As I'm preparing this, it occurs to me that to ask for "ONE BIT" of "actual" hard data will never be enough for you, as you've dismissed other Biblical truths on the basis of how little they appear. "ONE BIT" will be dismissed outright without explanation or countervailing evidence. Just thought I'd state that I'm aware of this reality.
Also, to demand that any verse or passage I present must "DEMAND/INSIST" upon SS is also a demonstration that you lack integrity, or an understanding of how these things work. I'm going with the former based on your long history of this sort of tactic, which requires one to force a position through the extremely narrow hole you provide, not because that's honest, but because it make it easier for you to reject the evidence. The fact is that there simply isn't any verse or passage that meets that dishonest criterion. Rather, it is the existence of the verses and passages I'll present that demand it...if one is honest in how they regard what they read in Scripture.
For now, and I'm sure you'll prove the point above, I begin with two:
"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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
This more than suggests that Scripture is all that is necessary when one accepts it as written. And if one does that, what other sources are required if one is complete and thoroughly equipped because of Scripture? If Scripture is capable of doing that as Paul says it is, then what else exists that isn't superfluous by comparison? This states that there is nothing that is lacking in referring to Scripture.
“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Even more clearly, Paul is blatantly saying here that Scripture is that to which all else must conform, which again compels the Christian to simply consult with Scripture in order to know. It makes it the "final court of appeal" if one is not to go beyond what it says.
These two offerings alone insist upon SS as they suggest both the primacy of Scripture and it's comprehensiveness.
Marshall, I could point to John 3:16 and say that it insists upon a belief upon alien dragons, but the fact is, it's simply not there.
I'm sure maybe you SEE it there in your verses, but it's not. It's not suggested, it's not hinted at, and it's certainly not insisted upon. It ain't there.
There's nothing really for me to do in response other than note that reality.
"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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work"
You say this "more than suggests that Scripture is all that is necessary when one accepts it as written..."
1. Even your defense points out that REASON is needed (if one accepts it "as written..." whatever that might mean. Does it mean taking it literally? Does it mean using your reasoning to understand its meaning, was it intended literally or figuratively? was it intended as a universal rule or a temporary guideline? etc, etc.
So, even your explanation points out (and you probably agree) that scripture isn't ALL we need, we also need good reasoning.
2. Your verse in bold is one that you, using your reasoning, are lifting as a line to take literally and place emphasis upon... but what if the author was speaking hyperbolically? Or otherwise figuratively? To make the point that we have a wealth of good teaching found within scripture, but not to suggest that it alone has sole authority? EVEN IF you take the verse to mean what YOU THINK it means, it is dependent upon YOUR REASONED extrapolation that this is what it means and is how it is to be taken. But given that Scriptural teachings often involve hyperbole and imagery, that isn't a given.
3. That this verse may or may not point out that Scripture "is profitable" it simply doesn't say that it alone is all we need, nor does it say that Scripture trumps other sources of knowledge, that it is the Sole Authority for matters of faith and practice.
It literally is not in the passages, it is something you are reading into this verse, and others like it.
As to your 1 Cor passage, again, it doesn't say or insist upon what you are reading into it. And the reality that you are reading INTO it something that it does not literally say would be denied by a strict Sola Scriptura understanding. Your reasoning itself is extra biblical, not within the realm of SS.
Which is ultimately why SS fails. It undoes its own self by the reality that it is, itself, extra biblical.
Here's a source that points out the problems with the 1 Cor passage...
For one thing, "do not go beyond what is written..." What is written where? The passage itself does not refer to Scripture but to "a saying..." (according to NIV, anyway) and you are reading INTO it that Paul is saying don't go beyond Scripture, but the text does not say that.
IF IT DID, then to add to "scripture," (what the text says, referring to the OT, according to those who read that meaning into it), then to add to "scripture" the Gospels and Paul's writings and the NT would be going beyond "scripture..." Again, undermining Sola Scriptura advocates.
Anyway, read that source, it's helpful and maybe you'll see it coming from someone else where you don't see it from me.
This point from that source above is a good starting point to help you use your reason to understand that what you are reading into the text simply isn't likely.
"That this small phrase from 1 Corinthians 4:6 is a difficult text to nail down is indicated by its numerous interpretations (both Protestant and Catholic).
Further, the phrase in question is only part of a sentence, which is itself part of a larger chapter written in the context of a rather long letter.
None of these additional contextual layers imply Sola Scriptura.
Thus, if these seven words are taken to do so, it would seem that Sola Scriptura was suddenly introduced with no warning in a minor clause of a single sentence in one of the New Testament’s longest writings and never brought up again."
In short, the very lack of strong biblical arguments in favor of SS are a reasonable argument against it.
These two verses you cite are indeed, two of the "best" arguments in the SS camp, and that is a sad indictment on SS.
You'd think that if SS were a vital tenet of Christianity, it would receive more than two vague perhaps maybe passages that some might possibly read into a hint of Sola Scriptura.
