Sola Scriptura

The John Ankerberg Show ^ | Feb.11,2015 | James McCarthy;

[RnMomof7]

Sola Scriptura

Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.

Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offen­sive. A typical argument sounds something like this:

The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, because the first Christians didn’t have the New Testament. Initially, Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles, was the Church’s rule of faith. The New Testament came later when a portion of Tradition was put to writing. It was the Roman Catholic Church that produced the New Testament, and it was the Church that infallibly told us what books belong in the Bible. It is the Church, therefore, that is the authoritative teacher of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible. The rule of faith of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, is rightly Scripture and Tradition together.

Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:

Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.

The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.

To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then begin­ning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).

The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscov­ered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.

Scripture is not simply written Tradition.

Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scrip­ture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.

But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)

Here we see that Scripture is not “the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated “interpretation” means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have “its origin in the will of man” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

The word translated here “carried along” is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for heal­ing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; “men spoke” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.

For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:

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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

The phrase “inspired by God” is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: “All Scripture is God-breathed. . . “(2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.

In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.

The Bible contains all essential revelation.

It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. John 21:25

John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31

We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institu­tion such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.

The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.

To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.

There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:

Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the suffi­ciency or authority of the Word of God.

The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?

In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” they demand.

Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.

The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradi­tion is also the Word of God.

The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradi­tion and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.

Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).

Notes

1. Compare: Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 19.
2. Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids, MIchigan: Zondervan, 1993), p. 22.
3. Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 21 and no. 24.

[CynicalBear]

>>I’m honestly not trying to be difficult<<

Sure you are. You refuse to take scripture as an answer to your question. I doesn't matter what I think. It's what scripture says and that is what I have been posting.

>>Hint: if one say things, one also “owns” everything which can be logically deduced from them... whether that’s socially/rhetorically convenient, or not.<<

You can do all your "logically deducing" all you want with scripture. I'll "own" everything scripture says. If scripture isn't good enough for you then I suppose you can base your beliefs on anything you want.

>>A single-word comment would take care of it; it wouldn’t take long.<<

I've already allowed scripture to speak for me and will continue.

Now, you can continue to ask those "did God really say" questions and I will continue to answer as Jesus did it is written

[CynicalBear]

Well put!! Thank you!

[CynicalBear]

>>Who ELSE could have given her such a gift (as that of sinlessness), but God?<<

You haven't yet proven she was even given it. The subject of who gave is immaterial.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
Are you forgetting Adam and Eve?

[CynicalBear]
Seriously? We have to even mention that as if no one realizes the difference?

Part of what people find challenging about logic is the fact that even the most frustratingly minute details often need to be made explicit (they're called "suppressesd premises" or "suppressed minors"--unspoken premises on which the conclusion depends), especially in cases where opponents in a debate approach a topic with very different starting assumptions and different definitions of terms.

In other words: yes, we have to mention them... and if you have a difference in mind which is germane to the point at hand which you'd like me to consider, you'll need to make it clear. I apologize if it's frustrating; that's not my intent. I'm after truth and clarity, even if we have to swim through complications to get there. (It's a consequence of living in a fallen world.)

[paladinan]
If the Bible doesn't mention [x], then that says nothing about the truth or falsity of [x], whatsoever! Now, if the Bible were to say, explicitly, that Mary DID sin, THEN you'd have a rock-solid case. But that's nowhere to be found in Scripture.

[CynicalBear]
Well, make up your own religion then. Mormons did it, Muslims did it,

Now, you're just getting flippant.

and Catholics did it.

Prove it. From Scripture alone, using reasoning which doesn't violate sound logic.

Scripture says that all are subject to sin. Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Regarding the fact that the Blessed Virgin had to struggle through a fallen world with its limitations, surrounded by fallen people who caused her great agony (cf. Luke 2:35, etc.), yes... she was "subject to sin"; sin certainly made her suffer, beyond what we can understand, though she was not responsible for it. Regarding the idea that Mary was somehow "inflicted with personal sin on her soul" in conformity with Galatians 3:22, my response is the same as to Romans 3:10.

The Greek word translated "concluded" there means "made subject to". It says "all". And yes that would include Christ since He took on Himself the sins of us all. Now, if Mary never sinned who's sins did she take on herself and have to die for?

See above. And Mary did not take on anyone's sins; that was the province of Jesus, alone.

[CynicalBear]

And you still haven’t shown from scripture that Mary was sinless.

[paladinan]

Er... FRiend... I’m more than willing to have a calm discussion with you. But if you’re going to get irritable and throw about brusque comments, then maybe it’d be best if we don’t continue with each other.

Your call.

