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

[follower of Christ]

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?

Why does it need to say that it is ?

 

[follower of Christ]

Some people say it is a major sin to abort a baby, others do not.
Some people say baptism is necessary for salvation, others say it is an ordinance.
Some people say they are saved by faith alone, others say we are saved by faith and love.
Some people say that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, some say it is not.
Some people say that one can lose their eternal inheritance to heaven, others say you cannot.

And so forth. It is impossible that the Bible is the ONLY source of authority for Christians, JUST BASED ON THIS ALONE! God's Spirit is not a Spirit of confusion!

Having the Bible is not enough to receive the intent of the Sacred Author. Have you ever had a conversation with another Protestant and you disagreed? WHAT became the deciding factor, since there is no authority except the bible?

Regards

Who has the final authority to 'interpret' scriptures in your church?

That agreement cannot be had doesnt alter the fact that the scriptures ARE the final authority....what it means is that men are simply far too prideful to even try to agree on anything.

men not being able to come to an agreement on interpretation says nothing in regards to the authority of scripture......not a single thing.

 

[mondar]

Many Protestants say it, with different words. You can see it if you read some of the other current threads taking place right now...

Here is the attitude:

"Since the Bible is the Word of God, and it alone, than how I interpret it is the Word of God".

I dont care what some guy said about sola scriptura in some other thread. If you had googled sola scriptura and provided pasted a quote from some reformed or protestant theological authority, that would carry weight.

This is a major part of the problem. You really do not even understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. Such sites as:
http://pub15.bravenet.com/forum/1213294 ... ch/542495/
......are statements and confessions by evangelicals concerning biblical authority. You could easily go to the Westminster confession of faith....'
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
or the London Baptist Confession of 1689.
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc01.html
or any of the great published confessions of faith.

What do you do? You find some sunday school teacher in some bulletin board and define all of protestantism by the unguarded statements of someone who probably has little actual knowledge of sola scrptura. You could have googled "sola scriptura" and tried to define the doctrine from some authoritative source, but what do you do, you want to quote some weenie that probably only heard the term used for the first time two weeks ago. How unbelievably shallow. No wonder you dont have the foggiest idea what your talking about when your trying to attack a doctrine you dont even know what it is. I know that not all protestants understand their own theology. In fact it is frightening how few understand their own theology, most come to Church because their parents went to that church, or because its the one down the street close to their house. These people do not speak for protestantism.

You seem to come totally unhinged over the concept of incorrect exegesis. Varieties of exegesis among protestants is great, but the differences in exegesis among Catholic scholars is no less. Differences in exegesis do not demonstrate that that the scriptures themselves are not a supreme authority. If you take those who deny sola scriptura, the exegetical differences have always been great. The ECFs had great varieties of exegesis. But all this seems totally lost on you. Your tradition tells you that sola scriptura is refuted because an infallible source is needed to say which exegete is correct. Have you thought about how few scriptures Rome actually pronounces to have a certain meaning? Rome has only actually used a small handful of scriptures in the council of trent or the authoritative documents. There is no infallible defined authority even within Rome to define proper exegesis. There is only your traditions. . . traditions that often have nothing to do with the scriptures. Traditions that are made up.

It was not until the middle of the 20th century that some of your tradition was canonized. The church spent 1964 years before some of the traditions were revealed. Cut me a break here. You expect me to believe that for 1964 years some guy in the vatican was passing down some secrete traditions until 1964? Why does the Vatican not reveal all these great traditions all at once?

I am getting off topic and ranting a little. In any case, why should I care that some protestant sunday school teacher has no idea what sola scriptura means?

 

[francisdesales]

I am getting off topic and ranting a little. In any case, why should I care that some protestant sunday school teacher has no idea what sola scriptura means?

True, you are ranting. You seem more concerned about the definition of Sola Scriptura and its "pure meaning", which you seem to believe you possess. By complaining about my "misunderstanding of sola scripture", all you are doing is desperately trying to deflect attention away from the topic of this thread:

Where does the bible say it is the sole authority?

All you are doing is taking us on a wild-goose chase over the "proper definition". Please stay on topic and defend where the bible itself says it is the sole authority for Christians. Prove to me the idea even exists in reality. The fact that Protestants use the same "infallible bible" and come up with numerous interpretations should be evidence enough for an unbiased person to realize that the whole idea (bible is the sole authority) is false.

