[Akoue]

No denomination is infallible.

And, of course, we know that you are not infallible. You have given evidence of this with your quite dramatic failure to justify:

1. Your assumption that Scripture alone is the sole standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. You haven't been able to provide a single Scriptural source that clearly supports this doctrine, nor have you taken any account of the several passages already on offer on this thread which clearly demonstrate the authoritativeness of Tradition.

2. Your use of one canon of Scripture in preference to others. This gives the appearasnce that you do not take seriously the importance of using the correct canon of Scripture. So while you have chastised others for appealing to texts which, though part of their canon, are not part of yours, you have provided absolutely no justification for the canon of Scripture to which you appeal.

3. Your tendentious readings of 2Tim.3 and Paul's episode with the Bereans, the latter of which clearly demonstrates that they received oral instruction from him and the former of which manifestly does not make any claim about Scripture beyond affirming its usefulness in matters of doctrine and discipline. In particular, it does not validate your assumption that Scripture alone is the sole standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. Just as I would correct a child who, when asked the sum of two and two, returned the answer "five", so I have explained in a clear and precise way your error regarding these two Scriptural passages to which you have referred a number of times. Rather than persisting in a demonstrably mistaken reading of Scripture, you should take it as an opportunity to learn and either provide Scriptural evidence for the doctrine of sola scriptura or abandon that doctrine on the grounds that it has been shown to be erroneous. To persist in a faulty reading of Scripture for the sole reason that it allows you to maintain your own preconceptions is at once intellectually dishonest and a misuse of Scripture, a personal or private interpretation.

4. Your use of any NT texts, since the references to Scripture in the NT are to the OT, typically to the Septuagint which contained books that you yourself do not regard as canonical.

5. Your use of a canon of Scripture that was handed down by the very Council which you have elsewhere chastised for founding the Catholic Church. You are using a canon derived from Tradition while at the same time denying the authoritativeness of Tradition.

6. Your discredited assertion that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century, a claim you were recently unable to vindicate on a thread devoted to that very topic. This makes it appear as though your insistence upon inserting it into numerous threads is a purely propagandist gambit. If you are interested in the truth, as you claim to be, then you must either vindicate this historical claim or, should you be unable to do so, abandon it as a falsehood of which you have been disabused.

You have repeatedly stated that no denomination is infallible. You have also, on numerous occasions, stated that no person is infallible. It follows from the second of these that you are yourself not infallible. It follows from this that you err in your understanding of Scripture. We have, on this thread, clearly shown that you have erred in your adherence to the doctrine of sola scriptura. It remains for you to amend your beliefs, to bring them in line with the truth. Only you can do this. It is never easy for any of us to do, but it is required when our beliefs are revealed to be false.

[Akoue]

In scripture.

Where in Scripture are we told that the whole of Tradition is written down in Scripture? I am justifiably curious, since I have already provided numerous references to Scriptures where the authority of oral Tradition is affirmed.

[sndbay]

Where in Scripture are we told that the whole of Tradition is written down in Scripture? I am justifiably curious, since I have already provided numerous references to Scriptures where the authority of oral Tradition is affirmed.

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Anything other then what they ensampled for us!

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.

Because "The Word"made them ensample unto us: and their traditions.( 2 Thess 3:9)

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

**************************************

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

**************************************
Authority of scripture "The Word" = Christ told you

Act 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Act 16:15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. (1 Thess 5:21)


1 Corinthians 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12: 6-7 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
1 Corinthains 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

1 Corinthian 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1 Corinthian 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1 Corinthian 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

ONLY SOME: in the church
1 Corinthian 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

[sndbay]

Which is why scripture says that we are not to interpret it.

WE that have our hearts open by God can be gifted by the selfsame Spirit and able to interpret what God has revealed to us...

Corinthains 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

[Akoue]

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Right, this clearly and unambiguously affirms the authority of Tradition and instructs us to uphold it. I believe I mentioned this one in an earlier post. It is this verse, and the many others like it, that give the lie to the claim that Scripture alone is the sole standard of truth and authority in matters of doctrine and discipline.

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.

Yes, those who reject the authority of Tradition and fail to adhere to it are to be excommunicated.

