[sndbay]

If you mean eternal life or eternal death, I agree with you.

Agree...

Life or death is the choice.... Life in Christ or Death in satan

Should it be what we follow, or who we follow.. (same choice)

SAME ANSWER when Choice of Life:

What we follow is The Word of God = Christ the flesh of the word
Who we follow is Christ Jesus = Man (begotten son of God) sent to show us the Way

`in Christ

[galveston]

So, do the extra books in any way contradict the ones in my Bible?

If not, we have no argument.

If so, then as far as I am concerned, Scripture trumps Tradition.

[JoeT777]

I keep coming back to the question, if Sola Scriptura is to be the “rule of faith”, or as put here, the “standard of faith”, why are there some 30,000 different faiths, other than Catholic? Don't they all read the same Scripture? Don't they all understand the same passages in the same way? And, even within the same building of the non-Catholic faiths, the only way they continue in the same faith is to teach – what do they teach? How to read? Isn't teaching the passing of traditions?


JoeT

[Tj3]

Well, if it is you've manifestly failed to support that contention. 2Tim.3 didn't do it--although it does use the words "Scripture" and "complete" in rough proximity.

It does do it, but you keep saying complete doesn't mean complete, so we get nowhere.

[Tj3]

It's really difficult to get past reading everything as literal truth, isn't it. I was quoting you, Tom. Please note the quote marks.

And what about the other four traditions, in addition to sola scriptura, that you hold?

WG,

Why is it that you feel that you must mis-represent me, and continue to do so even after you have been correcteed several times?

Is the truth not good enough?

Can we not simply have a respectful discussion where we discuss where we agree and disagree and why without you demanding that I must believe what you tell me that I mus5t believe?

[Tj3]

So, do the extra books in any way contradict the ones in my Bible?

If not, we have no argument.

If so, then as far as I am concerned, Scripture trumps Tradition.

The Apochrypha definitely contradicts the books of the Bible. Indeed, as I have pointed out on here many times, Maccabees even goes so far as to deny inspiration.

[Tj3]

I keep coming back to the question, if Sola Scriptura is to be the “rule of faith”, or as put here, the “standard of faith”, why are there some 30,000 different faiths, other than Catholic?

First, I keep seeing this number and it is never validated. But regardless, I do not think that there are 30,000 Christian faiths. There is a much smaller number because a very large number of the different denominations share a single faith. The reasons for most denominations is not doctrinal.

Second, you in part answered the question that you asked as to why there are some doctrinal differences between denominations. Too often men add their own interpretations rather than allowing the Bible to speak for itself.

[Akoue]

It does do it, but you keep saying complete doesn't mean complete, so we get nowhere.

We get nowhere because it doesn't say that Scripture is complete. It says that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It goes on to say that these four things--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--make one complete and thoroughly equipped for doing good works.

This isn't fancy maneuvering on my part; this is just reading comprehension. The only way to get from this passage the claim that Scripture is complete is just to ignore all the words that occur between the words "Scriptures" and "complete" and say, "See, the words 'Scripture' and 'complete' are used, and so it must be saying that Scripture is complete. Nevermind that the word 'complete' isn't being used of Scripture--just ignore all those other words and hold 'Scriptures' and 'complete' up next to each other". Even though they don't occur next to each other, and even though the word "complete" isn't being used as an adjective of "Scripture", and even though it is telling us that Scripture is profitable for four things, which four things taken together are said to make one complete and equipped for doing good works. You are just patently refusing to read what the words say because you want them to say something different.

Face it, Tom, this passage just manifestly does not say that Scripture is complete. Nor does it in any way support the doctrine of sola scriptura. So either you can concede that the doctrine of sola scriptura, however much you may like it, is not scriptural; or you can point us to some verse or verses that actually do support the doctrine--because 2Tim.3 sure doesn't.

[sndbay]

We get nowhere because it doesn't say that Scripture is complete. It says that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It goes on to say that these four things--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--make one complete and throughly equipped for doing good works.

But it does say that the word was made flesh full of grace and truth.

John 14:1 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And it says to eat the the bread which was the body of Christ

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

AND we are to drink blood of the NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1 Cr 10:3-4 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Should anyone deny Christ Jesus is complete as the Word of God in scripture?

