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.
the undeniable fact is that without the Catholic Sacred Tradition, we would have no way of knowing which books are scripture and which are not.
when the Church set the canon ( and yes folks, the Church did set the 27 book NT canon ), one of the criteria used was “did the book teach anything contrary to the sacred apostolic tradition the Church received”
if the answer was yes, the book was REJECTED.
put another way, since there is not an inspired table of contents for the Bible, “sola scriptura” can’t be the basis for the canon of Scripture, therefore the “sola” is done away with concerning the Bible itself.