“This is SUCH a bogus fight! I can;’t believe it. We have a made up English word which was MADE UP (I”m guessing, though Tyndale comes to mind) to provide a term for all the multitude of images used to describe what IHS accomplished in His life and death and rising.”
Tyndale would be innocent - as you noticed, atonement doesn’t appear in the New Testament. It is pulled over from the Old Testament as an analogy, perhaps - but it was not needed to explain the Gospel in the New. That is why it is silly to argue about using the word atonement...it is a useful idea, but not used in the NT. Use it if it helps you to understand a concept, but realize the word itself is absent.
At least in the translations I searched.
For Sola Scriptura, it is probably best to leave it with what scripture says.
First, we have the example of the Lord and the Apostles using scripture to give authority to their words. Even Jesus, although he also skipped using it and claimed full authority for Himself.
Second, we have the example of the Bereans, who searched the OT to see if what Paul was teaching was true. I believe there is a passage in the OT about not believing a miracle worker for the miracles, but comparing the miracle workers teaching against God’s previous revelation. I’ll try to find it again.
Third, we have what Paul told Timothy:
A) “how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” While referencing the OT, if the OT can make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, how much more the New! After all, “1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.”
B) “16 All Scripture is God-breathed” Sorry folks, but it isn’t the Catholic Church, or the African Councils in 400 AD that makes scripture authoritative - it is God. God’s breath, breathed into Adam to give him life: “7then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” If you wish to live, seek God’s breath!
C) “and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” It wasn’t meant to be dropped in one’s lap and left, although many have benefited from even that. It was meant to be used by leaders and teachers, humans, obeying God, using scripture for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.
D) “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The end result. Not so we can cleverly beat each other over the noggin in intellectual debates, but so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. And yes, it says thoroughly equipped and every good work.
If you want to teach something external as non-binding, go ahead. But if it must be believed to be saved or to live a good life, then no.
And if it contradicts scripture, then no.
Of course, anyone taught by anyone else about the meaning of scripture cannot be prevented from going off the deep end. I’ll be honest - when I first read about the ULI in TULIP, I figured it was a joke. I had to go read Calvin myself before I believed that it wasn’t a hoax.
I can show why I believe my beliefs accord with scripture, but after that...every man will give an account of his life to God someday. Make sure what you believe is sincere and the result of study - of taking God seriously, and thus His Word seriously. I cannot answer for you, nor you for me. Let us teach each other, make each other search the scriptures and our own hearts, and then do as we believe God wants. Being sinful men, we’ll mess up a fair bit, most likely.
(I don't think the Church MADE the Bible authoritative. I DO think the Church rightly perceived and promulgated the authority of the canonical texts. That's not really part of what I'm arguing about.)
Yes, the scriptures of the OT were important, and hooray for the Bereans. But the Bereans were looking at the OT to see if what they HEARD were true or not.
The reason I say "Bogus" about this (as about atonement) is not that I think the arguments are lame. I don't. I think the QUESTION is lame. I think it's a made up question that it hardly occurred to anybody to ask until the spirit of rebellion was in the air.
I'm thinking the part of the standard of Sola Scriptura that is in question is the part that says we ought not to teach anything that cannot be proved thereby. I think that the Scriptures indicate that the Church has that kind of authority.
P.S. I just had a thought: Part of the premise of Sola Scriptura requires that there was 1.5k years of mean nasty evil and/or stupid Catholics who never read or thought about the verses you cite.