It was shown that Peter did sorrow in denying Christ, the bitterly wept and shame that one can suffer in denying Christ Jesus..

2 Sa 22:31 As for God, His way is perfect; the Word of the LORD is tried: He is a buckler to all them that trust in Him.

[N0help4u]

Scripture is the standard
If you do not use scripture as the standard then how do you back up what you believe??
If you do not use scripture as the standard then it is not Biblically based and very likely opposes God's word
So how do you NOT use scripture as the standard and still claim it is God's word if what you believe is not supported by scripture?

[Akoue]

But it does say that the word was made flesh full of grace and truth.

Right. No one is denying the Incarnation.

And it says to eat the the bread which was the body of Christ

Right again.

AND we are to drink blood of the NEW TESTAMENT

We are to eat of Christ's flesh and drink of his blood, the blood of the New Covenant.

Should anyone deny Christ Jesus is complete as the Word of God in scripture?

I'm not entirely clear what you are saying here, so I'll take a shot and trust that you'll correct me if I've misunderstood what you mean.

Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity. When the Word became flesh it did not reliquish its divinity, so Jesus, the Incarnate Word, was "complete as the Word" (I'm not sure if that's what you meant).

Here's where I'm really not sure what you mean: "in scripture". Scripture (a) does not exhaust all that the Incarnate Word was and is. Nothing ever could. So if what you mean by "complete as the Word in scripture" is something like, "Scripture completely contains all that is or pertains to the Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity, without remainder" then we disagree. Scripture does not contain all that is or pertains to the second Person of the Trinity. You need to be careful not to confuse the Word of God (the second Person of the Trinity) and the word of God (the books of Scripture inspired by the Word of God).

But neither does Scripture (b) exhaust the whole of God's revelation. Scripture does not contain the whole of the word of God (where "the word of God" is understood to be God's revelation, as opposed to "the Word of God" which is the second Person of the Trinity). Scripture itself refers to oral teachings, instructing us to uphold and abide by them. Now, if Scripture intended us to disregard these oral teachings, it wouldn't tell us to adhere to them. Instead of telling us to uphold and abide by oral teaching, it would simply record those teachings itself. Scripture points us to something beyond itself, namely to oral teaching. It wouldn't do this if God wanted us only to look to Scripture. So God's revelation isn't exhausted by the Bible. Not only does the Bible not tell us that all of these oral teachings would be written down and included in the canon of the NT; it explicitly commands us uphold and abide by oral teachings. To be a sola-scripturist is to disobey what Scripture explicitly commands us to do.

[Tj3]

We get nowhere because it doesn't say that Scripture is complete.

And then I ask you where scripture is deficient, and you won't answer.

[Akoue]

And then I ask you where scripture is deficient, and you won't answer.

I see. So first it's: We don't get anywhere because I refuse to admit that the verses you cited use the word "complete". Then, once it's pointed out to you yet again that I have done no such thing, that I have in fact been faithful to what the Scripture says, it becomes: We don't get anywhere because I won't answer your question.

Well, here's what I said one of the many times I've answered this question:

So I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient. It is perfectly suited to be what it is: A standard of truth and an authority in matters of doctrine and discipline, ordained by God to function with and alongside Tradition.

I have never said, nor even intimated, that Scripture is deficient. What I have said is that Scripture is not the whole of God's revelation. And I say this because, as has been shown, Scripture says it. Surely you don't mean to chastise me for taking Scripture at face value on this. Scripture is the perfect complement to Tradition, as Tradition is the perfect complement to Scripture (I've said this before too, in answer to your question). So, you see, Scripture isn't at all deficient. God gave us Scripture, just as he has given us Tradition. And God's designs aren't deficient. I'm sure you will agree.

Now, instead of changing the subject, let's stay on-topic. You can either acknowledge that the doctrine of sola scriptura is an un-Scriptural man-made tradition or you can provide some Scripture that actually does (unlike 2Tim.3) unambiguously affirm the doctrine of sola scriptura. If you do the latter, then we can all read and discuss the Scripture you bring forth. If you do the former, we can then proceed to a discussion--on this or another thread, whatever you prefer--of the revelatory content of Tradition.

