Both Arch & his company, believe that the 66 books of the Bible are scripture and God's Word. That is common ground with those who advocate Solo Scriptura.

For Arch to refute that, he has to prove that something besides the 66 books are scripture, generally & readily available to men is also God's Word, but he cannot do so.

My refutation was successful no matter what you say.

The issue is this: Is sola scriptura biblical.
I DO NOT have to prove that anything else is God's Word YET.

I WILL but FIRST, I want you to admit that sola scriptura is non-scriptural.

You have NO way to support your doctrine of sola scriptura. Accept the truth, it is not true.

As soon as you reply accepting the truth (that sola scriptura is false) THEN AND ONLY THEN will I attempt to prove that something else is God's Word.

My POV is that the Bible is the Word of God and that I have no other source of God's Word commonly & readily available to me.

If that is unbiblical, what is your proof of that? It is Biblical that Scripture is God's Word:

Pasa graphe theopneustos.

That nothing else is available to me is a matter of my experience. It is also consistent with 1 Cor 13 which states that prophecy would cease. If you have something else, bring it forward & prove it.

Thunkful, in order for our debate to reach maximum potential, I have outlined how we MUST proceed:

1) Is sola scriptura biblical?
a) If you have any verses whether explicitly or implicitly stating that Scripture alone is God's Word, please supply them.
b) If you do not have any verses, please state this so that we can move on.

2) Can God's Word must be found in some form outside the Bible?
a) I must supply a source of God's Word outside of the Bible.
b) If I cannot, I must admit this so that we can move on.

3) If sola scriptura is biblical:
a) For sola scriptura to be stated as being biblical, one or more verses must prove this point undeniably.
b) If this point is proven, I will recant all of my previous statements regarding this and immediately take this doctrine to heart.

4) If sola scriptura is not biblical:
a) If no verses can be found to support sola scriptura undeniably, then we can conclude that sola scriptura is not biblical.
b) If this point is proven, then you must recant all previous statements that may have asserted this and immediately accept this fact.

5) If God's Word can be found in some form outside the Bible:
a) I must be able to find some source outside of the Bible that is undeniably God's Word.
b) If this point is proven, then you must recant all previous statements that countered it and immediately take the new doctrine to heart.

6) If God's Word cannot be found outside the Bible:
a) If no sources of any form can be found outside the Bible to be undeniably God's Word, then we can conclude that God's Word is found only in the Bible.
b) If this point is proven, the I will recant all previous statements that countered this and immediately take this new doctrine to heart.

7) Remarks of conclusion:

a) If Point 3 is found to be positive:
i) Sola scriptura is biblical
ii) Given that the Bible is infallible, the doctrine of sola scriptura must be accepted by all Christians

b) If Point 4 is found to be positive:
i) Sola scriptura is not biblical
ii) Sola scriptura, being unbiblical, must be man made
iii) Man made traditions are reprehensible and should be rejected

c) If Point 5 is found positive:
i) God's Word is available in some form from some source outside of the Bible
ii) This source, being God's Word, must be obeyed
iii) By this source's very existence, sola scriptura is proven false

d) If Point 6 is found positive:
i) God's Word is not found anywhere outside of the Bible
ii) If Point 3 was found positive, then sola scriptura is doubley undeniable
iii) If Point 4 was found positive, sola scriptura is wrong though God's Word cannot be found outside the Bible. As such, only Scripture is God's Word though the doctrine of sola scriptura was necessarily man-made.

e) If both Points 4 and 5 are positive:
i) It is advisable that you convert to some denomination of Christianity that holds both of these points as valid.

f) If both Points 3 and 6 are positive:
i) I will convert to some denomination that holds both of these points as valid.

Given all of this, it is your turn to answer Point 1: Is sola scriptura biblical?
Please answer truthfully so that we may proceed.
Note: if you are able to supply verses, you need only answer with a statement similar to the one below:

"Sola scriptura is valid because of the following infallible statements:
a) Book Chapter:Verse
b) Book Chapter:Verse....."

No quotations or explanations (yet) are needed, only the verses.

Arch cites:

"2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Note that they are not to wait for church councils to canonize anything. Of course if people received truth orally they should hold to it. The phrase could be translated "whether by our word or epistle." The passage refers to things received in the past and has nothing to do whatsoever with future sayings of ecclesiastical "fathers."

BTW I note I also misspelled claims.

May the Lord bless you in every way. And today remember that He gave His back to the smiters & His cheeks to them who plucked out the hair.

