Why did protestants make up "sola scriptura?" It's

>>2842062
2 Timothy 3:16-17

>>2842068
It says it's "God breathed" and useful. It doesn't say it's perfect or that the words of scripture alone should be worshiped.

>>2842068
The Protestant claim is that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, but the verse cited makes no claims concerning this. To read this in support of sola scriptura, you have to project that onto the verse.

>>2842168
This.

Can we say that what the Protestants did with the Bible is the same of what Muslims do with the Quran?

>>2842103
>useful
The word useful does not appear in 2 Timothy 3:17
>It doesn't say it's perfect or that the words of scripture alone should be worshiped
(You)
>>2842168
>The Protestant claim is that the Bible is the sole rule of faith
No it is not. No reformer ever claimed the bible is the sole rule of faith. The claim is that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. There is a world of difference between those two statements
>but the verse cited makes no claims concerning this
What it says is that scripture is sufficient. If you were to ask Paul "Do I need a pope? Do I need patriarchs? Do I need tradition?" the answer would come back "No, all you need is the bible alone".

>>2842068
>2 Timothy 3:16-17
>for every good work
>every
>good
>work

>work

>>2842212
Only if you want to completely misrepresent Islam

>>2842214
>The claim is that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.
Yet nowhere in scripture is that implied or supported.

>>2842068

> He thinks Paul wrote 2 Timothy

>>2842227
Ignoring the positive argumentation I've already made, it doesn't need to be. Sola scriptura is the default position. If you want to say there's another infallible authority, it's up to you to prove it.

>>2842235
>Sola scriptura is the default position
No it isn't. Otherwise some autist wouldn't have had to have make it up 1500 years after Jesus's Birth.

>>2842235
>Sola scriptura is the default position
Because...?

>>2842219
Isn't the Quran the Word of Allah, therefore it is infallible and impossible to resist? Just wondering.

>>2842242
To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.[1]

The term "begging the question", as this is usually phrased, originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates as "assuming the initial point".[2] In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" is frequently[citation needed] used to mean "to invite the question" (as in "This begs the question of whether...") or "to dodge a question".[2] Many consider these usages incorrect in contexts that demand strict adherence to the technical definition.[3]

>>2842262
See >>2842244

>>2842258
A hadith (/ˈhædJθ/[1] or /hɑːˈdiːθ/;[2] Arabic: حديث ḥadīth, plural: ahadith, أحاديث, ʼaḥādīth[3]) is one of various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[3] The term comes from Arabic meaning a "report", "account" or "narrative". Hadith are second only to the Quran in developing Islamic jurisprudence,[4] and regarded as important tools for understanding the Quran and commentaries (tafsir) written on it. Some important elements of traditional Islam, such as the five salat prayers, are mentioned in hadith.[5]

The hadith literature is based on spoken reports that were in circulation in society after the death of Muhammad. Unlike the Qur'an the hadiths were not quickly and concisely compiled during and immediately after Muhammad's life.[3] Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries, generations after the death of Muhammad, after the end of the era of the "rightful" Rashidun Caliphate, over 1,000km (620mi) from where Muhammad lived.

Each hadith consists of two parts, the isnad (Arabic: 'support'), or the chain of transmitters through which a scholar traced the matn, or text, of a hadith back to the Prophet.[6][7][8] Individual hadith are classified by Muslim clerics and jurists as sahih ("authentic"), hasan ("good") or da'if ("weak").[9] However, there is no overall agreement: different groups and different individual scholars may classify a hadith differently.

Different branches of Islam (Sunni, Shia, Ibadi) refer to different collections of hadith, and the relatively small sect of Quranists reject the authority of any of the hadith collections.[10][11]

Can you guys give me some historical context.
How did the Jews view the Bible before Christianity?

Was the Bible, as the Protestant claims, a sole guide for Jewish faith? Or did they rely on traditions too?
Was the Ancient Jewish religion interpreting the Bible literally? As the Protestants claim, an infallible source?

>>2842235
1 Tim 3:15. Paul calls the Church, not the Bible, the "Pillar and foundation of the Truth." This more clearly supports the Church's claim to being an infallible authority than a verse that only claims the Scripture is "useful."

>>2842062
because protties hate any bit of theology because it makes them feel stupid. Just say Sola Fides and pray to jeeesez.