But first things first: you have a decision to make. Either admit that sola scriptura is a man-made tradition unsupported by Scripture or show us where Scripture unambiguously affirms the doctrine of sola scriptura.

[Tj3]

I see. So first it's: We don't get anywhere because I refuse to admit that the verses you cited use the word "complete".

When in fact the verse in question DOES use the word complete. Yes, your denial of what scripture says is issue number 1. If you won't admit what it actually says, how can we discuss it?

I have never said, nor even intimated, that Scripture is deficient.

Second problem - if something is not complete - it is missing something and therefore deficient or not complete.

Then after saying that you never said that it was deficient, your next sentence is:

What I have said is that Scripture is not the whole of God's revelation.

Maybe you don't know what deficient means:

de⋅fi⋅cient

–adjective
1. lacking some element or characteristic; defective: deficient in taste.
2. insufficient; inadequate: deficient knowledge.
(Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.)

But when asked what is deficient about scripture, you won't tell us what it is missing that would make it complete, i.e. what teaching, what doctrine, what part of the gospel do you feel that it is missing.

So we go around in circles.

[Akoue]

When in fact the verse in question DOES use the word complete. Yes, your denial of what scripture says is issue number 1. If you won't admit what it actually says, how can we discuss it?

I have at no time denied or ignored the fact that it uses the word "complete". I have discussed these verses several times now, and each time I have addressed this fact. Here's what I said in my most recent post about the use of the word "complete":

It says that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It goes on to say that these four things--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--make one complete and thoroughly equipped for doing good works.

This isn't fancy maneuvering on my part; this is just reading comprehension. The only way to get from this passage the claim that Scripture is complete is just to ignore all the words that occur between the words "Scriptures" and "complete" and say, "See, the words 'Scripture' and 'complete' are used, and so it must be saying that Scripture is complete. Nevermind that the word 'complete' isn't being used of Scripture--just ignore all those other words and hold 'Scriptures' and 'complete' up next to each other". Even though they don't occur next to each other, and even though the word "complete" isn't being used as an adjective of "Scripture", and even though it is telling us that Scripture is profitable for four things, which four things taken together are said to make one complete and equipped for doing good works.

It is, in fact, you who refuse to admit what it actually says. Once again: It says that Scripture is inspired by God and makes one wise for salvation. It then says that Scripture is profitable for four things: doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Then it tells us that these four things (doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in reighteousness)--for which Scripture is profitable--make one complete and equipped for performing good works. So I have omitted nothing. Neither have I in any way distorted or misrepresented what Scripture says. You have. And you have been shown your error. Repeatedly. Scripture means what it says, and it says that Scripture is inspired by God, makes one wise for salvation, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, and that these four things make one complete and fulyl equipped for performing good works.

Second problem - if something is not complete - it is missing something and therefore deficient or not complete.

Then after saying that you never said that it was deficient, your next sentence is:



Maybe you don't know what deficient means:

de?fi?cient

–adjective
1. lacking some element or characteristic; defective: deficient in taste.
2. insufficient; inadequate: deficient knowledge.
(Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.)

As the definition you provide illustrates, the word "deficient" often connotes something's being defective in some way. It is a loaded word. To tell someone that, say, their inability to do analysis renders them deficient would be taken by many people as an insult.

There are things, purposes, to which Scripture is not adequate. It doesn't make for a good calculus textbook, for instance. It doesn't teach us anything about German Expressionism. But it would just be odd to say that, on that account, the Bible is somehow deficient. This for the reason that it was never intended to serve as a calculus textbook nor to teach us about German Expressionism.

It is my view that Scripture is perfectly suited to its purposes, namely to work in concert with Tradition as an authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It is perfectly suited to the purposes for which God ordained it, and so it would, I believe, be disrespectful to say that it is deficient simply because it doesn't contain the whole of God's revelation to his people. It would make about as much sense as saying that the Bible is deficient because it cannot be used as a calculus textbook.

So, I'm going to reserve the right to choose my own words going forward.

Now, I have said that Scripture is not the whole of God's revelation. I have said this because Scripture says it, instructing us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. So maybe you need to give some thought to why you find Scripture deficient, since you clearly think that it erred when it gave this instruction.