All we like sheep have gone astray,
we have turned every one to His own way,
and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

Certain persons have a theological principle called, Sola Scriptura. As I understand these persons, they assert that the only source of doctrine is scripture and logical inferences from scripture. I think it is easy for them to show that in the Bible, inferences are made from scripture. So following the Biblical dictum that one must follow the scriptural pattern (as Paul told Timothy), they would feel justified in including logical deductions from scripture as well as scripture in their body of doctrine.

Thus it would appear that for Arch to refute sola scripture, Arch has to show that the doctrine of sola scripture cannot be deduced from scripture. Given the huge number of statements about scripture & God's word in the Bible, thus Arch has a great task.

Aside from that tact, another approach for Arch would be to show that something besides Scripture is God's Word, something readily & commonly available to those who propound doctrine. I am confident that those who proclaim Sola Scriptura would at once abandon their theory if Arch should show them how they have ready access to some other source of God's word.

But what about inductive reasoning? If there is a pattern to Scripture which must be adhered to, can one do a valid induction with Scripture? Suppose that the Bible lists a number of sources of God's Word besides scripture, like dreams, visions, actually hearing God speak, experiencing a prophet prophesying orally or hearing an angel who brought message from God. (While the Bible never mentions ecclesiastical fathers with their traditions or any pope.) Then suppose a Christian sits down to write doctrine on some subject. He marks all the passages of scripture on that subject and prays for illumination. But this Christian never gets dreams, visions, hearing God actually speak, never hears any prophets nor knows of any, nor is visited by angels. That Christian knows that he has a valid source for doctrine in scripture; and he also knows that he has no other source (sola). Would he make a valid inference from scripture that the only source of God's word that he has is Scripture? For while scripture lists other sources, the man knows he has no access to those sources.

Scripture chides persons for not knowing signs of the times. Does that logically justify the conclusion that prophecy as a gift is past (since 1 Cor 13 predicts the passing of that gift)?

1 John (scripture) states that Christians have an anointing.

"And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all the things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son. "

"And this is the promise which he promised us, even the life eternal. 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray. 27 And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him. "

Does this scripture justify a Christian declaring that in all his experience, the only source of God's Word is the Bible? If a Christian has read many books, heard pentecostal preachers on TV, read church fathers, heard the pope, does this scripture assert that the Christian can tell what is and what is not God's word; and thus state that though he has had wide exposure to many alleged sources of God's word, he may validly state that the only book in which he hears God speak is Scripture?

Since it is clear in Scripture that "My Sheep hear my voice," a man who knows he is a sheep can validly state what is and what is not God's Word; for the Sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd. Thus if a Sheep never hears God's voice anywhere but in Scripture, it is valid for him to say, Sola Scriptura, until the Sheep encounters God's voice somewhere else.

Please read and reply to my post above titled "Seven Points, etc." so that we may carry out this debate in a more orderly manner.

Thank you and God bless.

Thunkful has never endorsed the slogan "sola scriptura." I have no desire to adopt that slogan & then argue about what it means. Thus I don't need to prove it. I noticed an allegedly RCC site (tho the author(s) seem/s to both endorse and deny the pope at the same time - LOL) on YouTube; the site claimed that catholic apologists refute "sola scriptura." I pointed out that these apologists had FAILED to REFUTE sola scriptura.

And they have failed at the attempt to refute. Practically speaking the only way I know that they could refute the POV that the Bible is the only commonly & readily available source of God's Word, would be for them to bring forth something else & prove that it is also God's Word.

My POV is that the Bible is God's Word and that this fact is self-evident. If I gave a logical proof that the Bible were God's Word, I would argue like this:

Because of truths A, B, C, etc., the Bible is God's Word. I would not use "the Bible is God's Word because the Bible says so" as an argument, since that is reasoning in a circle. If I used A, B, C, etc. to prove that the Bible was God's word, that would make A, B, C higher truths than the Bible. The opponent could ask me to prove that A, B, C were true. If I said A was true because of D, opponent could demand that I prove D. And if I said D were true because of E, opponent could demand that I prove E.

I discussed this below: See faith, axioms, epistemology.

To use logic to derive truth, one has to have one or more premises, a starting point from which to do logic. The starting point should be self-evident, axiomatic.

Thus I affirm as self-evident that the God of the Bible exists & that Bible is God's Word. I start there. I put it to you that you have to affirm or deny those truths for yourself. So have at it.

