Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority?

[stranger]

aLoneVoice wrote:

A creed is not authoritative, it might play a role - but that hardly makes in authoritative. As you might be aware, I agree with the Anabaptist "movement" - there are no creeds.

Alright, perhaps Anabaptists don't have creeds but they do appear to follow confession(s) of faith. http://www.mennonitechurch.ca/about/cof/ So we won't mention creeds lest they become a red herrring and obscure the framework of this discussion.

So do you agree that Anabaptists have confession(s) of faith?

 

[mondar]

Mondar! You're back. I know it's been a while, but my last replies to you got buried. i know this thread has taken a turn from what we were discussing but you left a couple questions unanswered. Let me just repost them here:

Yes, I dont have alot of time right now. My job is taking more time lately, and I want to spend more time reading a few book I have.

Excuse me? You obviously have forgotten or never read the OP of this thread, since you only joined it on page 5. I, on the other hand, have been on this thread since day uno. Guess what? According to your own strict formula for deciding quality of topic adherence, you’re off topic. The thread is not about what “sola scriptura†really means.

Whatever, I still think your off topic, but there aint much I can do about it. I did address canonization and sola scriptura previously, but my comments were more directed at Catholics.

Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority?
by Corinthian on Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:39 pm
Can anyone answer this question on authority? And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

You see, Corinthian asked the same specific question that I asked you and you refuse to answer because you claim I don’t understand the nature of “sola scripturaâ€Â. Let me ask another question dealing with your answer to the “issue on this thread,†if you so kindly will allow it. Where does the Bible claim that it, (the Bible, specifically, not the inspired scripture that Timothy had in his hands,) is the equivalent of the “theopnuestos†that you claim that Paul calls ‘infallible’ in 2 Tim 3:17?

First, I think your idea that the bible and scripture are two different things is idle speculation. Thats another dog trail that I suspect will take away from the discussion at hand.

Also, the term theopneustos and the resulting concept of infallibility occurs in verse 16. The concept of sufficiency is taken from verse 17. The term implies that the scriptures (and bible which is a collection of all scriptures) has the authority of having its source in God.

quote by Mondar:
Tell me unred, are you willing to accept the church councils (such as trent), and the decrees of the Pope when he speaks "ex Cathedra," and all the traditions of Rome as also infallible and "theopnuestos?" The two issues (adding to the scriptures or taking away from the scriptures) are two very different theologies, and two different issues.

Since you are the sole infallible judge of what is relevant to this thread, I’ll answer that.

Oooh, I like the sound of that.... "sole infallible judge" .... I wonder if my wife would go for that? Naaaa, not a chance!

I am going to break your paragraph up into smaller thoughts.

I am not willing to accept the church councils and the decrees of Rome.

Good.

I understand they are the reason we have a truncated version of the scripture that is available for us to read in the Bible.

hehe, I would of course disagree with that. I know from you previous posts what you are talking about, but also, the RCC will of course understand your statement as referring to the apocrapha.

So you tell me, if Timothy had all the scriptures available to him and they were “both ‘infallible’ and ‘sufficient’ †as you claim, why would an abbreviated version be as “sufficient†and why would an additional New Testament be “infallible�

This fails to understand the progressive nature of special revelation. Certainly in the context of 2Tim 3 the direct reference of verse 15 must refer to the tenakh, but then when Paul says "all scripture" in verse 16, he is including exactly that... all scriptures written up to the time in which the reader lives. There is a progressive nature to scriptures. Therefore, in Timothy's youth, the tenakh was sufficient to reveal the plan of salvation, and to be authoritatively sufficiently profitable for doctrine, etc. As the NT was added in the course of time, that does not mean that it is not scripture. Neither did it make the tenakh insufficient. Of course, also, as the Church was revealed as a new stewardship for man, new revelation must make that clear. Thus because of the new stewardship, for the scriptures to reveal Gods plan, new revelation must occur progressively.

Arn’t you yourself ‘accepting the church councils and the decrees of Rome’ when you accept that some books were set aside as not infallible and therefore not included in the Bible?

No, why would it be necessary for me to accept councils? One of the few eccumentical councils that spoke to the issue of the list of canonical books was Trent, and Trent erred.

Sorry, I again dont have time to finish, but maybe some other time.

Joe and I are not joined at the head. Yes, we are not dealing with the exact same issues here. He approaches it from the RCC stance and I am not, nor have I ever been, Catholic. However, they are both relevant to the OP in regards to your interpretation of 2 Timothy. I don't think that the definition of "sola scriptura" is the issue at all. I do understand, as does Joe, I’m sure, that "sola scriptura" doesn’t mean that scripture is the only source of authority but the only “infallible†authority. So what. The OP isn’t about infallible scriptural authority but about the Bible‘s claims. It does afford you an credible diversion from the point you are avoiding though. Viva La Chutzpah!

Waiting your reply... :-D

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:

First, I think your idea that the bible and scripture are two different things is idle speculation. Thats another dog trail that I suspect will take away from the discussion at hand.

Also, the term theopneustos and the resulting concept of infallibility occurs in verse 16. The concept of sufficiency is taken from verse 17. The term implies that the scriptures (and bible which is a collection of all scriptures) has the authority of having its source in God.

All scripture in verse 16 doesn’t include Paul’s letters or it also includes all the writings of all the prophets before that we no longer have in our Bible. The Bible is missing the books of Enoch and Jasher and the Apocrypha to mention a few. Either way, it’s pretty lame proof of sole (infallible) authority. You’re more than stretching that passage to the limit. The thing Paul is saying is ‘read it, it’s good for you’ and not the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ where the Bible is given a special status of infallibility. Only God is infallible. Read it with me:

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Notice where our faith is to be. Not a book, even a very good book.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

All scripture is profitable. I do believe that means all inspired writings are profitable but I don’t believe anything man does is without errors, nor do I believe all inspired writings are profitable to all people. A person must decide for themselves what they believe is truth and live by it. That is not to say there is not an absolute truth, but God does not judge us by whether we understood all mysteries correctly, but by how we followed through on what we ‘knew’ to be true.

quote by mondar:
Of course, also, as the Church was revealed as a new stewardship for man, new revelation must make that clear. Thus because of the new stewardship, for the scriptures to reveal Gods plan, new revelation must occur progressively.

Did you just write that or is that a quote from francisdesales? :-D