I’ve posted mine as well.
But for the record, agree on all three.
FWIW, why don’t you post it here again instead of cross linking to another thread?
Ok, below is the post with some notes below it. This is in the context of whether 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves sola scriptura, that started with MarkBsnr.
Certainly if this conclusion (proven false) is not the definition one is using for sola scriptura, then the point is moot. But this is not what I've seen from posters on here.
NO ONE said that the Bible is "all that there is" nor that it "contains all truth" or that "nothing is needed but the Bible".
Though it's only somewhat based on my point, I still would not make even that statement on here and be certain no one agrees with some or part of it. Let's see.
How about it, Sola Scriptura proponets? Would you agree or disagree with all or part of these statements:
The Bible is all that there is; The Bible contains all truth; Nothing is needed but the Bible.Clearer still:
Would you agree or disagree that:
1) Scripture alone, by itself, with nothing else, is entirely sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.Who here agrees/disagrees with 1? 2? 3?
and,
2) This is what sola scriptura means.
and,
3)This is proven true by 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
3,420 posted on Tue Nov 22 14:31:55 2011 by D-fendr
For context, this post is a reply to Boatbums, 3327 and my more complete argument contra this verse as proof text for sola scriptura is here.