[Wondergirl]

Is that what you define as a detailed scholarly response?

You somehow missed all his other ones over the previous several pages?

[Akoue]

I did respond. The responses were to deny that the reference said "complete" or to promote the responders denomination. Not compelling.

Ooh, that's a wopper!

No one ever denied that the reference said "complete". On the contrary, I have shown several times that you were distorting the use of the word "complete", that the Scripture you quoted did not say--what you claimed it said--that Scripture is "complete"; it said that Scripture is "profitable". The word "complete" was not used the way you said it was. And once that was pointed out to you, you offered no further explanation of or justification for your reading. This is likely because you quite rightly saw, once it was pointed out to you, that you had misunderstood the passage. There's no shame in making a mistake. But there is shame in continuing to insist that your point wasn't addressed (it was addressed by being shown--in a detailed way--to be in error). And there is shame in claiming that anyone denied that the passage included the word "complete": I have acknowledged several times that it did include the word "complete"; I did so in the course of demonstrating that you had either misunderstood or misrepresenting what the passage was saying.

What isn't compelling picking up your toys and going home because you lost a game. And this is what your recent posts amount to: You lost the game and are pouting, complaining that the other kids aren't playing fair, that they are cheating. You don't want to play anymore because you can't win the game. This would be funny but for the fact that this isn't a game: We are adults discussing Scripture. I should think you'd be more interested in the truth, in deepening your understanding of Scripture, than in winning an argument. As I've said many, many times, if you have a case to make for sola scriptura, a case that doesn't rely on the Scriptures you have already been shown to have misunderstood, then please, by all means, make it. If not, why continue to post feeble barbs every couple of hours? I've been enjoying my discussions with sndbay and Wondergirl and Joe. Don't feel obligated to stick around if you don't have anything to say.

[galveston]

Isa 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
(KJV)

2 Pet 3:16
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(KJV)

Isa 28:9-10
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
(KJV)

Matt 4:4
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
(KJV)

Rev 22:19
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(KJV)

I see a lot of emphasis on what is WRITTEN in the Bible. These are onlya tiny part of verses that could be presented.

I reject any doctrine formulated after the Apostles passed away. The Holy Spirit is the real author of what they wrote down, and is therefore trustworthy. All else is mere human conjecture and therefore extremely dangerous.

[Wondergirl]

All else is mere human conjecture and therefore extremly dangerous.

Therefore, all Sunday Schools and adult Bible classes are to shut down immediately. Any teaching of doctrine in parochial schools and Christian colleges is to be stopped. Neighborhood Bible studies are verboten.

[Akoue]

The assumption is on your part to think they are not the ONLY traditions. Our Father is clear to say nothing of HIS Word is to be changed or added to it.

No, I don't think that is an assumption on my part. The Scriptures I listed affirm the authoritativeness of oral Tradition. I am acknowledging what Scripture itself acknowledges: There are Traditions that aren't written in Scripture. Since Tradition is no less the word of God than is Scripture, upholding and abiding by Tradition isn't adding to or changing it.

My assumption is based on what is written.. Scripture is complete and we should hold stedfast in what God intended as the traditions he ordained without changing them or adding to them..

Where is it written that Scripture is the whole of God's revelation to his people? I've already addressed 2Tim.3--the passage Tom cited earlier--and that verse is clearly not saying that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It says that Scripture is profitable. Is that the Scripture you have in mind when you say that Scripture is complete, or do you have another one in mind?

As far as the completeness of Scripture is concerned: If what is meant by this is that we should not alter Scripture, with this I agree. We should not, for instance, remove verses or add words to verses, etc. But I know of no place in Scripture where we are unambiguously told that Scripture is the sole standard and authority. I have, however, pointed to several places in Scripture where we are told that oral Tradition is authoritative.

1 Thessalonians 2:13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Exactly! Oral Tradition is no less divinely inspired than is Scripture.