Especially if you compare those to the virtual plethora of verses that speak favorably of anything directly or indirectly related to homosexual behavior or that even obliquely reference “gay marriage” positively.
Of course, then one must assume that the words in the above phrase in bold, mean something other than their most common obvious meanings.
That “complete” means something other than “complete”, (perhaps “complete” really means incomplete) and that “thoroughly” doesn’t mean “thoroughly”, and that “every” means something less than “every”.
While, as an individual dependent wholly one one’s individual “Reason”, I guess one could concoct a scenario where the meanings could be adjusted to mean something other than what the plain text says. But that scenario simply allows individuals to arbitrarily assign meanings to words and phrases independent of both common definitions and usage, and independent of acknowledgement of the intent of the author.
We’ve seen repeated assertions the SS is somehow inadequate or nonsensical. What we haven’t seen is a coherent, rational alternative.
Clearly the appeal to individual, flawed, imperfect, human, Reason isn’t adequate because how can it be rationally asserted the the word “every” can mean “every” or “less than every” solely at the whim of the reader.
Maybe if there was more effort put into making a positive, affirmative case for one’s position instead of asserting that the other position is “wrong”, things might be more productive.
One last thought, Dan criticizes Art for what he believes is selectively taking small phrases or words literally without regard to their context. Yet, initial post which spawned all of this died exactly that. I addressed this multiple times early in the thread to no avail, yet the rank hypocrisy is quite amusing.
As I predicted (no divine help necessary given Dan's notorious history), you presume that hundreds of verses are required in order for anything in Scripture to be believed, understood and trusted. A most childish argument. The link I provided earlier presented many more, though merely one is needed for actual Christians. Here, though, the Timothy passage explains the absolute sufficiency of Scripture, while the Corinthian is among those that encourages reliance upon Scripture...particularly when differences arise between believers on matters of faith as was the situation in Corinth due to followers being so taken by different preachers.
I've more to say, but I'm out of town. But I can't sign off without pointing out you leading into your poor response with one of your famous crappy analogies that in no way resembles anything honest students do in understanding the two passages as illustrations of SS in practice by Paul. Worse, the implication is insulting to suggest what is clear in the verses are as outlandish and goofy as your asshat analogy...simply because you don't want to give Scripture its due...because doing so threatens your agenda. Shame on you.
207 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 207 of 207As I'm preparing this, it occurs to me that to ask for "ONE BIT" of "actual" hard data will never be enough for you, as you've dismissed other Biblical truths on the basis of how little they appear. "ONE BIT" will be dismissed outright without explanation or countervailing evidence. Just thought I'd state that I'm aware of this reality.
Also, to demand that any verse or passage I present must "DEMAND/INSIST" upon SS is also a demonstration that you lack integrity, or an understanding of how these things work. I'm going with the former based on your long history of this sort of tactic, which requires one to force a position through the extremely narrow hole you provide, not because that's honest, but because it make it easier for you to reject the evidence. The fact is that there simply isn't any verse or passage that meets that dishonest criterion. Rather, it is the existence of the verses and passages I'll present that demand it...if one is honest in how they regard what they read in Scripture.
For now, and I'm sure you'll prove the point above, I begin with two:
"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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
This more than suggests that Scripture is all that is necessary when one accepts it as written. And if one does that, what other sources are required if one is complete and thoroughly equipped because of Scripture? If Scripture is capable of doing that as Paul says it is, then what else exists that isn't superfluous by comparison? This states that there is nothing that is lacking in referring to Scripture.
“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Even more clearly, Paul is blatantly saying here that Scripture is that to which all else must conform, which again compels the Christian to simply consult with Scripture in order to know. It makes it the "final court of appeal" if one is not to go beyond what it says.
These two offerings alone insist upon SS as they suggest both the primacy of Scripture and it's comprehensiveness.
Marshall, I could point to John 3:16 and say that it insists upon a belief upon alien dragons, but the fact is, it's simply not there.
I'm sure maybe you SEE it there in your verses, but it's not. It's not suggested, it's not hinted at, and it's certainly not insisted upon. It ain't there.
There's nothing really for me to do in response other than note that reality.
Good luck.
"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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work"
You say this "more than suggests that Scripture is all that is necessary when one accepts it as written..."
1. Even your defense points out that REASON is needed (if one accepts it "as written..." whatever that might mean. Does it mean taking it literally? Does it mean using your reasoning to understand its meaning, was it intended literally or figuratively? was it intended as a universal rule or a temporary guideline? etc, etc.
So, even your explanation points out (and you probably agree) that scripture isn't ALL we need, we also need good reasoning.
2. Your verse in bold is one that you, using your reasoning, are lifting as a line to take literally and place emphasis upon... but what if the author was speaking hyperbolically? Or otherwise figuratively? To make the point that we have a wealth of good teaching found within scripture, but not to suggest that it alone has sole authority? EVEN IF you take the verse to mean what YOU THINK it means, it is dependent upon YOUR REASONED extrapolation that this is what it means and is how it is to be taken. But given that Scriptural teachings often involve hyperbole and imagery, that isn't a given.