Because "The Word"made them ensample unto us: and their traditions.( 2 Thess 3:9)

Again, we are to have nothing to do with those who reject Tradition.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Right, nobody disputes the authority of Scripture. Everybody is agreed that Paul's Epistles are authoritative in matters of doctrine and discipline. That's just one of the reasons I find it odd that so many wish to denegrate Tradition and refuse to acknowledge its importance. As the references you have provided show, Scripture itself affirms that Tradition is authoritative in matters of doctrine and discipline.

**************************************

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

**************************************
Authority of scripture "The Word" = Christ told you

Act 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Act 16:15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. (1 Thess 5:21)

Acts 16.14 affirms the importance of oral Tradition. I'm not sure I see the relevance of the other passages to the topic under discussion. I think everyone agrees that we are to be faithful to the Lord. For some reason, which has yet to be justified, many people take the view that one can be faithful to the Lord while rejecting what he has revealed to us by way of Tradition.

1 Corinthians 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12: 6-7 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
1 Corinthains 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

1 Corinthian 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1 Corinthian 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1 Corinthian 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

ONLY SOME: in the church
1 Corinthian 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The Church is the body of Christ, and we are members of that body. There is an ecclesiastical hierarchy, with apostles first and then others. This is an interesting bit of Scripture, and one that it would be pleasant to discuss sometime, but I don't see its relevance to the present topic. If the fault is mine, as it may well be, perhaps you could say a bit more about how you take it to bear on the matters we are presently discussing.

[Tj3]

Evaluating Tradition and Scripture as if they were two independent variables in an algorithm is simply gobbledygook.

If by tradition, you mean your denominational tradition, they are indeed two very different things.

Was Paul the first Pope? Wouldn’t holding this, in a Bible-only view, be revisionist?

Yes, just as holding to the view that Peter was the first pope.

P.S. P.S. would you like to discuss your on-line paper regarding Peter or Paul?

Sure, but that is a topic for a different thread.

[Akoue]

If by tradition, you mean your denominational tradition, they are indeed two very different things.



Yes, just as holding to the view that Peter was the first pope.



Sure, but that is a topic for a different thread.

Quite right, Tom. Let's not change the subject.

How about, then, if you either vindicate your assertion that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline or concede that your assertion was in error and is, in fact, false.

[JoeT777]

WE that have our hearts open by God can be gifted by the selfsame Spirit and able to interpret what God has revealed to us...

Corinthains 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

How do you perform the function of 'reading' without rationally interpreting what was read?

The initial statement, “scripture says that we are not to interpret it” is meaningless. If you read and can't interpret what good does it do, you're not instructed, and you can't learn.

JoeT

[sndbay]

Right, this clearly and unambiguously affirms the authority of Tradition and instructs us to uphold it. I believe I mentioned this one in an earlier post. It is this verse, and the many others like it, that give the lie to the claim that Scripture alone is the sole standard of truth and authority in matters of doctrine and discipline.

Perhaps you did not read the scripture It said hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Let's get this discussion of tradition in the time peroid of which it was meant. By Word being the flesh that walked this earth did testimony for all that is written. And 2 Thessalonians 3:6 says traditions received by us.(our epistel)

Many traditions being enforced and in focus today are like those of the Pharisees. Jesus decribed them as = like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. Jesus warned us concerning man's making void The Word of God. We are told to purge from the old leaven which again was how the Pharisees forced their authority, and justified themselves over the people. Faith does not stand in the wisdom of man but rather in the power of God. Man today have pushed away the law of God as if they can walk their own way, and believe they walk in the light. (Roman 3:31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.)

We are not enriched by man but rather we are enrich by knowledge in Christ(1 Cr 1:4-7)

Acts 16.14 affirms the importance of oral Tradition.

There was one tradition shown in love of Christ, and how God reveals and opens the heart. How the epistel written and spoken by Paul, confirmed his instruction to follow him by what is written in (1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.)

The Church is the body of Christ, and we are members of that body. There is an ecclesiastical hierarchy, with apostles first and then others. This is an interesting bit of Scripture, and one that it would be pleasant to discuss sometime, but I don't see its relevance to the present topic. If the fault is mine, as it may well be, perhaps you could say a bit more about how you take it to bear on the matters we are presently discussing.