[CynicalBear]

I’m quite calm and totally rational. I’ll discuss what it says in scripture all day long. If you want to discuss what the Catholic Church has added your on your own but expect to be countered with scripture if it isn’t contained in scripture or contradicts scripture.

[Springfield Reformer]

paladinan, if I may, this is a rather ordinary level of energy for this contact sport we call the FR Religion Forum. If you encounter reluctance to commit to your formulation, it might really be the case that some of us, as a matter of conscience, are simply not willing to go further in our own minds that what Scripture says on the matter. To us it might become a sin of presumption to go further than to cite those texts which make it clear that in some manner one must have faith in Jesus to be saved. Does God work that out in unexpected ways in some special cases? That’s between Him and those persons. Our job is to proclaim the Gospel as it has been given to us, with a vigor that matches our belief that eternal souls hang in the balance. The rest is unprofitable speculation.

Peace,

SR

[paladinan]

I’m quite calm and totally rational. I’ll discuss what it says in scripture all day long. If you want to discuss what the Catholic Church has added your on your own but expect to be countered with scripture if it isn’t contained in scripture or contradicts scripture.

I wasn't referring to your citations of Scripture; you're free to do so as often as you like, and I'll read them all, and I won't be bothered in the least (though time limitations may delay my reply, if the quotes are long or numerous). I was referring to your more flippant comments. Let me illustrate, with a hypothetical example.

[DISCLAIMER: This is used for illustration purposes only; no real offense, animus, or other negative attitude is meant to be implied in any way.]

"Well, then, CynicalBear, make up your own heresy, then. Arius did it, Pelagius did it, and your particular group of Evangelicals did it."

In addition, look at this one:

[paladinan]
I’m honestly not trying to be difficult

[CynicalBear]
Sure you are.

That's what the RM calls "mind-reading", I think. You have no call, whatsoever, to say that I'm "trying to be difficult" when I flatly said that I wasn't, and that I was simply trying to get at the truth.

I'm not the type to ring the bell for the RM at every turn... but I can't help notice that your post to me is PRECISELY the type of post which, if I wrote it to you (or one of your confreres), you'd be "pinging" the RM in a heartbeat. Try reading your past comment again; they address me (the messenger) rather than the message, and they dismiss me as one who would be someone whom you'd invite to "create a false religion"; they're not logical at all.

Sorry, FRiend... you did bad, here... and your citations of Scripture are not the issue.

[Springfield Reformer]

As for your distinctions on sins:

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
(1 John 5:16-17)

Strictly speaking, "pros thanaton" is "unto death," not "mortal," which more expresses the class of things that die.  "Mortal" sin is not "sin that dies," so it is an awkward construction, though to be fair we understand what you mean. Probably.

More properly, there are some sins that lead to death.  Some that don't.  Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit.  They died.  Is that what he means?  Maybe.  The Pharisees accused Jesus of working miracles by the power of Satan.  This blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin designated as unforgivable, indicating irreversible spiritual death.  Murder can be forgiven, though it results, in just societies, in punishment by physical death.  Jesus teaches that unjustified anger is the moral equivalent of murder.  Do we pray for people  who have had unjustified anger? Or committed a serious offense?  If so, we are confessing we do not believe those are "sins unto death" as John categorizes them, because those acts which are truly "sins unto death" do not warrant prayer.  The person who has committed them is beyond anything we can do for them by prayer.  

That is an amazing statement.  It suggests either that the punishment of physical death was so swift and certain that prayer to stop it was not appropriate.  I can see that in the case of physical murder, or perhaps the situation of Ananias and Sapphira.  But then it is not spiritual death per se that is in view.  But if it is referring to spiritual sins, we can pray for the repentance and forgiveness of any sin, expecting our prayers to be answered, except for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  In which case, there is only one sin in that set, and as you know a set of one is perfectly permissible, and accords well with John's usage, in which he speaks of the "unto death" sin in the singular, not plural form.

In which case, speculation that the atoning work of Christ is covertly applied to faithless souls for an entire class of "not so bad" sins is the sort of assertion that would require hard Biblical evidence to sustain, and it isn't there.  It is a disservice to the lost to tell them, just avoid this man-made list of really bad deeds, and you'll be OK, even if you don't believe in Jesus (assuming, within your framework, "invincible ignorance").  But it does represent the first venture onto the slippery slope that leads irresistibly toward universalism.  All one needs to do is to accept the premise of atonement without belief in Jesus, and it becomes a matter of debating the exceptions.  In your case, mortal sins.  Or "vincible ignorance."  But then the set becomes indeterminate. No one can be sure what might or might not be covered. It is a turning to the dark side, however slight, however well intentioned.  It is an incremental surrendering of a critical element of the Gospel.  Which is why you will not find many takers for the idea among Biblically grounded evangelicals and Protestants.

