Defending an attack on Sola Scriptura

[Wthompson]

I am engaged in writing a response essay to a very comprehensive attack on Sola Scriptura.

However, there is a point here that I cannot seem to address. Perhaps it is because it is so late?

The point is made that in 2Ti 3:16-17

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The word All means each and every scripture individually and therefore if each and every scripture individually makes a man perfect, that says that each scripture alone and by itself is sufficient to teach reprove etc which is an absurd position.

I've been rummaging through my greek dictionaries. I've found out that this amateur theologian who alot of Catholic appologists seem to favour has gotten some of his greek wrong, however I can't seem to figure out what to do with this situation.

Any help?

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Wow. No DTK ?

Graphei (scripture), if I'm remembering correctly, simply means scripture (plural), not individually plural. in other words, all the scriptures together, not each book individually. My back hurts right now, so I'll be going to lie down in a moment... but do you have a parsing guide handy ? That may help.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

2 tim. 3
14But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

You must read it in context. Unless Paul is arguing that Timothy had every verse of the Scriptures memorized from childhood, such an interpretation is false. It is the Scriptures taken as a whole. Of course every verse is inspired. Of course every verses instructs in it's own way. But they harmonize together. God wrote through men with ideas and logic. Each Scripture verse depends upon the other.

 

[Wthompson]

Thanks, guys, I figured out a way to counter most of it. Here is a small exerpt from the essay that I am having trouble with. I know how to counter some of the arguments therein, but some of them I don't off hand. I am going to continue to search the scriptures and the commentaries etc. etc. but I would like yall's take on what might sink his ship here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) When these verses say that nothing is to be added to or taken from the "words of the prophecy of this book," they are not referring to Sacred Tradition being "added" to the Sacred Scripture. It is obvious from the context that the "book" being referred to here is Revelation or The Apocalypse and not the whole Bible. We know this because St. John says that anyone who is guilty of adding to "this book" will be cursed with the plagues" written in this book," namely the plagues he described earlier in his own book, Revelation. To assert otherwise is to do violence to the text and to distort its plain meaning, especially since the Bible as we know it did not exist when this passage was written and therefore could not be what was meant. (3)

In defense of their interpretation of these verses, Protestants will often contend that God knew in advance what the canon of Scripture would be, with Revelation being the last book of the Bible, and thus He "sealed" that canon with the words of verses 18-19. But this interpretation involves reading a meaning into the text. Furthermore, if such an assertion were true, how is it that the Christian knows unmistakably that Revelation 22:18-19 is "sealing" the canon unless an infallible teaching authority assures him that this is the correct interpretation of that verse? But if such an infallible authority exists, then the Sola Scriptura doctrine becomes ipso facto null and void.

2) The same admonition not to add or subtract words is used in Deuteronomy 4:2, which says, "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandment of the Lord your God which I command you." If we were to apply a parallel interpretation to this verse, then anything in the Bible beyond the decrees of the Old Testament law would be considered non-canonical or not authentic Scripture "“ including the New Testament! Once again, all Christians would reject this conclusion in no uncertain terms. The prohibition in Revelation 22:18-19 against "adding," therefore, cannot mean that Christians are forbidden to look to anything outside the Bible for guidance.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

You know, just a thought here. But you don't have to necessarily counter all their arguments. Just counter all the foundational arguments that the rest of his argumeents are built on. Then all the rest falls apart and you can save time by just showng how the rest falls apart from there rather than systematically refuting every point.