I have already told you how we are to proceed if we are to proceed at all.

Until you supply me with verses that support your view of accepting only Scripture as the Word of God, we CANNOT progress any further.

If you do not supply me with any in your next reply, I WILL assume that you have none and thus YOU AND I BOTH WILL CONCLUDE BY OMISSION that "sola scriptura" (or whatever you call your POV) is UNSCRIPTURAL.

Arch, my thesis from the GetGo has been that you & your apologist buddies have NOT refuted "sola scriptura." You have never proven that anything outside of scripture is God's word. My purpose was not to prove the "sola scriptura" thesis as such. Instead I gave my POV & defended it which is that

The Bible is God's Word & that I have never encountered God's Word anywhere else.

Now here is scripture for you:

1) All scripture is theopneustos.

2) John 10 MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE

"I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me, 15 even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. "

"26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand."

3) 1 John 2 ALL CHRISTIANS HAVE AN ANOINTING

"20 And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all the things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

"26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray. 27 And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him."

This is not something that the pope has nor ecclesiastical councils. This is something all born-again Christians have.

Because of this teaching, it is not necessary to find a Bible verse that says that Scripture is the only source of God's Word. Indeed, such is NOT the case. The sola part is in what is only COMMONLY & READILY available. Also it is not necessary to find a Bible verse that says directly that Scripture is the only commonly & readily available source of God's word.

What we do have is the declaration that Scripture is God's Word, and a pattern of settling debates using "It is written."

And we have the declaration that the Sheep (that is, born-again Christians) have an anointing and can recognize God's Word. I as a sheep recognize God's Word only in the Scripture. I don't say it is impossible that God should speak to me via a dream sometime, but it has never happened.

Thus we have scripture which declares that common Christians have the ability to recognize what is and what is not God's Word. Thus it is valid for common Christians to state that THE BIBLE IS THEIR ONLY readily available SOURCE OF GOD'S WORD.

The proposition that it is valid for Christians to assert ONLY-SCRIPTURE in that sense, has been proven! It does not require an only-scripture statement in the Bible. The Bible statements that Christians are competent to recognize God's word is sufficient.

Further evidence is found in 1 Cor 13 where it is said that some day prophecy would cease, which indicates that at some time oral prophecy would no longer be available.

You can call this the common Christian's MAGISTERIUM! Scripture gives this to no one else!

An Exercise in Sophistry -- Illogic
Arch begins with speaking of "the Protestant doctrine of sola scripture" without defining that doctrine. But he should be aware of my POV on this subject. The doctrine of scripture is not a "Protestant" doctrine, but a doctrine of all Christians.

My POV is as follows: The Bible is self-evidently God's Word. Papists agree that the Bible is God's Word; thus this POV is common ground. It requires no proof. Further, I have never encountered any other source of God's Word other than the Bible of 66 books.

My POV is not that the Bible is the only source of God's Word, but that the Bible is the only source of God's Word readily available to myself. For example, many prophets have uttered oral prophecy, & God no doubt has spoken with angels and within the Trinity since eternity past with utterances that are not in the Bible. But these are not available to me. Every thing I have seen and heard in my life leads me to conclude that there is no other source of God's Word readily & commonly available to men other than Scripture.

As to "sola scriptura," if some other document appeared and proved to be God's Word, it would be called scripture also; thus such a discovery would not disprove "sola scripture.

Arch says:

"The first most obvious and evident problem with the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is that it does not even occur anywhere within the Bible itself. As such, sola scriptura goes against its very own ruling of following only what is contained within the Bible! It is a self-refuting doctrine, it is logically inconsistent, and it is even rejected by the Bible itself. "

Arch makes a statement which he fails to prove, namely that "sola scripture" does not even occur anywhere within the Bible itself.

WHERE IS HIS PROOF OF THAT?

Then with sophistry, Arch says that "sola scripture goes against its very own ruling of following only." Arch inserts the word "following." He argues vs a straw man. No one to my knowledge ever claimed that there is no truth except what is found in scripture. The issue is WHAT IS GOD'S WORD? If it could be proven that the Bible never claims exclusivity for itself, that would not imply that there is some other source of God's Word readily & commonly available to man outside the Bible.

If Arch thinks there is some other source of God's Word, let him bring it forth & prove it.

Give careful attention to the following & draw your own conclusions:

Deut 4 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you."

Prov 30 "Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Rev 22: "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: 19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book."

Deut 30: "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?"