BTW, if you mention someone in a post, it is customary to ping them into the conversation.  You should have pinged CB on this one, as you reference him extensively.

Peace,

SR

[CynicalBear]

Actually I didn't mean you were trying to be. I meant that you are being. Whether you were trying or not I have no way of knowing.

Thin skin is dangerous here.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
Surely you're familiar with the "fallacious appeal to silence"? If the Bible doesn't mention [x], then that says nothing about the truth or falsity of [x], whatsoever!

[SR]
This is an unwarranted shifting of the burden of proof.

In that specific reply to CynicalBear, I was not trying to prove the sinlessness of Mary; I was trying to show that his alleged "disproof" of the sinlessness of Mary (based on the idea that it's "not in the Bible") was illogical. More on that, below.

"Arguments from silence" are not necessarily invalid if they are used to counter positive assertions which inherently require positive evidence to be proved true.

That's true... which is why I don't consider "the Bible didn't say anything" as definitive of anything (except for the fact that it doesn't contradict inerrant Scripture, and it's therefore POSSIBLE, all other things being equal). I was playing "defense" in that comment, not "offense".

If you tell me the Moon is made of green cheese, just below the rocky surface, I am well within my rights to demand evidence of your position. If you cannot provide said evidence, I am not obligated to accept your proposition.

Again, that's true... but there are two immediate problems:

1) CynicalBear (& Co.) believes that "if it isn't in the Bible, then no Christian need believe it" (again: all necessary qualifiers in place--it's a topic germane to faith/morals/salvation, etc.)... and that statement itself (i.e. his particular variant of "sola Scriptura"... and there are many variants, on this thread alone) is not anywhere to be found in Scripture. So he's basing his objection to my claim on a false premise; I was pointing that out.

2) He was the one who brought up the "silence of Scripture" idea as some sort of allegedly compelling point; and I was pointing out that the idea didn't further his case in any substantial way. Again: I was countering HIS idea, not trying to propose a positive idea of my own, with that specific statement

Similarly, Sola Scriptura does not propose that everything that can be known or is true is found in Scripture. That is a straw man.

I do not claim that sola Scriptura means that. I merely note that many members of this board (including CynicalBear, metmom, RnMomof7, etc.) embrace and practice the idea that, if something pertaining to faith/morals/religion/God is NOT found in Scripture, they feel free to dismiss the idea. That practice is nowhere mandated in Scripture (among other numerous problems with the idea), and it makes very little sense, especially given that it leaves the tasks of discerning true Scripture from spurious books (e.g. 2 Peter, 2 Maccabees, etc.), interpreting the Scriptures we have (e.g. "does Matthew 16:18 show that Jesus was to build His indefectible Church upon St. Peter, or not?"), and applying those principles to concrete situations (e.g. "Can a Christian rightly support human cloning?"), among many other issues, without explicit guidance... which is problematic, to say the least.

Rather, we say that what God included in Scripture is everything we need to believe to have faith in Jesus, and to live a God-pleasing life.

All right. But in order to be logically consistent (and to give a not-previously-disposed person a reason to accept it), you'd at least have to show how Scripture unambiguously teaches that idea... since the statement itself is certainly contained in the set of "everything needed to believe to have faith in Jesus, and to lead a God-pleasing life". If set [X] claims to contain all necessary things, then the statement "set [X] contains all necessary things" should certainly be among those things (and therefore contained in [X])!

I'd also add that, to those who don't find the Christian Scriptures compelling for belief (e.g. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.), even "self-testifying Scriptures" are not compelling... especially since the Pagan Scriptures do as much for themselves. Apparently, something more is needed (e.g. conversion, openness of heart, teachability, sufficient capacity to think, etc.) in order "to have faith in Jesus, and to live a God-pleasing life". I don't press that point, here, however (especially since it historically drives some anti-Catholic-Church people into a froth, and evokes cries of, "I knew it! Pagan! Doesn't even accept the Scriptures! etc."... and I've had enough of that to last several lifetimes).

Other things may or may not be true.

Right.

But if they are not in Scripture, they are not essential to becoming and living as good Christians.

But... surely you understand that I would need PROOF of that statement, and not simply take it on your say-so? And if you hold the idea that "extra-Scriptural sources are not binding", then I would be within my rights to require you to supply unambiguous Scripture texts to that effect... right? Case in point: I've yet to find anything in Scripture which says "anything not in Scripture [all qualifiers in place] is non-binding". Can you?