Regards

 

[Heidi]

I am getting off topic and ranting a little. In any case, why should I care that some protestant sunday school teacher has no idea what sola scriptura means?

True, you are ranting. You seem more concerned about the definition of Sola Scriptura and its "pure meaning", which you seem to believe you possess. By complaining about my "misunderstanding of sola scripture", all you are doing is desperately trying to deflect attention away from the topic of this thread:

Where does the bible say it is the sole authority?

All you are doing is taking us on a wild-goose chase over the "proper definition". Please stay on topic and defend where the bible itself says it is the sole authority for Christians. Prove to me the idea even exists in reality. The fact that Protestants use the same "infallible bible" and come up with numerous interpretations should be evidence enough for an unbiased person to realize that the whole idea (bible is the sole authority) is false.

Regards

We have told you; John 1:1-2, John 1;14, Hebrews 4:12, 2 Timothy 3:16, etc., but you refuse to listen to us.

So my questions for you are; what words in any other book are living and active? What words in any other book are referred to as; "scripture"? :o Then tell us why and your authority for claiming that.

 

[francisdesales]

We have told you; John 1:1-2, John 1;14, Hebrews 4:12, 2 Timothy 3:16, etc., but you refuse to listen to us.

Heidi,

You have told me nothing with these verses, except that you may be an idolater because it appears you worship the Bible... Have you actually read them? Do ANY of them discuss that the Bible is the sole authority for Christians?

Let's look at some of these so-called "proofs"...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with the God. John 1:1-2

What on earth does that have to do with the Sacred Scriptures? Are you joking? The "Word" is Jesus Christ HIMSELF, not written Scriptures! Are you suggesting that the Bible was "with God and the Bible was God". Heidi, do you worship the Bible?

John 1:14, same comments!!!

For the word of God [is] alive and efficient and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:12

Heidi, have you read the next verse???

Neither is there any created thing that is not manifested in his presence, but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him of whom we speak. Heb 4:13

Obviously, the Scriptures are speaking of the WORD of God, the Son of God HIMSELF, not the bible! "...all things are ...open unto the eyes of him of whom we speak"!!!

Does the bible have eyes? These verses are speaking of a living Being, not a book.

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 perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim 3:16-17

Where does it say or imply ANYTHING about the Scriptures are the SOLE AUTHORITY for Christians? Again, it says PROFITABLE... Lots of things are PROFITABLE to perfect Christians. Prayer and almsgiving are profitable for building virtue. Suffering and denying of self is profitable.

Not only does this Scripture fail your doctrinal assumption, it doesn't even tell us WHAT IS Scriptures! In this particular account, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament, the Scriptures that Timothy knew AS A YOUTH! If anything, Protestants prove too much by begging people to accept this verse as the verse that tells us that the Bible is the sole authority for Christians. To follow it, we'd have to cut out the New Testament!!

Really, I am asking you to provide a verse. ONE verse is all I ask for. SOMETHING that tells me that the Scriptures ALONE was God's intent to train Christians and to reveal His doctrine to mankind. All this Sola Scriptura is is a "tradition of men". It is an invention NOT found in Scriptures and it TAKES AWAY part of the Word of God. As such, it fits the definition that Jesus laid out for a "tradition of men", an attempt to circumvent God's Word, for example...

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and retain the doctrine which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thes 2:15

YOUR tradition erases part of God's WORD!!! WHERE does the Bible tell us that oral tradition blew away or that the written word has abrogated the oral? NOWHERE. Thus, YOU TEACH A TRADITION OF MEN.

Heidi, you need to seriously re-consider your theological stance on this issue, because it is built upon sand and wishful thinking.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Francis - I believe you need to calm down!

You say that those of us who are not followers of Rome should not suggest that you "worship Mary" - yet here you are spouting off about Heidi worshipping the "bible".

Gee - pot calling the kettle black?

2 Tim 3:16 clearly shows that it is SCRIPTURE that is PROFITABLE. The verse even outlines what it is PROFITABLE for.

Here is the amazing thing about God - He is not bound by our time line. It is possible, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit - that God knew exactly what He was writting in 2 Tim 3:16 knowing that at sometime in the future HE and HE ALONE would PERSERVE His WRITTEN Word?