Read again

1 Corinthian 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1 Corinthian 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1 Corinthian 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

The church is a building where the fellowship of members dwell... The body is where Christ dwells... whether it be within one member or all members there remains ONE BODY

[sndbay]

How do you perform the function of ‘reading’ without rationally interpreting what was read?

The initial statement, “scripture says that we are not to interpret it” is meaningless. If you read and can’t interpret what good does it do, you’re not instructed, and you can’t learn.

JoeT

Joe

Many can not pick up a bible to say, I can understand what is written.

And many have never read the bible because they believe they can not understand it.

It is a blindness which only God reveal differently.

And within what is written holds milk for the babes,and strong meat for those that can go beyond the principle doctrine of Christ Jesus to discern good and evil

[JoeT777]

Joe

Many can not pick up a bible to say, I can understand what is written.

And many have never read the bible because they believe they can not understand it.

It is a blindness which only God reveal differently.

And within what is written holds milk for the babes,and strong meat for those that can go beyond the principle doctrine of Christ Jesus to discern good and evil

What's being said here is that "if you don't see things my way you're not favored by God like I am". Wouldn’t you agree that it’s condescending if I made the same argument that since you’re not Catholic you don’t know how to read the Bible? Your statement was, as it were, designed to safely put me in my place – well I still don’t agree with you.

[sndbay]

What's being said here is that "if you don't see things my way you're not favored by God like I am". Wouldn't you agree that it's condescending if I made the same argument that since you're not Catholic you don't know how to read the Bible? Your statement was, as it were, designed to safely put me in my place – well I still don't agree with you.

No, actually I was in agreement with your statement quoted below. Yet I was also saying the fact still remains whether some can read...they do not necessarily say they understand it. agree?

There are many levels of discerning and interpration... All depends on God's will to reveal

How do you perform the function of 'reading' without rationally interpreting what was read?
The initial statement, “scripture says that we are not to interpret it” is meaningless. If you read and can't interpret what good does it do, you're not instructed, and you can't learn.

[sndbay]

Wouldn't you agree that it's condescending if I made the same argument that since you're not Catholic you don't know how to read the Bible?

Joe,

My communication in what I say is not against anyone... It remains my goal to edify the faith of Christ Jesus. In HIS way... HIS POWER... HIS LOVE... HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS of TRUTH

[Akoue]

Perhaps you did not read the scripture It said hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Let's get this discussion of tradition in the time peroid of which it was meant. By Word being the flesh that walked this earth did testimony for all that is written. And 2 Thessalonians 3:6 says traditions received by us.(our epistel)

2Thess.3.15 says that we are to abide by and uphold the traditions have received either by word of mouth or by means of the epistle that Paul had written (i.e. 2Thess.). The Greek for "by word" is "dia logou" (by word) not "dia tou logou" (by the word). In other words, it is not referring to the incarnate Word, viz. Jesus Christ. The reference to word and epistle is a reference to the means of transmission. You do realize, don't you, that not every use of the word "word" in the NT is a reference to Christ?

Many traditions being enforced and in focus today are like those of the Pharisees. Jesus described them as = like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. Jesus warned us concerning man's making void The Word of God. We are told to purge from the old leaven which again was how the Pharisees forced their authority, and justified themselves over the people. Faith does not stand in the wisdom of man but rather in the power of God. Man today have pushed away the law of God as if they can walk their own way, and believe they walk in the light. (Roman 3:31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.)

This is all well and good, but nothing you say here shows that Scripture alone is the sole standard and authority in matters of doctrine and discipline. It would be a grave mistake to suppose that any appeal to Tradition is Pharasaic, just as it would be a grave mistake to suppose that any appeal to the Pentateuch is Pharasaic.

There was one tradition shown in love of Christ, and how God reveals and opens the heart. How the epistel written and spoken by Paul, confirmed his instruction to follow him by what is written in (1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.)