Is Mary sinless? The Holy Spirit has included in Scripture testimony which suggest she was under sin, like every other human born of fallen Adam and Eve, and therefore needed a Savior, as all sons and daughters of fallen Adam do. The Holy Spirit has excluded any information suggesting she was without sin. Jesus has been declared to be without sin, so there is no further burden of proof with Him. The case is closed. But with Mary, the presumption of the shared condition of being fallen imposes a burden of proof on the positive assertion that she is sinless. If you do not meet your burden of proof, that is not our burden to meet. Your case is not proved, and we can safely ignore your proposition.

Well... see my post with the accompanying link, above, for starters.

[paladinan]

Thin skin is dangerous here.

Oh, good grief, man! My "skin" isn't the issue, here (I've taken far worse, on many other forums, with nary a peep). Tell your aphorism to the dozens of anti-Catholic-Church commenters in the religion forum who whistle for the RM, when the conversation with Catholics gets "intense". The poor fellow (RM) would have much less work to do, if non-Catholics were to call a self-imposed moratorium on calling for him for every alleged case of "mind-reading", "making it personal", and other nebulous accusations. If Catholics do so as well, it's often because even they get a bit tired of "being reported to the authorities" frequently, while at the same time enduring the very things from anti-Catholic-Church people that they [the Catholics] are accused of doing.

For what it's worth: I used to comment on the Hannity Forum (I may've mentioned this before), and the RM there would have laughed (or, more likely, snarled) at complaints that people were "mind-reading". The response from the RM would have been, "Y'all... put on your big boy and big girl pants, and toughen up... or find another thread. I have more than enough to do without chasing down every instance where someone's afraid that their thoughts are being read, rightly or wrongly!"

In short: I'm quite capable of handling (or ignoring) all sorts of negative "static" in a conversation, whether rational or irrational; I'm simply pointing out that a constructive conversation is better done without the irrational and nasty side of things... and if rules ARE in place, then you should be willing to live by them, yourself. "Rules for thee, but not for me" just doesn't wash.

[boatbums]

I'm not comparing sacred, Divinely-inspired Scripture (i.e. the 73-book, full Bible) with man made dogmas and doctrines (e.g. sola Scriptura, "once-saved-always-saved", sola fide, etc.).

Nice try! Those "extra" seven books Catholics added to their canon actually WERE man-made, humanly devised writings, not God-breathed. I can show you every one of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith that I believe from Scripture, can you? I noticed you avoided the second part of my response. I'll repeat it:

We know that the Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself and we know that Scripture is God-breathed. ERGO, whatever we might think is a contradiction, it can't be and it's up to us to study the Scriptures to determine what is being communicated. On the other hand, what some church bigwigs get together and decide is their "truth", may or may not BE the truth and they could very well come back later and walk back what they previously stated was "infallible" truth. The Roman Catholic church - though they are hardly alone in this - has been caught doing this more than a few times. They might come along and try to explain it in "lawyer" speak so as to not admit they just contradicted themselves, but it is obvious to those objective enough to see it.

The doctrines of faith alone, Scripture alone and perseverance of the saints and others are all Biblically-based and can be demonstrated by Scripture. Your religion claims it doesn't need Scripture to devise their doctrines as it considers itself an authority over God's sacred word rather than being in submission to it. That was and will continue to be the dividing line.

[Springfield Reformer]

But in order to be logically consistent (and to give a not-previously-disposed person a reason to accept it), you'd at least have to show how Scripture unambiguously teaches that idea...

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but I do strive for focus, and this I think is the critical piece.  It is axiomatic that the word of God is superior to all other authorities.  It would function as the word of God even if it never offered a formal statement of it's own sufficiency.  The supremacy of it's authority is inherent in it's simply being the word of God.  God spoke from heaven audibly and said "This is My beloved Son, hear Him." The apostles, at that moment, are not having epistemological problems.  They know this is God speaking.  They believe it because they have the gift of faith, not because the divine voice throws a self-certifying proof text at them.  They believe it because the word of God always accomplishes the purpose unto which He sends it.  

And when Jesus is tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, He does not say, "Wait, I've got to look up something in the rabbinical writings, be with you in a second."  He beat back every temptation by relying on God's word alone.  When tempted with hunger, He declares, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of ... the rabbis plus God? Oh wait! No, He He doesn't say that.  He says, what do we need to live on?  The word of God.  That, all by itself, is a declaration of sufficiency.  If you want to live spiritually, you must feed on the word of God.  Bread for the body, and Scripture for the soul.  

