read the Bible from the pulpit and that be it?

Fact is the Bible cannot be understood alone. Every Protestant sect has its own body of traditions, through they generally will not call them what they are, but its easy to see. Jehovah’s Witnesses all believe the same thing and Southern Baptist ‘generally’ believe the same thing.

So in essence the question becomes which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? Which tradition can be trusted, the Apostolic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, or the muddled, and modern traditions of Protestantism that have no roots beyond the advent of the Protestant Reformation?
-

 

Here’s where you fail to grasp the logic of this whole Sola Scriptura mantra. You might consider the JW’s a cult and I’d agree, but here’s something you need to let settle on your mind…

Both the JW’s and S. Baptists are using Scripture to base their theology from…Both can quote Scripture after Scripture proving the other wrong. So in a deadlock, who's going to pervail? Labeling one a "cult" isn't going to solve it.

You disagree and therefore there’s a division, if not, why don’t you and your non-Calvinist ‘Brethren’ reconcile with each other and form a Church together?

In the case of the above, the Lord said: …every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a bad tree bringeth forth evil fruit.(Matt 7:17). Therefore, if we judge the above scenario by its fruits, then we are left with no other conclusion than that this tree needs to be …hewn down, and cast into the fire (Matt 7:19).

Not one man, so let’s not confuse Catholicism with Orthodoxy…I suggest you study what initiated the Schism and then compare to what initiated the Reformation…keep in mind RB, the Reformers were protesting the West, not the East…
-

 

Read 2 Tim 3:17 as well.
Scripture makes the man of God perfect.
It is enough. All the other literatures are contaminated with human ideas.
Not the human epistemalogy but the Inspiration of Holy Spirit brings us the discernment!

What is the reason for the objection to SS?

What else will you bring to compare with Scripture?

 

True to the blindmen like most of the RC. But untrue to the Born Again Belieivers anointed with the Holy Spirit.

We need NO Tradition for the interpretation of the Bible.

Only the Heretic people need their heretic tradition for the interpretation of the Bible so as to maintain the Heresy by Brainwash. They are scared to confront the Truth because they become shaky if they depart from the Brainwash.

You have never experienced the working of Holy Spirit in you when you read the Bible for yourself. Try to read it for yourself, Holy Spirit will start to tell you in your heart. Are you scared to experience it?
What for are you believing ? in order to show yourself to the human beings or to God?

 

Of course, just you, the Bible and the Lord and let’s not forget Tyndale and Wycliffe’s most excellent commentary notes to help you along…
-

 

1. What do you mean by "Tyndale and Wycliffe's most excellent commentary notes"?

2. What do they have to do with sola scriptura, a claim which the Scriptures make of itself (2 Tim 3:14-17).

 

These are fitting questions to one who appeals to the notes of Tyndale and Wycliffe. He must know where they are!

 

Then again, the question must be asked and maybe you can give the class some insight.

If Sola Scriptura is all one needs, why then are there commentaries included in certain Bibles? Better yet, why aren’t the commentaries in agreement?

Why do we Protestants fill our bookshelves with books pertaining to doctrine and Christian living? If Sola Scriptura means “all sufficient” then why does it not produce consistent results?
-

 

1. There continues to be a fundamental flaw at the heart of your argument. You are failing to realize that sola scriptura is an objective reality.

2. Our interaction with the text is where the problems lie; the problem is not with the text. It is with us. Therefore, sola sciptura stands.

3. Now you find yourself attacking the all sufficiency of Scripture. It is not up to the all sufficiency of Scripture to produce consistent results. It is up to the interpretaters to arrive at consistent results.

4. And as reflected in all the major creeds, I believe that interpreters have done quite well. But that is not the basis of my argument.

5. You are taking shots at the all sufficient of Scripture because of differences among Christians.

6. If Scripture did not reveal an obvious unity, then I would oblige your criticism. But there's an obvious unity of Scripture, and not only that, but Scripture is all sufficient (Ps 19:7-14).

7. A painter paints a wonderful portrait. He puts it on display. He's conveying a message through it. Observers begin to look and it and offer there interpretation of the portrait. Now the results of the portrait is no the painters problems. The results are based on the observers interpretation.

8. I hope you see that sola Scriptura stands.

 

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." Martin Luther.​

TCGreek, since we're going nowhere here, I just noticed your tag line, as quoted above...Was that Luther's famous quote as he stood courageously before the Diet of Worms?

Interesting if it is, b/c didn't the Anabaptist ask for the same indulgence when they disagreed with the Lutherans on a number of points, but instead were butchered by the thousands? So much for the "right of an individual to read the Scriptures for himself" huh?
-

 

I agree with you, We are going nowhere.

 

Here’s why this mindset seems odd to me and tell me if this rings a bell with you. You say you can for “love of the spirit” minimize those differences between you and a non-Calvinist. Maybe, just maybe, you believe with good intentions that at least you and other conflicting Protestants have a piece of the Truth, but in essence with that reasoning, none has the whole Truth.

This is pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Thus many Christians will not stop their ecumenical efforts at allowing only Christian groups to have a piece of the Truth. Many Christians now believe that all religions have pieces of the Truth.

Obviously the conclusion is that modern Protestants have made it so that in order to find all the Truth each group will have to shed their differences and pitch their piece of the Truth into the pot, and presto, the whole Truth will be found at last.
-