Protestant Prooftexts for Sola Scriptura

You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:29 AM.
You replied to Shaun's post on Mar 28, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Shaun,

"I said before that the Word of God is our ONLY authority...Where in the Bible does it say that?

2 Tim. 3:15-17 "and how from infancy you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Lol. You know, the other day I showed a Protestant this passage, asked them if it supported Sola Scriptura, and they just laughed in surprise and asked if any Protestants actually used it.

First off, in CONTEXT, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is talking about the Scriptures of the Old Testament.

It says that they are "able" to make Timothy wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Not that they WILL make Timothy wise.

As for, "All Scriptire is God-Breathed" - do I disagree with that? Nope. But the Greek there is parse graphe - which more so means, "each" or "every" Scripture. Notice that it says, "All Scripture (singular)" instead of "The ScriptureS (plural)".

The significance of this? Paul is saying that EACH scripture, that is, each verse, each chapter, each book (probably each book, as chapter and verse divisions did not exist at this time) is inspired, God-breathed.

Therefore, if Paul was saying that the Scriptures were SUFFICIENT here, then he would be saying that EACH Scripture by itself was sufficient - a falsehood if there ever was one.

What does Paul write? That Scripture is "useful" - the Greek, ophelimos - for a variety of things.

Does useful indicate exclusivity? Does it indicate sufficiency? Absolutely not.

What is Scripture useful for?

1.) Teaching 2.) Rebuking 3.) Correcting 4.) Training in righteousness

Notice that Scripture is only USEFUL, not SUFFICIENT, for these tasks.

Additionally, are you going to try and argue that ALL Christians are supposed to perform these four roles?

2 Timothy 4:1-2, "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching."

Another list of duties:

1.) Proclaim the word 2.) Be persistent 3.) Convince 4.) Reprimand, encourage

Slightly similar to the previous list, hm?

Paul is telling Timothy, in context, that Scripture is useful for helping him carry out his duties as a bishop. Paul never says, nor implies, that ALL CHRISTIANS can pick up a Bible and personally interpret it, or are called to fulfill the same functions Timothy was called to fulfill by virtue of his office.

"so that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

MAY be competent. Not WILL BE competent.

Equipped for every good work? Certainly. Scripture certainly teaches us a good deal about morals.

But to say that a solider is, "equipped for every campaign" because they are armed with a useful machine gun that will make them competent is NOT the equivalent of saying that having a machine gun will make them sufficient.

This example is NOT saying that Scripture Alone is the way to go.

And if that wasn't enough, what does, "man of God" mean, Shaun?

Does it mean, according to many biblical fundamentalists, a saved Christian?

No. In the Old Testament, it has about 66 occurences, unless I am off by a couple. And it ALWAYS is referring to a male religious leader.

1 Timothy 4:13-14, "Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

Ordination. Notice that part of Timothy's role is "exhortation and teaching" - what Paul says Scripture MAY equip him to do.

1 Timothy 5:20, "Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid."

Once again, the job of a Church leader.

1 Timothy 6:11, "But you, man of God, avoid all this. Instead, pursue righteousness, devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness."

Timothy is a man of God - an ordained Church leader. There is no Scriptural basis for saying that "man of God" refers to ALL saved Christians - therefore, the most 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be saying if it taught (and it does not) the sufficiency of Scripture is that a Christian leader can make use of Scripture alone - such license is still not given to the INDIVIDUAL by the text.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not evidence for Sola Scriptura. THere, that's one down. Now onto 1 Corinthians 4:6.

If "you might learn not to exceed what is written" means go ONLY by the Old Testament and the letters Paul has written UP TO THAT POINT, then his later letters don't count - and that includes, ironically, his SECOND letter to the Corinthians.

Additionally, why does Paul write this?

1 Corinthians 4:4-5, "I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God."

Basically, don't do so much speculation on such matters - like, for example, saying that you will DEFINITELY get into Heaven. It's not set in stone until you are dead.

1 Corinthians 10:12, "Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall."

The Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation - but this chapter is not trying to teach us that the Corinthians should go SOLELY by what Paul has literally written down BEFORE he wrote 1 Corinthians Chapter 4.

Once you back away from extreme literalism with this verse, you lose your Sola Scriptura argument. Paul does not mean, "Do not go beyond what is written," as if it was the 11th commandment.

"The Scriptures, therefore, are the only authority. Any practice not found in them is of human origin and is, therefore, false- as we all agree, "He who says he has no sin deceives himself and the truth is not in him". Everyone- even church leaders."

I'm afraid, Ed, that I don't quite see that from the argument you presented - the term, "Non sequitur" comes to mind.

You gave no evidence that Scripture alone is an authority...and I have provided evidence that Church leaders are an authority.

Sola Scriptura appears to be quite unbiblical - and if so, it is self-contradicting, and therefore, quite false.

ANY practice not found in Scripture is therefore false?

If you want to use Paul's verse in 1 Corinthians 4 to prove that, then you better take 2 Corinthians out of your Bible.

Other than that, you don't have any verses that come close to giving Scripture this exclusive, exclusionary role.

And realize that your statement, ironically, means that the canon of the Bible is false...for the canon of the Bible - the list of its books, is not PART of Scripture, but came long after. It is EXTRA-biblical. Your Table of Contents page is not Scripture, my friend.

It is the product of Tradition. Thus, the Bible is the product of Tradition...so to separate the two is unecessary and off the mark.

And as for Tradition...

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

If even ONE of these Traditions was NEVER written down in the Bible, then Sola Scriptura is false.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

And this would seem to disprove your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6...for it clearly establishes that what is taught ORALLY is on an equal level with what is WRITTEN...therefore, Paul's "do not go beyond what is written" didn't mean what you thought it did.

- Sean