Before I enter this discussion even farther - how about YOU provide what YOU believe Sola Scriptura IS or ISN'T? Is that fair?

 

[francisdesales]

Francis - I believe you need to calm down!

You say that those of us who are not followers of Rome should not suggest that you "worship Mary" - yet here you are spouting off about Heidi worshipping the "bible".

Gee - pot calling the kettle black?

I think that you need to read what Heidi has been saying. I think even your self-righteous banter would change its tune...

All you have to do is go backward in this thread to my response on "Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:07 am" or
"Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:22 am" in "Who has the Authority to Interpret Scriptures". Be prepared to be utterly amazed. I hope other Protestants don't feel this way...

If she is not a bible worshipper, Alone, I don't know WHAT is. These are words off HER keyboard. WHICH Catholic has said they worship Mary? Yet, this Heidi equates the Word of God with the Bible! The WORD BECOMES PAPER! One wiff of John 1:1-2 is enough for me. Even you have to admit hers are strange and idolatrous musings...

2 Tim 3:16 clearly shows that it is SCRIPTURE that is PROFITABLE. The verse even outlines what it is PROFITABLE for.

Profitable. As I wrote Heidi, so is almsgiving, virtuous living and prayer. All of these are "profitable" as well. This discounts the idea of Sola Scriptura.

Where is "sole" "only" "nothing else" "alone" or any other adjective that describes the tradition of Protestantism that the Bible ALONE is the sole authority of Christians? This verse is nowhere near what you are trying to make it say. Rather than read what is there, you try to force your theology into verses that do not say what you imagine them to say.

Here is the amazing thing about God - He is not bound by our time line. It is possible, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit - that God knew exactly what He was writting in 2 Tim 3:16 knowing that at sometime in the future HE and HE ALONE would PERSERVE His WRITTEN Word?

Special pleading is a poor logical argument, Alone. God foresaw this conversation, and would certainly have provided ONE VERSE to back YOU up, if He actually wanted man to submit to a BOOK ALONE. The FACT that there is NOTHING about sola scriptura should tell you that God does not teach it. It is a tradition of men. I know that bothers you, but that is what God teaches. Search your heart. If it is not in the Bible, how can you follow this sham?

Before I enter this discussion even farther - how about YOU provide what YOU believe Sola Scriptura IS or ISN'T? Is that fair?

Sola scriptura, classically, means just what it means in Latin. The Scriptures ALONE are the source of Christian doctrine that man must abide by. According to this tradition, the bible alone is the only infallible revelation that man possesses today. Thus, while councils and pastors may be of use, they are not the final say on Christian doctrine. Only the bible is.

No doubt, I will be dubbed wrong, and this conversation will turn towards chastising me on the straw arguments I raise, in an effort to take the pressure of the sola scriptura sacred cow. God help us if people saw through that scam - just like our previous discussion regarding Church history...

I pray, though, that you will seriously consider what I say regarding the concept.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Francis - I am sorry that you equate what I believe to shames. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny, but you will go around chastizing others in regards to Rome. You get all bent out of shape when articles are posted against the teachings of Rome.

Yet, it appears you feel you have every right to do so about others that do not fall lock-step with Rome.

To be honest, I really wanted to try to see what it is you believe and understand - but when I see how you interact with others on here that disagree with you - I see you are no better than they.

You claim that your denomination (Rome) is infalliable. Yet where is that in Scripture? Where does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is infalliable? Perhaps one verse that says "The Roman Catholic Church in infalliable?"

 

[francisdesales]

Francis - I am sorry that you equate what I believe to shames. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny, but you will go around chastizing others in regards to Rome. You get all bent out of shape when articles are posted against the teachings of Rome.

You are being unfair. I am asking for something from the Bible that tells me that the Bible is the sole source of authority for Christians. People such as yourself make this the pillar of their faith. And yet, it is a contradictory article of belief. It is not found in the bible. It was not believed by Christians until Martin Luther unleashed Pandora's Box of confusion. Do you deny that this teaching is not found in Scriptures? Then please produce the evidence.