Where does it say word of mouth... Scripture is in reference to the inspiration of God.. His Word and His Will.
(Man can't write or by oral mouth word, make his own bible up for people to follow.)

We don't need to make up a Bible. We already have one. But 1Thess.2.13, which you just quoted, thanks God that they received the word of God which they heard. Oral teaching transmitted orally. This is Tradition.

Difficult to find fellowship that hasn't attempted their own ways in some method. Give me one that you feel has held to God's Will?(Different thread someday).

I agree that this would make for an interesting thread topic. If you start a thread on it I'd love to join you in discussing it.

And you must note that Paul added as commanded--> (2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. )

So we must not go in fellowship with any that teach disorderly or that hold traditions not after that which they provided in scripture for us.

Here you've read your own assumption into Scripture when you say that the traditions are "provided in Scripture". Scripture clearly indicates that there is an oral Tradition to which we are beholden. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the whole of God's revelation is limited to Scripture and that none of it is to be found in oral Tradition that isn't also found in Scripture. What's more, Scripture repeatedly refers to oral teachings, oral Tradition, and instructs us to uphold it and abide by it.

[Tj3]

You somehow missed all his other ones over the previous several pages?

I have responded many times. Now if you want to keep talking about a response instead of actually discussing the topic, then we are not likely to get very far are we?

[Tj3]

Ooh, that's a wopper!

Ho hum. Is that your "scholarly" response?

No one ever denied that the reference said "complete". On the contrary, I have shown several times that you were distorting the use of the word "complete", that the Scripture you quoted did not say--what you claimed it said--that Scripture

I responded to that - did you bother to read my response?

What isn't compelling picking up your toys and going home because you lost a game...

This is the way that it always goes. When you won't or cannot deal with the issue, or it doesn't go the way that you want, you post demeaning comments about others, then the thread gets shut down.

[Wondergirl]

I have responded many times. Now if you want to keep talking about a response instead of actually discussing the topic, then we are not likely to get very far are we?

You have not responded "many times" except to mewl.

I'll discuss if you will. In fact, I have been with those who have something to say. I eagerly await your comments in reply to Akoue.

[Tj3]

I'll discuss if you will. In fact, I have been with those who have something to say.

I have never stopped being willing - look back at who turned this personal.

Feel free to start discussing anytime.

[Wondergirl]

Tom, do you have any thoughts on this:

[quote Originally Posted by galveston]
All else is mere human conjecture and therefore extremely dangerous.

[quote = WG]Therefore, all Sunday Schools and adult Bible classes are to shut down immediately. Any teaching of doctrine in parochial schools and Christian colleges is to be stopped. Neighborhood Bible studies are verboten.

[Tj3]

Tom, do you have any thoughts on this:

[quote Originally Posted by galveston]
All else is mere human conjecture and therefore extremly dangerous.

Therefore, all Sunday Schools and adult Bible classes are to shut down immediately. Any teaching of doctrine in parochial schools and Christian colleges is to be stopped. Neighborhood Bible studies are verboten.

I don't see see any logical connection between his comment and your response.

I also don't see that you have dealt with my comments on 2 Tim 3:15-16.

Here, let me post my original comment again and see if you have any comments on that:

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that 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.
NKJV

It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.

As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.

There is your chance to discuss.

[JoeT777]

This is exactly what happens in Lutheranland (Protestantland also?). Despite a minister's leadership and confirmation/membership teaching, despite weekly Sunday School and adult Bible classes, despite his regular contact with parishioners, there really is no "one mind" about what the Bible teaches and what Lutherans believe. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone in one of my adult Bible classes told me, "I never thought that passage meant that" or "I have never understood that passage that way" or "Our teacher at X Church explained it this way."

