Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God's will, both publicly and privately--behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage]; |
Subject: Sola Scriptura-A False teaching |
Bible Note: More Fuel Misconceptions held by the majority of this forum: 1)The Bible is so plain that what it means is "obvious." 2)Simply by quoting scriptures, everything will become clear. In doing so, they show very little knowledge of the Bible, or ability to think clearly. This is why: -If every Bible verse can be taken at face value, then the Bible is a mess of contradictions and mistakes. -If the meaning is so clear, then every thinking person would agree with them. But they do not. The truth is that the Bible has to be interpreted. So the great question is, why is one interpretation any better than another? Using the Bible to Test the Bible Circular Arguments: A critic wrote, "If I am shown interpretations other than those I already hold to, which make more sense than mine do in light of the whole of Scripture, I will listen." This belief is comforting but false. What "makes sense" when interpreting scripture will depend on our existing methods and assumptions. What if our view of "the whole of scripture" is faulty (for example, if we think that the Bible is all there is)? Then every other scripture will be judged according to this false standard. The Usual Protestant Rule of Biblical Interpretation: "If we are to believe that God gave us the Bible for a purpose, then it follows that... His purpose is for us to understand it, with His help" Exactly. "With his help." Since internal help would be circular, he must provide external help (the Holy Spirit, prophets, etc.) "Take the Bible literally where it is at all possible" I agree this is a good general rule, but it must not be relied on completely, because: This was the rule the ancient Pharisees used – e.g. they expected a Messiah who would literally be a "king." Consequently they missed Jesus when he came. It is just not practical. It is possible to take almost everything literally, an still be internally consistent. But who does? How many Christians only have one coat? How many give to everyone who asks? It goes against the examples in the New Testament. Right from Matthew chapters 1 and 2, we see prophecies that are not interpreted according to any literal rule, or by looking at the original context. For example, "out of Egypt I have called my son," by this method, must refer to the nation of Israel being led by Moses. "A virgin shall conceive" must have referred to an ordinary young woman in Isaiah's day. I am highly doubtful that most evangelical Protestants do follow this rule anyway. The last time I discussed this matter in any depth with a "Born Again Christian," he sent me a number of audio tapes from his church. One of them was about the Book of Revelation. His minister started by stating that it was practically all symbolic. "If God cannot author confusion, then any interpretative problems invariably arise from the human end (1 Cor 2:14; 2 Pet 3:16), not from the Scriptures themselves" I agree. But humans are sinful. We invariably get it wrong without divine help. This method of interpretation just about guarantees a false understanding of scripture. The verses quoted make clear that the final test of scripture is NOT more scripture. 1 Cor 2:14 suggests the final test is the Holy Spirit. The context of 2 Peter 3:16 (e.g. see verse 2) suggests the final test is the living apostles. (At the time, there was no cannoned New Testament.) The Myth of Context If you ask someone why a passage means one thing and not another, the usual answer is "context." In other words, they look at the surrounding verses and chapters. But this does not help – it is another circular argument. If the verse in question is open to different interpretations, so are the surrounding verses. Context IS important, but it does not give certainty. Which context do we look at? The previous verse? All the surrounding verses? The whole chapter? The message of the whole book? The speaker? The audience? Other similar scriptures? The historical context? The political context? The expected level of understanding? All of these things can potentially lead to different interpretations. Combining them in different ways just multiplies the potential confusion. Conclusion: Can or Should Scripture be Interpreted by Scripture? Scripture should be interpreted in the light of scripture, but this should not be the "first and foremost" way: It contradicts itself. The first thing we discover when we read scripture is that it is written by prophets and apostles. So it follows that prophets and apostles (since they create scripture) must be the preferred source. So the first task of a Bible believer must be to identify the true apostles. (This of course eliminates mainstream Protestantism as a potential source of truth.) |