I am not speaking about Rome, nor am I saying Rome is better. I have not mentioned anything about Rome being infallible. I am merely looking for YOUR EVIDENCE for why you believe what you do. Apparently, asking questions about why you believe the sacred cow is sacred is a problem. This is different than someone bringing FALSE information about one's Church, is it not??? "Catholics worship Mary" is MUCH different than "Protestants follow a non-scriptural doctrine". The former is false, the latter is true.

People come here and tell me that the Catholic Church sends millions to hell. They say she is the anti-Christ. Some come here and tell me that the Scriptures "prove" her wrong. All of these people, Alone, are not attacking a concept or an idea. They are attacking a visible organization, one I happen to belong to. I have NOT attacked your congregation, nor do I see any Catholic here talking about all the Protestants going to hell. I don't make such comments, nor do I say your beliefs from your particular organization are sending you to hell. Your complaint, to me, seems pretty petty, from what I have experienced and endured here....

My comments attack the general idea that Sola Scriptura is incorrect. I never said that because you believe it, people are being condemned. I want to hear why you believe it. Unfortunately, few are honest enough to admit that there is NO SUPPORT for it in Scriptures. The problem is that PROTESTANTS, to me, appear to be hypocritical when they put down Catholics for following a "non-scriptural teaching", when Protestants do the very same thing, DESPITE CLAIMING that they ONLY follow Sola Scriptura. Yes, there are teachings that we follow that appear to have very little positive and explicit Scriptural support. However, we NEVER make that a pillar of our belief, Alone. We NEVER say that everything we believe MUST be found EXPLICITLY and ONLY in the Scriptures! You do.

Are you beginning to see what's going on here?

I am always willing to talk to people on such issues. But be prepared to defend your position, if it is honestly attacked. Have I misrepresented the Protestant position?

Regards

 

[stranger]

Hi folks,

The observation and charge of 'bibliolatry' is one that has been raised from within the ranks of Protestantism itself. I posted an article by Adolp Saphir to that affect. It seems that this was already an issue in the 1800's.

Bibliolatry
By Adolph Saphir, D.D.

The charge of Bibliolatry (worship of the Bible) has been of late frequently preferred against those who maintain the supremacy of Scripture. As far as this objection is urged by those who do not fully and clearly acknowledge the Divine authority and inspiration of Scripture, it is easily refuted. But as far as we ourselves are concerned, we may do well to consider whether our opponents are not giving utterance to a truth which they themselves do not fully see, and warn us against a danger the existence of which we are apt to overlook. In other words, never mind whence and for what purpose the charge of Bibliolatry is made, --consider the thing itself; is there such a tendency, such an evil, such a danger? I know that many Christians will reply at once, "We cannot value, and reverence, and cherish the Bible sufficiently." And this is quite true. The danger is not of a reverence too deep, but of a reverence untrue and unreal. We cannot speak, think, and feel too highly of Scripture in its vital connection with Christ and the Spirit; but there may be a way of viewing Scripture by itself apart from Christ and the Holy Ghost, and transferring to this dead book our faith, reverence, and affection; and this surely would come under the category of idolatry, -substituting something, however good and great in itself, or rather in its relation to God, in the place of the living God. Gross idolatry is not the danger of the Church. Since the Reformation, idolatry must needs appear in a very subtle form.

The remainder of the article can be found here:
http://christbiblechurch.org/literature ... olatry.pdf

 

[Guest]

Francis - here is the thing... YOU happen to disagree with the arguements brought forth. That doesn't mean the arguement is false - it merely means that YOU disagree with it.

You are not the final authority on what is "false".

As I read Scripture, as I study, as I pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit - 2 Timothy 3:16 provides ample evidence that Scripture should be the final authority - the final benchmark, rule, standard.

Francis - we are going to disagree here. But please, you do not want others to belittle Rome, so please stop belittling what others believe.

I would suggest, if you haven't read the thread, read the thread about the origins of the term Protestant. The term originating from the treatement Lutherans were experiencing from "Rome".

 

[francisdesales]

Francis - here is the thing... YOU happen to disagree with the arguements brought forth. That doesn't mean the arguement is false - it merely means that YOU disagree with it.

You are not the final authority on what is "false".