It all begins at the seminary where men come together to learn/relearn the basics of doctrine and to supposedly get on the same page as pastors, but, since each is coming from a different place and because there is a freedom of interpretation to some extent, all don't end up graduating on the same page. Despite sola scriptura, the Book of Concord, and the three ecumenical Creeds, Lutherans even disagree about the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Theological conservatives use the historical-grammatical method of Biblical interpretation, while theological liberals use the higher critical method. That right there makes for major confusion. (I personally experienced the dichotomy in college when I took classes from both conservative as well as liberal professors. About that same time, a liberal faction broke off from (or were kicked out of) the very conservative M-S Lutheran Synod to form Lutherans in Exile which eventually became part of ELCA).

Gee thanks. This is one issue I've been addressing for almost 2 years now - along comes Akoue and from one post all of a sudden you seem to be catching on. Says, a lot for me doesn't it!

Either way, this one of the reasons in the early Church used a patristic form governance for its corporate body. Heresies seemed to run amuck for the first several hundred years of the Church, a period in which the body of Christ was becoming incorporated under the yoke of Caesar .

This mixed interpretation that has continued to exist came clear to me when my all-time favorite minister posed a question to our Lutheran congregation (350 parishioners): "If you were to die tonight, why would God allow you into His heaven?" The answers he got back were amazingly diverse (and often non-Lutheran). Most of them did not mention any of the three Solas, the core of Lutheranism. Many said that faith and works or merely their good works would be their ticket into heaven. Some did not believe they would go to heaven or even that there is a heaven.

Apparently the charge, taken literally, to "work out your own salvation" has created not only a huge number of Protestant divisions but even Lutheran ones. For instance, the conservative Lutheran bodies practice what's known as "close communion" (refusing to commune anyone the pastor does not know and who has not spoken with him before the service), and the more liberal ones open their pulpits to ministers from other denominations/religions and communion to anyone who approaches the altar. There are a number of other differences.

Obviously sola scriptura with no church Tradition/authority alongside it opens the door to dangerous private interpretations of the Scriptures.

In what has been written above I sense something that I'm not quite sure about. I get the impression that WG doesn't see Lutheranism as Protestantism. Is this unique in your thinking or do most other Lutherans see it the same way? I'd be interested in an explanation as how this is rationalized? I'm just curious; I've always thought of Lutheranism as Protestant, in fact the first of Protestantism.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Gee thanks. This is one issue I’ve been addressing for almost 2 years now - along comes Akoue and from one post all of a sudden you seem to be catching on. Says, a lot for me doesn’t it!

Well, he DOES have a way with words.

Heresies seemed to run amuck for the first several hundred years of the Church, a period in which the body of Christ was becoming incorporated under the yoke of martyrs.

Precisely!

In what has been written above I sense something that I’m not quite sure about. I get the impression that WG doesn’t see Lutheranism as Protestantism. Is this unique in your thinking or do most other Lutherans see it the same way? I’d be interested in an explanation as how this is rationalized? I’m just curious; I’ve always thought of Lutheranism as Protestant, in fact the first of Protestantism.

I was only pointing out that even Lutherans cannot agree from one synod to the next, much less from one member to the next. So what does that say about Protestantism and sola scriptura?

[sndbay]

There are Traditions that aren't written in Scripture.

Traditions not written in scripture? Then you have man made tradtions ..

Since Tradition is no less the word of God than is Scripture, upholding and abiding by Tradition isn't adding to or changing it.

(abiding in traditions that are written in scripture are to be held stedfast)

Where is it written that Scripture is the whole of God's revelation to his people? I've already addressed 2Tim.3--the passage Tom cited earlier--and that verse is clearly not saying that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It says that Scripture is profitable. Is that the Scripture you have in mind when you say that Scripture is complete, or do you have another one in mind?

Exartly the scripture which is complete.. scripture is the complete authority.. because God is the authority in all that is written.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 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.

note to profitable:
1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

God called according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given in Christ Jesus before the world began.. (2 Timothy 1:9)

As far as the completeness of Scripture is concerned: If what is meant by this is that we should not alter Scripture, with this I agree. We should not, for instance, remove verses or add words to verses, etc. But I know of no place in Scripture where we are unambiguously told that Scripture is the sole standard and authority. I have, however, pointed to several places in Scripture where we are told that oral Tradition is authoritative.

