edl: Try to think of it this way. If we reject sola scriptura, then either (1) divine revelation can be had from some other source, or (2) salvation requires more than divine revelation. If (1), then what other source? Is it reason or logic? Hardly, because logic isn't capable of giving us any substantive first principles; it only works with what it has. As for reason, it's demonstrably unreliable because, as Kant understood, it often sends us down dead-end streets. Reason is no less mischievous than emotion, and its natural tendency is to run amok. What about mystical "experience" as a source of revelation? The New Age trades heavily on this notion, but what assurance do we have that we can take any putative "experience" at face value? How do we know that it is of divine origin? To say "I know that I know . . ." implies a claim of persoanal infallibility. If (2), then what else other than divine revelation can trump divine authority? If it can't, then it's redundant and there's no point in considering it. As for sola fide, it's ubiquitous in the letters of Paul. The emphasis on works in James is not inconsistent with sola fide. A careful reading reveals that works are the result of faith, not the cause of it. It's the distinction between justification and sanctification.
Chuck, I'm sorry, but I cannot find any mention of "Scripture Alone" or of "Faith Alone" in the Holy Bible. James 2:24 does mention "that a man is justified by works and not by faith only." 2 Timothy 3:15, while it does describe the importance of Scripture, does not prove the doctrine of "Scripture Alone."
Chuck, Nevertheless, Paul is using an extra-Biblical tradition to instruct Timothy. When Paul says to Timothy, "And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures . . .", to what books of the Bible is he referring? Thank you for your thoughtful answers.
We can't forget the warnings of verses 3-5. The Roman Catholic Church forgot them and heresy after heresy has been added over the centuries.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Tim 4:3-5)
Consider the context of your quote my friend. The Apostle Paul references two individuals of extra-biblical antiquity as examples of usurping the authority, power, and message of God‚Äôs servant Moses. His purpose in doing this is to expose the false teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus who had strayed from rightly dividing the word of truth into profane and idle babblings like those of the popes and their counsels. Previous to his mention of Jannes and Jambres he reminds pastor Timothy to ‚Äúrightly divide the word of truth‚ÄĚ (2 Tim 2:15), and then just after the historic illustration he affirms the total sufficiency of Holy Scripture saying:
From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.(2 Tim 3:15-4:2)
Chuck, In 2 Tim 3:8 Paul uses Jannes and Jambres defiance of Moses as an example when teaching Timothy about men who defy truth. I cannot find a reference to either of these men in the Old Testament. Is Paul using a Jewish tradition to teach Timothy? Thank you for your comment. edl
Hey Preach...that's a pretty nifty piece of false logic that you have there. You say, "All of my co-religious are perfect, and if they aren't perfect then they aren't my co-religious". It's circular logic and it's wrong. You're right, there is a big difference between the words 'Protestant' and 'Baptist', the biggest difference is how they are spelled. The Baptist church started in the early 17th Century by a man named Smith. The way that I know that Baptists are Protestant is that they are similar in their major points of belief to all other Prot Churches of the period. Find for me the written history, that is widely accepted as true, that proves Baptists existed before 1607. We "lics" had it right from the beginning...you prots need to find that out!
Chuck, And Happy Independence day to you! I appreciate your quick response, but please don't feel that you need to answer my next question today, you've been busy, so enjoy the day. I'm wondering, what does a Christian say to a Jehovah's Witness who claims that the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity and that their New World Translation is the correct interpretation of the Bible? Thanks! edl
Happy Independence Day! We celebrated free speech liberty this morning by going to a Jehovah's Witness conference in Portland to preach the Gospel.
No, the Bible doesn't contain the words "Sola Scriptura", but it does contain the principle or doctrine. The Bible doesn't contain the word "Trinity", yet all Christians hold to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as one and the same God, but three in person. For the sake of brevity we call it the doctrine of the Trinity.
James 1:21-25 receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
1 Peter 1:23-2:3 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 24 because
"All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, 25 But the word of the LORD endures forever." Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.
2:1 Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, 2 as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
2 Tim 3:15-17 the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. NKJV
Or for an uninspired source, Wikipedia defines it...
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a formal principle of Protestants today (see Five solas). It may be contrasted with Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Oriental Orthodox teaching in which doctrine is taught by the teaching authority of the church, drawing on the "Deposit of Faith" and based on what they consider to be Sacred Tradition, of which the Bible is a subset.
Preacherjond: So far I haven't killed a soul and don't plan to. How bout you, spoiling for a fight are we? If you want to be a Prot, you have my blessing...knock yourself out. Please allow me and other Catholics to exercise our American right to practice our religion in peace...unless of course, you're tired of peace?
"You mean like when your institution burned and tortured all the 'heretics' for preaching the true gospel to them?"
MyRsp: No...more like when Prot England let Catholic Ireland starve, stole their land, and kept them in proverty...or kinda like when England persecuted Catholics for over 200 years with death and prison...or maybe like American 'Know-Nothings' (sounds right up your alley Preacher!) who burned Catholic Churches, convents and beat up Catholic clergy...then there was the Klan of the 1920's that hated Catholics. Are any of the folks your kin?
Good to see some interaction over the things that matter most. Why take the Gospel to Mass? It's not ugly, it's LOVE. Mass is where Christ is being blasphemed and where Roman Catholic people are being lead astray from the work that Jesus Christ pronounced as "FINISHED" (John 19:30). Love of Christ and love of lost sinners bound up under Roman Catholic delusions of sacramental righteousness compel us to take the Gospel to Mass. Let me be clear that we did not interrupt the blasphemous service in which Christ is said to be re-crucified. Instead we talked with people and priest before and after the service. I would welcome Catholics to attend service at our church and happily engage them in a Biblical discussion of Christ's final sacrifice as the final high priest. Thanks for writing and may God be glorified as you look to His Son's completed sacrifice and cry out to Him for salvation by grace alone through faith alone.