Alone,

I am being unbiased here. My arguments are not against Protestants, just the concept of Sola Scriptura. If it is proven to be true, I would give you the benefit of the doubt. However, truly, the "arguments" are pretty poor. I apologize if I have offended you. Don't take this personally. However, I am quite capable of seeing that the sola scriptura argument is false. I don't need to be infallible, or even smart. Common sense is enough. I think you are so enamoured with the idea that you are having a difficult time stepping back and really analyzing the concept.

IF Sola Scriptura is true, we would expect to see something in Scriptures. Unfortunately for the concept, it is not there. Can you convince an unbiased person otherwise? Is "profitable" the best you can do?

Francis - we are going to disagree here. But please, you do not want others to belittle Rome, so please stop belittling what others believe.

I'm sorry, but your defense of sola scriptura is not convincing in the slightest. You are hanging your hat on "profitable"? THAT keeps you a Protestant???

I would suggest, if you haven't read the thread, read the thread about the origins of the term Protestant. The term originating from the treatement Lutherans were experiencing from "Rome".

Would you like me to post similar historical treatments that English Catholics were receiving at the hands of Protesants? Do you know what "draw and quarter" means???

How about Catholics living in Switzerland or Germany? Honestly, what is the purpose of pointing fingers at Christians who were persecuting other Christians on both sides of the fence? Is it going to prove that "Sola Scriptura" is legitimate?

Regards

 

[Guest]

I guess you did not read the post.

Since you did not read it there, I will post it here:

It was at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529 - the Catholic majority ruled that in the Lutheran lands, Catholics must be tolerated. However, in Catholic lands, liberty would not be extended to the Lutherans.

Nineteen terrorities, led by Philip of Hesse, PROTESTED this arragement, thus becoming known as PROTESTANTS.

 

[Guest]

Francis - I found this "defense" if you will...

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible ... tura.shtml

There is a lot there to chew - I pray that you take the time to 'eat'.

 

[mondar]

I certainly would agree that sola scriptura can be seen in a number of passages. I have focused on 2Tim 3:16 because I think the doctrine of sola scriptura can be seen most clearly in that passage. If I had to narrow it down even more, I would point to three words (in verses 16-17).

1---ÀαÃα γÃÂαÆὴ θεÃŒÀνεÅÃĀο (all scripture is inspired) The bolded word is theopneustos. Something that I did not mention is that it is in a very specific grammatical construction. There is no actual verb in this sentence because of the "predicate nominative" construction. In english we always use the helping very "is" in the predicate as a helping verb. So, in the phrase γÃÂαÆὴ θεÃŒÀνεÅÃĀο (scripture is inspired) the word "is" is supplied. Going beyond these grammatical issues, when a predicate nominative construction appears, it makes the two words inseparable. To insert any other thought into this construction (such as tradition) is grammatically impossible because of this specific construction.

I have done a word search on the word θεÃŒÀνεÅÃĀοÂ, and in fact this is the only time it occurs in all of the bible. The fact that it occurs only in this context is theologically very important. The fact that the scriptures does not make a direct claim to anything else being inspired, should make us pay attention to this text. Thayer has a more extended definition in his lexicon, but I will copy the lexical definition from from Thayer in E-Sword.
1) inspired by God
1a) the contents of the scriptures

2---ινα αÃÂÄιο (complete, fitted) αÃÂÄιο is the second word found in verse 17 in the GNT. The english word order is slightly different. Now the KJV translates this word ... That the man of God may be perfect. This perfection that is accomplished by the word of God is not speaking of sinless perfection, but rather it is speaking of the ministries of the word called "profitable" in verse 16. It speaks of the fact that the scriptures is sufficient to complete (or perfect) the man of God in doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. Thayer in E-Sword gives a definition as follows...
1) fitted
2) complete, perfect
2a) having reference apparently to “special aptitude for given usesâ€Â
This word (αÃÂÄιοÂ--complete, perfect) is theologically as important as the word θεÃŒÀνεÅÃĀο (inspired). The reason it is so important is that it communicates the concept of "sufficiency."

3---εξηÃÂÄιÃμένο ("throughly furnished"-KJV --- "furnished completely" NAS)
Thayer Definition:
1) to complete, finish
1a) to furnish perfectly
1b) to finish, accomplish, (as it were, to render the days complete)
The greek form above is taken directly from the text. Its lexical form is εξαÃÂÄίζÉ. The form in the text is found in participial form. The word suggests that the scriptures accomplish the complete furnishing of all that the man of God needs in his life and ministry.