>>2842270
So, are is this supposed to be a claim that Islam relies on tradition too, that "Sole Quran" wouldn't be a Islamist dogma?

>>2842282
The pharisees had an oral tradition, and the sadducees went only by the bible. Jesus condemned the pharisaic view, and never condemned the sadducaic position, thus implicitly supporting sola scriptura.

>>2842235
How can sola scriptura be the default position when the Church did not canonize the Bible for over 300 years? How did they survive or know what to believe if it was by the Bible alone?

>>2842062
There isn't any of the Marian bullshit or slavish popery in the Bible either, perhaps you should stop throwing stones in glass houses.
I find it ironic you're looking to textual evidence to *disprove* sola scriptura, then again theology has never been the Romanist's strong point

>>2842304
See >>2842300

>>2842299
>Jesus never condemned the Sadducee
He said they were worse than pharisees.

>>2842292
>1 Tim 3:15. Paul calls the Church, not the Bible, the "Pillar and foundation of the Truth."
Firstly, a pillar does not determine what it holds up, it stands for it. Secondly, if you read the whole verse, not just the part you like, you'll see that Paul does not have the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in view, but the local church.
>a verse that only claims the Scripture is "useful."
The word useful does not appear in 2 Timothy 3:17
>>2842298
Correct.

>>2842320
That's not what I said
>>2842300
If you were to read literally any document from the early church, you would find copious amounts of scripture quoted therein. They didn't need a pope to tell them what the bible is, they knew already.

>>2842335
>That's not what I said
You aren't Jesus. Jesus said the Sadducee were worse than pharisees. You said Jesus didn't condemn the Sadducee which is false.

>>2842335
>If you were to read literally any document from the early church, you would find copious amounts of scripture quoted therein.
Only Catholics and Orthodox read church Fathers. Protestants view them as tradition and demand only scripture (as defined by themselves) is read.

>>2842337
You are bearing false witness

>>2842341
Why are you in this thread if you have no interest in theology?

>>2842355
Take your theology and shove it up your ass. I'll stick to my King James.

>>2842062

What else are you going to go by? The words of some gilded pederast appointed by Rome?

>>2842373
>The words of some gilded pederast appointed by Rome?
Your realize Rome put together the Bible, right?

>>2842373
See>>2842300

>>2842351
Only King James is truth. All else is false witness.

>>2842375
>>2842376
See >>2842335

>>2842381
Church Fathers also back up Catholic traditions such as Marian devotion. No "canon" existed and people quoted a wide range of text.

>>2842375
>we gave you the bible, so don't read it

>>2842335
>They didn't need a pope to tell them what the bible is, they knew already.
So why did Luther throw out scripture which they would quote? For example wisdom of Sirach. If it was good enough for church fathers, why not good enough for protestants?

File: Protestants vs Christians.jpg (100KB, 620x696px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 620x696px

>>2842389
>>2842381
Protestants should read some early Christians once in a while. They might learn something.

>>2842387
>Church Fathers also back up Catholic traditions such as Marian devotion
Though Marian dogmas start to appear in the early church, you won't find Mary worship among the fathers
>No "canon" existed
So the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius does not in fact exist?
>people quoted a wide range of text.
And this matters why? There is no collection of books quoted more often than those 66 books.

>>2842405
I do. Maybe you should try actually reading them instead of quote-lists from CatholicAnswers
>>2842393
Are you trying to claim unanimity of opinion concerning the apocrypha in the early church? You sure you wanna defend that, champ?

>>2842406
>Though Marian dogmas start to appear in the early church, you won't find Mary worship among the fathers
A nice strawman.
>So the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius does not in fact exist?
why does what he picks have authority over what I feel is authentic? Why does what he pick become infallible but the book of Thomas become heresy? Why isn't the book of Enoch infallible?
>And this matters why?
To prove that autistically circlejerking chosen text doesn't make the text infallible.

>>2842415
>Are you trying to claim unanimity of opinion concerning the apocrypha in the early church?
Because I don't think randomly chosen scripture is the infallible word of faith it's not relevant to me.