So if you are saying the traditions that are written in scripture then we agree.

Exactly! Oral Tradition is no less divinely inspired than is Scripture.

We don't need to make up a Bible. We already have one. But 1Thess.2.13, which you just quoted, thanks God that they received the word of God which they heard. Oral teaching transmitted orally. This is Tradition.

If you hold to scripture which oral traditions were then writtenin scripture, and shown to ensample us.. Then we agree , but you are not saying that...

[Wondergirl]

There is your chance to discuss.

Akoue and the others have done a fine job discussing that passage. My concern is with the merits or failings of sola scriptura.

[Tj3]

Akoue and the others have done a fine job discussing that passage.

And failed to deal with the points that I raised. I thought that you said that you were interested in discussing

My concern is with the merits or failings of sola scriptura.

The question is not what the judgments of man are on God's word, but rather whether we are to depend upon on God's word as the standard.

That is the topic of this thread (look at the title).

Now your comments on 2 Tim are?

[Wondergirl]

That is the topic of this thread (look at the title).

Yes, sola scriptura is the topic -- Scripture as the standard. And I have responded.

[Akoue]

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

And this is nothing with which anyone has disagreed: The Scriptures instruct us (in this translation "make us wise") in salvation. Of course they do. But here's what this doesn't say: It doesn't say that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It doesn't say that there is nothing to be learned except from the Scriptures. In particular, it doesn't say that we have no need of the instruction of oral Tradition--which makes sense, since I have listed numerous Scriptures, which you still refuse to discuss, which plainly assert that we are to be instructed by oral Tradition.

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

Again, this is nothing with which anyone here has disagreed. So far as I know, everyone who has participated in the present discussion believes that Scripture is divinely inspired and that it is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. I have explicitly recorded my assent (when I responded to your earlier posting of this text) that doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness thoroughly equip us for good works. I even explicitly addressed the word "complete": These things--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--render us completely equipped for good works; they give us the whole toolkit, all the resources we need in order to do good works. (Is this sounding familiar? It should since I've said it all before, in response to your quoting of this very passage.)

It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.

It says that Scripture is "profitable". Notice what it doesn't say: It doesn't say that Scripture is sufficient. It doesn't, in other words, say that Scripture supplies us with all that is necessary for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It says that it is profitable for these purposes. As indeed it is. No one has disagreed with that. You seem to want to read "profitable" as "sufficient" for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. But that's not what it says.

So while it is true that doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness make us thoroughly equipped for good works (NOTE: for good works, not for salvation), they are all the things we need in order to be completely prepared to do good works, it doesn't say that Scripture is all we need for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. So, as I've shown earlier, you have either misunderstood or misrepresented this passage. It does not provide any justification for the doctrine of sola scriptura.

As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.

I'm not worried about the issue about what "the church" means right now. Let's stay on-topic and reserve discussion of this for another thread.

So there: I have once again addressed your point, demonstrating yet again that you are mistaken to suppose that this passage supports the doctrine of sola scriptura. How about if you return the favor and address the points I have made, beginning at post #28. In particular, please provide Scriptural evidence to support the doctrine of sola scriptura.

[Akoue]

The question is not what the judgments of man are on God's word, but rather whether we are to depend upon on God's word as the standard.

Everyone agrees that God's word is the standard: God's word speaks to us through the medium of Scripture and through the medium of Tradition. Why do you reject all that God's word has to say to us through the medium of Tradition? Since Tradition is no less God's word than is Scripture, why do you reject it, and by doing so reject God's word?

[JoeT777]

I was only pointing out that even Lutherans cannot agree from one synod to the next, much less from one member to the next. So what does that say about Protestantism and sola scriptura?

It had nothing to do with sola scriputra. I just thought I read something of a distinction between Lutherans and Protestants in your previous post. Apparently I wasn’t reading it correctly or was reading too much into the statement: “Protestant divisions but even Lutheran ones”

JoeT