2Tim 3:16 teaches that the scriptures are sufficient for the man of God to learn doctrine, reproof... because the scriptures are authoritative. "Sola scriptura" is then defined that the scriptures and the only infallible, sufficient, and authoritative source of doctrine, reproof, and instruction. So then, even if a person fails to understand even one word of the bible in his first reading, it is nevertheless sufficient and (s)he should keep trying because (s)he is reading, studying, and learning from the sole sufficient and authoritative scriptures. Teachers who respect this God breathed source of doctrine and instruction can certainly be of great assistance, but it is not the teachers that are being pronounced "God breathed" in this passage, it is the written scriptures.

The enemies of "sola scriptura" will continue twisting the doctrine into things that it simply does not mean. They will subtly introduce you to things that their own sources of authority must be equal to the scriptures, but remember, the word of God has pronounced only the scriptures to:
Have infallible and innerrant aut θεÃŒÀνεÅÃĀοÂ---inspired
and be sufficient for the man of God
αÃÂÄιοÂ-----------complete
εξηÃÂÄιÃμένοÂ--to furnish perfectly

And this, my friends, is the doctrine of "sola scriptura."

Your servant,
Mondar

 

[Guest]

Francis - I understand that you need to fight against the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If you were to believe it, much of what your church teaches would come tumbling down. Here are quotes from Catholic sources:

"The Bible does not contain all the teaching of the Christian religion, nor does it formulate all the duties of its members." (The Faith of Millions, pp. 153-154).

"Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72)

"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No...because the Bible does not have everything God taught." (A Catechism for Adults, Q. 1, p. 52).

 

[Guest]

Since Rome denies the final Authority of Scripture, perhaps someone can answer this 'challenge'

Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

 

[Guest]

Francis - I do not understand your hangup on the word "profitable" - but let's look at the verse some more.

2 Tim 3:16-17

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.

It is Scripture that provides the man of God to be thoroughly equiped for "EVERY" good work. Not just some, not just many, but EVERY.

I know how you like anologies, so I thought I would provide one for you.

The idea behind "EVERY" is fullness, fully, all.

If you read an advertisement for an apartment for rent that was "fully furnished", what would you expect? It would have everything you needed to live in that apartment - it would be "fully furnished". If it did not have a refrigerator, it would not be fully furnished.

Here in 2 Tim 3:17 - it is saying that Scripture is "fully furnished" to provide the man of God to be equipped for "EVERY" good work - nothing from the "outside" is needed.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar:
The enemies of "sola scriptura" will continue twisting the doctrine into things that it simply does not mean. They will subtly introduce you to things that their own sources of authority must be equal to the scriptures, but remember, the word of God has pronounced only the scriptures to:
Have infallible and innerrant authority
θεÃŒÀνεÅÃĀοÂ---inspired
and be sufficient for the man of God
αÃÂÄιοÂ-----------complete
εξηÃÂÄιÃμένοÂ--to furnish perfectly

And this, my friends, is the doctrine of "sola scriptura."

What scriptures, Mondar? Basically you have Paul saying that all scriptures, which were all the holy writings, which included the Book of Jasher and Enoch and all of the other books that were omitted from the final group we have in our Bibles today, and didn’t even include the book of Timothy that the verse was taken from, were given by inspiration of God. What does that mean except that holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit? Why does that mean inerrant and infallible? Even if they were, our language and knowledge of customs is not infallible and two thousand years has taken a toll on our ability to understand the fullness of their meaning. Only the Holy Spirit is an infallible guide to understand what was written and because we are dull of hearing, brainwashed by false teachers and confused by present day traditions and doctrines, we might as well not cling to the bible as if it were our Lord and Savior. We are supposed to look to Christ.

The word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and the word is not a book. If you want to follow a written word, follow the words in red that are the teachings of Christ. Jesus said, “the words I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.†He upbraided the Pharisees for not having any place in their hearts for his words. And don’t forget my favorite out of context mistranslation: Timothy 2:9 “the word of God is not bound†so don‘t think it is found in a binding. 8-)