Arch likes to use the word "Protestants." The issue is not what Prots do or think, it is the truth & the Word of God.

Arch posted:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

He could have added 1 Cor 13:

"8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away;"whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things."

Arch says, "A Protestant will typically jump"

I think today that most Prot scholars will say that the Bible is not God's Word & when you quote 1 Tim, you are not even quoting Paul, because he did not write it! I wouldn't be surprised to see modern papist scholars saying the same thing. The issue is not what Prots think, but what is the Word of God & what do God's children think.

Arch takes a pot-shot at sola fide in passing. 2 Tim is not talking about how to become a man of God (which requires a new birth). 2 Tim is speaking of the provision God has made for the man of God and its thoroughness. Salvation is not the topic, nor justification.

Arch's theory of "Sacred Tradition" is absent from the Bible. Arch has no proof that the post-NT sayings of ecclesiastical leaders are God's Word. It is well-know that these leaders have contradicted each other over the centuries.

Arch sites:

"2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Note that they are not to wait for church councils to canonize anything. Of course if people received truth orally they should hold to it. The phrase could be translated "whether by our word or epistle." The passage refers to things received in the past and has nothing to do whatsoever with future sayings of ecclesiastical "fathers."

It is clear that the Lord Jesus rejected the Pharisaic practice of holding to sayings of the elders as putting man's word above God's Word.

Matthew 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”

ἐπὶ τῆς Μωϋσέως καθέδρας ἐκάθισαν οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι. 3 πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε

It is a mistranslation: "sit in Moses' seat."
The verb is ἐκάθισαν , aorist, a past tense. They sat. So the Pharisees took that seat; it is not an endorsement of their actions.

Without a shred of evidence, Arch claimes "The chair of Moses (a prefigurement of St. Peter’s chair)." Total nonsense. The Lord is not recognizing any Chair of Moses, which is nowhere mentioned as valid in the Bible to my knowledge. There is no chair of Peter in the Bible.

Since the Lord Jesus was ever at loggerheads with the Pharisees, and since he did not have his disciples following the rules of the Pharisees, I take this statement by the Lord Jesus as sarcasm: "Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do."

Arch quotes:
John 12:25 “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

Then Arch claims, "This admits that Scripture is not technically complete."

How does this verse support the notion that after God completed his Bible, it was not complete? All the verse indicates is that of course the Lord Jesus uttered many things not in the Bible. That is not the issue; it is a straw man. Of course oral prophecies have come and not put in the Bible. The point is that such prophecies are not generally & readily available to men.

If the NT records some prophecies of OT times which were not included in the Tanakh, that proves nothing relevant. The point is that while God has spoken outside the Bible & speaks today outside the Bible (as in Heaven), those sayings are not readily & commonly available to men. All I have is the Bible. If Arch has something else, let him bring it forth. If what Arch has is written and it does prove to be God's Word, it will be called scripture & still will be no argument vs "sola scriptura." But I don't think Arch can bring forth anything outside the Bible & demonstrate that it is God's Word.

Arch's theory of canon has already been refuted by his quote of "tradition" which already must be accepted as God's Word and obeyed from the getgo. Let's see Arch prove that God's children since NT times had no scripture until ecclesiastical councils decided it for them after AD 300.

2 Peter 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται· 21 οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη προφητεία ποτέ, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι.

"No prophecy of scripture comes to be of ἰδίας interpretation," one's own interpretation.

We are not free to twist the Bible to mean whatever, like a rubber nose. But all Christians (1 John) do have an anointing and the Holy Spirit. We also are not to take scripture out of context and without fitting it together with the rest of scripture. Yet the Bereans checked out what Paul said vs the Bible.

Now I challenge you to check commentaries on some difficult Bible verse in a variety of papist commentaries & see if they don't disagree with each other. The verse in Peter says nothing about the pope being in charge of Bible interpretation.

There is a spiritual gift of teaching, which I claim. But Bible-teachers disagree on many things.

Arch, you haven't proven your case.
To prove it you need to trot out some exemplar of God's Word outside the Bible & prove that you have God's word. There may be an infinity of God's Word unrecorded, but we don't have access to it.

As to the canon, "My sheep hear my voice."


Arch says, "The Catholic Church teaches prima scriptura (Scripture being the highest authority readily available to man) . . . ." If God's Word is available outside Scripture, that Word would also be infallible, as God knows all & cannot lie. Thus that Word would be equal to scripture; I see no primes here.