So here and in many other places, your artificial requirement for a formal declaration of sufficiency is met with example after example of the sufficiency of God's word in action.  Another example:

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
(John 20:29-31)

And this gets us much closer to a formal statement of sufficiency.  Many things could have been included in John's Gospel, but were left out with intentionality, because those things that were written were sufficient to do what?  To produce faith in Jesus Christ, and through said faith, life in His name.  So if something was left out, it was because the Holy Spirit deemed it unnecessary to the stated purpose.  Impliedly then, whatever is left in, is sufficient for the intended purpose, producing faith in Christ.

This is reinforced in 2 Timothy 3:14-17.  In these debates it is easy to skip past verse 15 and jump right into the debate over "profitable" in verse 16, but that would be an error:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(2 Timothy 3:15)

This is the ascription of a certain kind of power to the Scriptures.  It is a qualitative assessment.  It describes their nature.  Underlying "able" is the word for power, dunamai, the power of the word of God, the sword of the Spirit, which can do what? Make one wise up to the point of salvation through faith in Jesus.  So setting aside all the more difficult questions, cloning, etc., we see here an unambiguous declaration that Scripture, unmixed with anything else, has the power to lead one to faith in Jesus, and if such a one has faith, he also has the Holy Spirit, given as a guarantee of his eternal life to come, and if one has the Holy Spirit, do you really think God would let such a person rest easy in sin? Even the most modern, technologically advanced sin?  Of course not.

Which is exactly why Paul goes on to discuss the full range of benefits of the word of God to the believer:

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, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

No need to argue about the word "profitable." That is not where the argument for sufficiency rests, and that is not how Sola Scriptura is typically argued.  Paul has backloaded the sufficiency argument, such that the emphasis all comes at the end, embedded in the word "perfect" (artios), which describes the result of relying on the word of God for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.  "artios" carries the idea of completeness, sufficiency, and "thoroughly furnished" is actually a derivative of artios, a doubling down of the completeness, saying the man (or woman) of God, in drawing on the God-breathed Scriptures, will be sufficient for absolutely everything required of the Christian life.  Paul is practically shouting it from the rooftops.  The God-breathed Scriptures make one totally, absolutely prepared to live a life pleasing to God.  By a reasonable inference, secondary materials might be useful, but are not necessary to achieve that sufficiency.

But as I said before, a formal statement of sufficiency could be left out, and the fact of sufficiency would still be true, which is why the examples matter.  If we would follow Jesus, our touchstone of essential truth must be the same as His, and that is every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

WOW....

What you said.

Thanks for that. That’s another keeper......

Ping to post 675

[mitch5501]

Amen.

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (John 17:17)

"...and if one has the Holy Spirit, do you really think God would let such a person rest easy in sin?"

He knows we struggle.He also knows how hard we struggle.

[metmom]

He knows our frame and remembers that we are dust......

[metmom]

"...and if one has the Holy Spirit, do you really think God would let such a person rest easy in sin?"

Something that is beyond the comprehension of most RC's or they'd NEVER hurl the accusation that assurance of salvation means to us that we can sin with impunity and without restraint and have the time of our lives doing it.

And so spit in God's face.

They simply do not understand the changed attitude towards sin that a born again believer has.

[daniel1212]

Well said.

But as I said before, a formal statement of sufficiency could be left out, and the fact of sufficiency would still be true,

Indeed. I thought this issue was settled when i saw no more responses to mine last week , but in addition to the examples your provided, collectively we see Scripture alone being the supreme standard for Truth, as it is the only objective transcendent comprehensive body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God. The sufficiency aspect is not inclusively formal, though some seem to make it so, but also pertains to its material aspect, which provided for a canon of Scripture, the church, the leading of the Spirit, including thru gifts, and even the light of nature, etc.

And as asked,

Do you have another objective body of Truth which is wholly inspired of God? Did the Lord quote tradition as being the word of God in refuting the devil or that which was written? (Mt. 4) Did the Lord say to "search the traditions" or "search the Scripture" for testimony concerning Him? (Jn. 5:39) Did the Lord substantiate His mission by tradition or the Scriptures to the disciples? Did He open up their understanding to the Scriptures or to traditions? (Lk. 24:27,44,45) . Did Paul and Apollos reason out of tradition in proving that Jesus was the Christ or out of Scripture? (Acts 17:2; 18:28; 28:23) And while oral preaching was authoritative, what was its claims subject to? Did the Bereans look to see if what the apostles preached was in tradition or Scripture? (Acts 17:11) Did Paul teach that it was by tradition or by the scriptures of the prophets that the gospel was made known to all nations for the obedience of faith? (Romans 16:26)