>>2842428
>why does what he picks have authority over what I feel is authentic? Why does what he pick become infallible but the book of Thomas become heresy? Why isn't the book of Enoch infallible?
Oh, Athanasius has no authority over what is and is not canon, it's just that his canon destroys the Catholic narrative that they decided the bible.
But I'm glad you decided to bring out a key issue, that being you have no faith in the bible, you have faith in the pope. The reason you believe those books are scripture is because the church told you to. There's nothing about those books that you actually believe, you just believe what the church tells you to believe about those books. The pope could snap his fingers tomorrow and you'd find yourself believing the quran is scripture. The Roman Catholic position is not the bible, the tradition and the church, the Roman Catholic position is sola ecclesia -the church alone.

>>2842459
>Oh, Athanasius has no authority over what is and is not canon,
So why did you feel embolden to use his letter to confirm your dogma? Clearly you've reached a paradox. You claim "sola scriptura" yet have no real reason as to WHY this particular canon of scriptura is particularly worthy while other text isn't. Someone had to choose the scripture and I guarantee you that person wasn't Jesus.

File: George Costanza.jpg (34KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x600px

>>2842459
>Oh, Athanasius has no authority over what is and is not canon
Yet Luther and Calvin do?

>>2842472
At this point I'm not sure if you're a Catholic with a double digit IQ or a Protestant who's trying to make Catholics look bad

>>2842476
No man has the authority to choose canon.

>>2842483
At this point i'm trying to figure out if you have an argument or just ad hominems? Why do Luther and Calvin have the power to decide what scripture is or isn't infallible matters of the faith?

>>2842493
>No man has the authority to choose canon.
So the group of books that supposedly are the sole infallible rule of faith in Protestantism can be whatever I want? Can I choose the book of Thomas to be a sole infallible word on faith?

>>2842496
(You)

>>2842505
Still dodging the question?

>>2842502
How about I make the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints my God-on-earth instead of the pope?

>>2842519
Isn't this what you called "begging the question" earlier in the thread? How about stick to question
>So the group of books that supposedly are the sole infallible rule of faith in Protestantism can be whatever I want? Can I choose the book of Thomas to be a sole infallible word on faith?
Or admit defeat?

>>2842527
>Isn't this what you called "begging the question" earlier in the thread?
No, actually what I just did is called "exposing a double standard"
>How about stick to question
You mean the question I already answered ITT? The answer you decided to completely ignore?

>>2842543
So your answer was "no man has authority to choose canons" meaning that whatever I choose to be canon is the infallible rule of faith, right?

>>2842552
No, anon, my answer was >>2842459
>you have no faith in the bible, you have faith in the pope. The reason you believe those books are scripture is because the church told you to. There's nothing about those books that you actually believe, you just believe what the church tells you to believe about those books. The pope could snap his fingers tomorrow and you'd find yourself believing the quran is scripture. The Roman Catholic position is not the bible, the tradition and the church, the Roman Catholic position is sola ecclesia -the church alone.

>>2842577
Why do you assume i'm Catholic and not just inquiring about the theology of various Christian dogmas? Forgot about your hard on for the Pope. Answer me >>2842552 and >>2842476
without crying about "MUH POPE" or admit you have no intelligent answer.

>>2842583
>Why do you assume i'm Catholic and not just inquiring about the theology of various Christian dogmas?
Because I am not blind
>Answer me >>2842552 and >>2842476
The answer to the latter is that no man has the authority choose canon, and that includes yourself. The answer to the former is the question: Can I choose the Mormon president to be my infallible rule of faith instead of the Catholic pope?

>>2842603
>The answer to the latter is that no man has the authority choose canon, and that includes yourself.
So who chose the books in the Protestant Bible? Didn't Luther choose the books?

>>2842606
Who decided the pope is infallible?

>>2842608
uhhh answer my question instead of asking your own?

>>2842610
Why can't you answer the question, anon?

>>2842615
Nice fallacy. I've been asking, patiently, two simple questions. You failed to answer them.

>>2842603
>Because I am not blind
Clearly you are.

>>2842620
No, I haven't, you just refused to accept the answer. Then, when I put the shoe on the other foot, you refused to answer the question.

>>2842628
All you did was whine about "MUH POPE" like a triggered sjw whining about the patriarchy. You never answered why Luther can pick canon if no man can pick canon.

>>2842642
>You never answered why Luther can pick canon
>>2842493

>>2842645
>no man has authority to choose canon
So if no man has authority to choose canon why do slavishly follow Luther's canon?

>>2842645
yet clearly that canon was picked by men. Jews in the past, letters of church fathers. Men and the Catholic church picked that canon you idiot.

