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: Even More Fuel: Ten Reasons Why "Sola Scriptura" is Impossible, Illogical and Foolish: 1)If the Bible is complete, why does it not say so? Sometimes people point to verses that say "all scripture is given" – a very forced and unnatural interpretation. The first such passage is in Deuteronomy 4:3, which says (in effect) "do not add to this." So why don't believers in "sola scriptura" throw out the whole New Testament and all the Old Testament that was written after Deuteronomy? 2)Bible interpretation depends on the words of prophets. 3)Bible interpretation depends on having an accurate copy of the original texts. No such copy exists: All we have are copies of copies. The earliest copies show that whole passages – e.g. the last 12 verses of Mark – could be in doubt. 4)The current Bible canon was decided by Catholic theologians: So Protestants base their faith on uninspired men from a church they reject as apostate! 5)Scripture has to be interpreted: In practice, "sola scriptura" means that everyone interprets the scriptures for himself. So we have scriptural chaos. At the very least, the individual becomes the final judge of exactly what the scripture means, which places man above God. 6)Even the greatest thinkers will disagree over how to be saved: For example, "Luther thought Zwingli was "damned" because he denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist. If Luther didn't even regard him as a brother in Christ due to doctrinal disputes, then obviously they didn't agree on how one is saved! Clearly, Luther thought that the Eucharist was crucial to salvation. In this he would differ from Calvin as well, and the same thing applies to baptism, because Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, whereas Calvin (and, I believe, Zwingli) denied it." 7)There are many different ways of harmonising the Scripture. ALL can be defended indefinitely: So it is not enough to use one scripture to explain another. Calvinists have one way of doing this. Arminians have another way. Baptists have another way. They all come to different conclusions on significant questions. So do Lutherans, Anglicans, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Methodists, Plymouth Brethren, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mennonites, etc., etc. 8)Believers in "sola scriptura" rely on outside evidences: The idea is that the believer listens to churches, pastors, books, professors, commentaries spiritual experiences, traditions, creeds, hymns, etc., and then makes up their own mind. But this implies that these outside influences suggest possibilities that the believer would not have come up with on their own. In other words, he relies on them. 9)Believers in "sola scriptura" place their own subjective beliefs above the authority of the Bible: Luther recognised that some key teachings could not be reconciled from the Bible alone. For example, Paul seems to teach salvation by grace, and James appears to teach salvation by works. So Luther developed a concept known as the "analogy of faith." In other words, if Paul seemed to contradict James, Luther looked at his overall beliefs regarding Christ. But where do these overall beliefs come from, except from these same texts? Luther liked Paul better than James, so he (Luther) decided that Paul was more important. He wrote: "To sum it all up ... St. John's Gospel [not the synoptics], and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially those to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, and St. Peter's first epistle – these are the books which show you Christ and teach everything which is needful and blessed for you to know even if you don't see or even hear any other book. ... Wherefore St. James epistle is a true epistle of straw compared with them, for it contains nothing of an evangelical nature." See Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith for references and further discussion. 10)"Sola scriptura" was the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees: Jesus and his apostles were different. They spoke with authority. They could back up their words for scripture, but the churches of the day did not accept their interpretations. Many years ago I was reading the Bible and came across the following verse: 1 John 2:15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." This struck me as odd, because I had been brought up with another well known verse by the same author (the apostle John): John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Is it good to love the world? Yes? No? At that point, I began to realise that the Bible has to be interpreted. There is no getting away from that fact. The End |