I agree that there is one Tradition. I can't see in anything you've said why you would choose to reject it. I also agree that Paul's Epistle(s) contain instructions. Among those instructions is the one that tells us to abide by and uphold oral Traditions received from Christ and the Apostles. If it was important enough for Christ and the Apostles to teach it to others, why isn't it important enough for some to abide by and uphold? I would be very leary about being dismissive of any of God's revelation, whether it be transmitted orally or in writing. Christ didn't write anything that we know of; he seemed to be satisfied with oral teaching.

Read again

1 Corinthian 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1 Corinthian 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1 Corinthian 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

The church is a building where the fellowship of members dwell... The body is where Christ dwells... whether it be within one member or all members there remains ONE BODY

I've read it again and I still don't see the relevance to the present topic. As an aside: The church is the body of Christ; it isn't merely a building in which people gather. But we can discuss this at length another time, if you like.

[JoeT777]

No, actually I was in agreement with your statement quoted below. Yet I was also saying the fact still remains whether some can read...they do not necessarily say they understand it. agree?

And that I can agree with.

[sndbay]

2Thess.3.15 says that we are to abide by and uphold the traditions have received either by word of mouth or by means of the epistle that Paul had written (i.e., 2Thess.).

2 Thess 3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. KJV

The Greek for "by word" is "dia logou" (by word) not "dia tou logou" (by the word). In other words, it is not referring to the incarnate Word, viz. Jesus Christ. The reference to word and epistle is a reference to the means of transmission. You do realize, don't you, that not every use of the word "word" in the NT is a reference to Christ?

"The Word"

Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

2 Sa 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

1 Kings 17:24 And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth.

Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

Matthew 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.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Act 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

1 Cr 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

Revel 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

This is all well and good, but nothing you say here shows that Scripture alone is the sole standard and authority in matters of doctrine and discipline. It would be a grave mistake to suppose that any appeal to Tradition is Pharasaic, just as it would be a grave mistake to suppose that any appeal to the Pentateuch is Pharasaic.

By every word written in scripture saying that God is the authority and the highest of standard far above all else.


Eph 6:10-11 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.



And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God


Who would trade "The Word of God" in scripture, for traditions of man that are not already spoken of in scripture?

[Tj3]

Quite right, Tom. Let's not change the subject.

How about, then, if you either vindicate your assertion that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline or concede that your assertion was in error and is, in fact, false.

I have given one passage, but so far all you and your friends have done is to say that it doesn't say what it says, and to try to push your denomination.

Unless you are prepared to have a serious discussion, why should I waste my time posting more passages, only to have you deny, deny, deny.

[JoeT777]

I have given one passage, but so far all you and your friends have done is to say that it doesn't say what it says, and to try to push your denomination.

Right reasoned responses have been given for the one verse offered. That response found irregularity and error your ideas.

Unless you are prepared to have a serious discussion, why should I waste my time posting more passages, only to have you deny, deny, deny.

“It must be said absolutely that reason can in no way be contrary to the authority of this Scripture, nay, all right reason is in accord with it" (Henry of Ghent, "Summa Theologica", X, iii, n.4). Right reasoning is to move the intellect to Truth which we know to be a term convertible to God; “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ Summa Prima Q, 15 a5” Consequently we can conclude that to move to virtue is to seek an absolute infallible truth in nature as well as Divine law. Accordingly, does the proposition considered here move us towards God's incontrovertible Truth?

The phrase “Standard of Truth” implies that an authority, a concord, or some harmonious agreement, is used to judge what should be the basis of God's Truth. The tenets of Roman Catholic Church hold that She alone is authority to teach infallibly. Both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the rule of faith to be infallible. Consequently, this makes Apostolic tradition usually in the form of papal and councils decrees to be the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.

Conversely, the Standard of Truth that relies on consensus can never teach infallibly. The very nature of obtaining a consensus requires compromise. Thus the consensus becomes the arbiter of absolute Truth and the interpretation Scripture. Operating within such a Standard how do we discern that which is absolute and infallible truth and that which isn't? How then do we become one in our faith like Christ is with the Father? (Cf. John 17:11). The Standard of Truth proposed in this proposition contends that the consensus should be based Scriptures alone, Sola Scriptura. That each would define the cosmic meaning of God's revelation for himself. Each would look inwardly to define God's external creation. Hence God becomes defined by capricious will of man. This Sola Scriptura way of reasoning confines God to the will of man instead of man moving toward the absolute Truth of God.