>>2842650
I follow the scriptures. Canon is after the fact
>>2842653
>yet clearly that canon was picked by men
No man has the authority to choose canon

>>2842645
>Canon chosen by men
>no man has authority to chose canon
So man didn't have the authority to choose the canon he chose yet chose it anyway?

>>2842658
>I follow the scriptures.
Why those particular scriptures? Why not the Book of Thomas? Why not Wisdom of Sirach?

>>2842664
>Why not the Book of Thomas? Why not Wisdom of Sirach?
Because those are not inspired

>>2842667
>Because those are not inspired
Yes they are? Who do you think you are deciding what scripture is or isn't inspire?

>>2842667
Why aren't they inspired? Because Luther and Jews say so?

>>2842659
No man has the authority to choose canon

>>2842674
Yet the scriptures you follow were compiled, written and chosen by men. lol Protestantism is a joke.

>>2842669
>>2842672
They're not inspired because God did not inspire them

>>2842678
Malaysia

>>2842679
>They're not inspired because God did not inspire them
What makes you think this? You are exercising authority over canon, saying what is or isn't inspired despite being a man.

>>2842679
>exercises authority over choosing which scripture are canon despite claiming not to be able to
wut?

>>2842678
>compiled
No man has the authority to choose canon
>written
Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit
>chosen
No man has the authority to choose canon

>>2842689
>No man has the authority to choose canon
Yet you did by saying they are inspired
>Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit
You mean Luther and the Jews? The Holy spirit did not inspire your scriptures.
>No man has the authority to choose canon
Yet that's what you do by choosing what is or isn't inspired based on your own whim.

>>2842685
>What makes you think this?
The fact it's not inspired. Would you like to know why I think the sky is blue next?
>You are exercising authority over canon, saying what is or isn't inspired
I'm just making a statement of fact, I didn't decide what is and is not inspired. My role is passive, not active.
>>2842685
>>2842688
Next time you samefag, try to avoid identical vocabulary

>>2842699
>I'm just making a statement of fact, I didn't decide what is and is not inspired.
Clearly Luther did as you follow his dogma. He is a man. Nothing about your scriptures are unique and point to the Holy Spirit choosing them. It's a made up cop out.

>>2842699
The sky is blue because your eyes perceive it that way. If you're telling me you think scripture is inspired because you perceive it that way, it means you're choosing scripture aka choosing canon.

>>2842694
>Yet you did by saying they are inspired
Keep up those English lessons
>You mean Luther and the Jews?
Luther did not write a single book of scripture. Almost all the authors were Jews, though.
>The Holy spirit did not inspire your scriptures.
Yes He did.
>Yet that's what you do by choosing what is or isn't inspired based on your own whim
Keep up those English lessons

>>2842705
>Luther did not write a single book of scripture.
But he chose which ones were inspired.

>>2842705
It's funny. You have no theological basing for "the holy spirit chose your scriptures" except a completely irrational "I feel like it." Protestants are no different from sjws. Truth doesn't matter. What they feel like matters.

>>2842702
No man has the authority to choose canon
>>2842704
>The sky is blue because your eyes perceive it that way
The sky is blue because the sky is blue
>If you're telling me you think scripture is inspired because you perceive it that way
Scripture is inspired because God gave scripture

>>2842708
No man has the authority to choose canon
>>2842709
Who decided the pope is infallible?

>>2842710
>The sky is blue because the sky is blue
No you fucking retard. Sky is "blue" because are eyes perceive the color waves as blue.
>Scripture is inspired because God gave scripture
No he didn't. Man wrote down scripture. The authors of scripture never claimed to be God.

>>2842717
>Sky is "blue" because are eyes perceive the color waves as blue.
But why blue? Why not red?
>No he didn't. Man wrote down scripture. The authors of scripture never claimed to be God.
Are you being intentionally daft?

>all this dumb circular logic trolling ITT

>>2842068

>All scripture is God breathed
>REEEEEE ONLY THE KING JAMES VERSION IS THE REAL ONE ALL YOU OTHERS WILL BURN FOREVER!!!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEE!


What did they mean by this?

>>2842389

More like

>we gave you the Bible so make sure it's actually the Bible and not what some guy wants the Bible to say

Can Protestant argue for their theology without resorting to screeching MUH POPE or MUH PAPIST in the first millisecond?

>>2842726
Nothing in scripture confirms sola scriptura.

protestant itt btfo