3. That this verse may or may not point out that Scripture "is profitable" it simply doesn't say that it alone is all we need, nor does it say that Scripture trumps other sources of knowledge, that it is the Sole Authority for matters of faith and practice.
It literally is not in the passages, it is something you are reading into this verse, and others like it.
As to your 1 Cor passage, again, it doesn't say or insist upon what you are reading into it. And the reality that you are reading INTO it something that it does not literally say would be denied by a strict Sola Scriptura understanding. Your reasoning itself is extra biblical, not within the realm of SS.
Which is ultimately why SS fails. It undoes its own self by the reality that it is, itself, extra biblical.
Here's a source that points out the problems with the 1 Cor passage...
https://douglasbeaumont.com/2015/04/20/does-1-corinthians-46-teach-sola-scriptura/
For one thing, "do not go beyond what is written..." What is written where? The passage itself does not refer to Scripture but to "a saying..." (according to NIV, anyway) and you are reading INTO it that Paul is saying don't go beyond Scripture, but the text does not say that.
IF IT DID, then to add to "scripture," (what the text says, referring to the OT, according to those who read that meaning into it), then to add to "scripture" the Gospels and Paul's writings and the NT would be going beyond "scripture..." Again, undermining Sola Scriptura advocates.
Anyway, read that source, it's helpful and maybe you'll see it coming from someone else where you don't see it from me.
Good luck.
This point from that source above is a good starting point to help you use your reason to understand that what you are reading into the text simply isn't likely.
"That this
small phrase
from 1 Corinthians 4:6 is a difficult text to nail down is indicated by its numerous interpretations (both Protestant and Catholic).
Further, the phrase in question
is only part of a sentence,
which is itself part of a larger chapter
written in the context of a rather long letter.
None of these additional contextual layers imply Sola Scriptura.
Thus, if these seven words are taken to do so,
it would seem that Sola Scriptura was suddenly introduced
with no warning in a minor clause of a single sentence
in one of the New Testament’s longest writings and never brought up again."
In short, the very lack of strong biblical arguments in favor of SS are a reasonable argument against it.
These two verses you cite are indeed, two of the "best" arguments in the SS camp, and that is a sad indictment on SS.
You'd think that if SS were a vital tenet of Christianity, it would receive more than two vague perhaps maybe passages that some might possibly read into a hint of Sola Scriptura.
Think on that.
Especially if you compare those to the virtual plethora of verses that speak favorably of anything directly or indirectly related to homosexual behavior or that even obliquely reference “gay marriage” positively.
Of course, then one must assume that the words in the above phrase in bold, mean something other than their most common obvious meanings.
That “complete” means something other than “complete”, (perhaps “complete” really means incomplete) and that “thoroughly” doesn’t mean “thoroughly”, and that “every” means something less than “every”.
While, as an individual dependent wholly one one’s individual “Reason”, I guess one could concoct a scenario where the meanings could be adjusted to mean something other than what the plain text says. But that scenario simply allows individuals to arbitrarily assign meanings to words and phrases independent of both common definitions and usage, and independent of acknowledgement of the intent of the author.
We’ve seen repeated assertions the SS is somehow inadequate or nonsensical. What we haven’t seen is a coherent, rational alternative.
Clearly the appeal to individual, flawed, imperfect, human, Reason isn’t adequate because how can it be rationally asserted the the word “every” can mean “every” or “less than every” solely at the whim of the reader.
Maybe if there was more effort put into making a positive, affirmative case for one’s position instead of asserting that the other position is “wrong”, things might be more productive.
One last thought, Dan criticizes Art for what he believes is selectively taking small phrases or words literally without regard to their context. Yet, initial post which spawned all of this died exactly that. I addressed this multiple times early in the thread to no avail, yet the rank hypocrisy is quite amusing.
As I predicted (no divine help necessary given Dan's notorious history), you presume that hundreds of verses are required in order for anything in Scripture to be believed, understood and trusted. A most childish argument. The link I provided earlier presented many more, though merely one is needed for actual Christians. Here, though, the Timothy passage explains the absolute sufficiency of Scripture, while the Corinthian is among those that encourages reliance upon Scripture...particularly when differences arise between believers on matters of faith as was the situation in Corinth due to followers being so taken by different preachers.
I've more to say, but I'm out of town. But I can't sign off without pointing out you leading into your poor response with one of your famous crappy analogies that in no way resembles anything honest students do in understanding the two passages as illustrations of SS in practice by Paul. Worse, the implication is insulting to suggest what is clear in the verses are as outlandish and goofy as your asshat analogy...simply because you don't want to give Scripture its due...because doing so threatens your agenda. Shame on you.
Post a Comment