Concluding we can hold 'standard of Truth' as intended here as free thought, thought unconstrained by Truth. Subsequently, “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES. (sic)” Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalismo es Pecado

JoeT

[Tj3]

Right reasoned responses have been given for the one verse offered. That response found irregularly and error your ideas.

So far all I have seen is a claim that it does not say what it says and that your denomination must be believed no matter what.

Hardly a compelling argument. Until you can deal with that verse, it is not worth the effort to put up any additional references.

I note that the rest of your response still failed to address the points raised.

[Akoue]

I have given one passage, but so far all you and your friends have done is to say that it doesn't say what it says, and to try to push your denomination.

No, in fact, I haven't "pushed" any denomination. I explicitly stated that we can leave those issues to one side (see post #28).

As for my disagreement with your reading of 2Thess.2.16, here's what you quoted:

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

Now you have claimed that this shows that Scripture is "complete" (I put this in quotes because it isn't at all obvious what it would mean to say that Scripture is "complete", this for the reason that "complete" isn't the same thing as "sufficient"--but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being). This says that Scripture is profitable, not that it is complete. It goes on to tell us that Scripture is profitable for the following things: doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. This is something no one here has denied: We all believe Scripture to be profitable for these things, which is surely one of the reasons we spend so much time discussing it. These things for which Scripture is profitable--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--equip us for good works, since we need them in order to perform good works; these are the complete set of things required in order to perform genuinely good works, and Scripture is helpful in providing us with them. Again, this is not something with which anyone here disagrees.

Where we do disagree is over your claim that this verse says that Scripture is complete, i.e. the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. I hate to say it, but this is starting to look like a reading comprehension problem, since I can see no way that this verse can be portrayed as making that assertion. I have now explained, yet again, that it is in fact you who persistently "say that it doesn't say what it says". Notice that I have used no interpretive apparatus, nor have I twisted or in any way manipulated the grammar or meanings of words. I have taken it at face-value. The word "complete" does not modify the word "Scripture"; the word "profitable" does, however, modify the word "Scripture". I can see no honest way for you to claim that it asserts that Scripture is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline when it clearly states only that Scripture is profitable in such matters, matters which themselves completely equip us for the doing of good works. In other words, then, I am reading it in precisely the way sola-scripturists state that Scripture ought to be read.

Unless you are prepared to have a serious discussion, why should I waste my time posting more passages, only to have you deny, deny, deny.

I'm afraid it is you who are in denial. And as for serious discussion: Beginning at post #28, I have provided Scriptural, historical, and theological grounds for the claims (a) that the doctrine of sola scriptura is false and (b) that Tradition is, along with Scripture, authoritative in matters of doctrine and discipline. You have steadfastly refused to address the arguments I have provided, and this leads some of us to believe that it is because you lack the wherewithal to defeat those arguments. Instead you have become increasingly truculent. Now whether one agrees or disagrees with what I have said, I don't think I can fairly be accused of being unserious. So what is the real problem that you have? Is it that you find yourself unable to defend a view that you have come to see as indefensible? I can only invite you to defend your view; I can't force you to do so. Or would you like me to defend it for you?

Again, in the interests of clarity, here is what you would have to do in order to vindicate the doctrine of sola scriptura: You would have to show that the passages I cited in post #28 do not, in fact, affirm the authoritativeness of Tradition. You would have to provide Scriptural evidence that unambiguously asserts that Scripture is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. Finally, in order to vindicate your appeal to the Scriptures to which you refer, you would need to provide Scriptural justification for the canon of Scripture you use, this for the reason that sola-scripturist principles prohibit you from using a canon that you have received from Tradition. These constitute the bare minimum, that is to say, they are together the minimal requirement in order to put the doctrine of sola scriptura on anything resembling a firm footing. In the absence of any one of these, this doctrine is nothing more than an un-Biblical and unwarranted assumption, and adherence to it a matter more of personal taste than of anything like principle.