But, in any event, this is all really beside the present point. You have either to provide Scriptural justification for the doctrine of sola scriptura or acknowledge that it is an un-Scriptural man-made tradition.

But when asked what is deficient about scripture, you won't tell us what it is missing that would make it complete, i.e. what teaching, what doctrine, what part of the gospel do you feel that it is missing.

I've addressed this silly notion about deficiency, so now I'll just reiterate something I said a short time ago: Once you acknowlegde that sola scriptura is an un-Scriptural man-made tradition I will be more than happy for us to turn our attention to that portion of God's revelation that isn't contained within the pages of Scripture. I've already indicated one such issue which is of paramount importance, but it would be folly to wade into that subject until such time as you acknowledge your error and indicate that you are indeed prepared to open yourself to the whole of God's revelation. There's lots to discuss, but doing so requires you first to admit your error.

So we go around in circles.

We go around in circles because you have demonstrated your unwillingness to read 2Tim.3 honestly. You have similarly refused to provide any Scriptural justification for the doctrine of sola scriptura.

So, here we are again: Either provide evidence that Scripture unambiguously affirms the doctrine of sola scriptura or recant and acknowledge that this doctrine is not Scriptural at all.

[Tj3]

I have at no time denied or ignored the fact that it uses the word "complete".

See why we get nowhere? In your last post you said:

"I refuse to admit that the verses you cited use the word "complete"."

In this post you said:

"I have at no time denied or ignored the fact that it uses the word "complete"."

I think that documents nicely where we go around in circles. I could spend hours refuting your long posts, but why when you simply say one thing in one psot and the opposite thing in the next.

When we can get you to unambiguously come to a position that you can hold for more than one post at a time, perhaps we can move on to the second step.

[Akoue]

See why we get nowhere? In your last post you said:

"I refuse to admit that the verses you cited use the word "complete"."

That's some interesting, creative, editing you've done. Here's the bit you quote in context:

I see. So first it's: We don't get anywhere because I refuse to admit that the verses you cited use the word "complete". Then, once it's pointed out to you yet again that I have done no such thing, that I have in fact been faithful to what the Scripture says, it becomes: We don't get anywhere because I won't answer your question.

I honestly don't know whether this is just sheer mendacity on your part or poor reading skills. Clearly, the bit that you quoted was part of my attempt to point out your shifting charges against me. First you accused me of refusing to admit the use of the word "complete", and then, once you're shown that that won't fly, you move on to another accusation.

In this post you said:

"I have at no time denied or ignored the fact that it uses the word "complete"."

I think that documents nicely where we go around in circles. I could spend hours refuting your long posts, but why when you simply say one thing in one psot and the opposite thing in the next.

Yes, in fact, it does document nicely why we go around in circles. You are either an unbelievably poor reader or you are appallingly dishonest. Have your pick.

Of course, either way it's just a ploy so that you can avoid the dilemma with which you are confronted: Either provide unambiguous Scriptural evidence for the doctrine of
sola scriptura or acknowledge that sola scriptura is an un-Scriptural man-made tradition.

[Tj3]

Akoue,

It is not creative editing - I am trying to understand your position. Without a lengthy post just answer the question YES or No.

Do you accept that the verse uses the word "complete".

Let's start with small points first and then build on that if we can get past this one point.

BTW, your demeaning personal comments are not helping your credibility. Kindly dispense with them. You always seem to resort to that tactic when other tactics to obfuscate things fail.

[Alty]

BTW, your demeaning personal comments are not helping your credibility. Kindly dispense with them. You always seem to resort to that tactic when other tactics to obfuscate things fail.

Tom, I'm watching. Don't start with this bull or I will ask that the thread be closed.

You will not get away with this any longer, I'll personally see to it.

Carry on respectfully or I will do what I have to.

Thank you.

[Tj3]

Tom, I'm watching. Don't start with this bull or I will ask that the thread be closed.

You will not get away with this any longer, I'll personally see to it.

Carry on respectfully or I will do what I have to.

Thank you.

Alty, don't threaten - that is not appropriate for posting in a thread. If you are going to try to get it closed because others which to actually discuss the topic, then go ahead, do what you want. I really don't don't care.

If you decide to actually add value, you are always welcome, but disruptive comments are not.