The 'Supposed' Bible Verse that Proves Sola Scriptura is Correct w/ Patrick Madrid

Many Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura (Bible Only), point to one verse in the Bible as proof for their belief: 2 Timothy, chapter 3, verses 16-17, which says:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

So, is this proof that Sola Scriptura is true? Matt and Patrick Madrid discuss in this short segment.

SPONSORS

GIVING

This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.

LINKS


SOCIAL

[EmperrHrde]

There are scores of thousands of different protestant denominations and sub-denominations, sects and sub-sects. *All* of them go by the Bible, yet not *two* of them agree on the meaning of Scripture. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, then how can we properly interpret it reliably? Who is the ultimate authority on the meaning of Scripture? For many people, the answer is "Me." And that's why Protestantism is so divided.

[annapennrose]

Jesus never commanded anyone to write 27 Books and to call it the New Testament.
The New Testament is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[sthabisozibani]

My new perspective on this: the argument presented here also points to the fact scripture itself points to other necessities of a Christian life e.g faith as mentioned, 1 Tim 3: 15, 2 Thess 2: 15 etc. I'll have to watch the full interview though. I appreciate your work, cheers.

[jacobitewiseman]

No it's not proof of Sola scriptura, because when that was first written or spoken, there was no bible so that wouldn't make sense.

[elreyhats]

Ephesians 4:4-6
4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

ONE BODY, ONE FAITH, ONE SPIRIT!
Not 30, 000 different ones!!
Case closed!

The Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church.

[fredharvey]

Madrid has been making bad arguments on this verse for over 30 years, at least as far back as the James White debate. I bought Madrid's "Answer Me This!" and I was amused how he went out of the way to avoid admitting the verse says "complete" and "all." In the White debate he tried to play down the lexicographers by smearing them as "Protestant" and saying they'd naturally be biased, attacking them as liars by default because they aren't Catholics. Madrid continues to ignore the Greek lexicon by Catholic scholar G. Abbott-Smith who agrees with the "Protestant" translations as presented by White.

Madrid, an admitted layman, is sadly again here trying to act as if he knows what he's saying regarding Ancient Greek, has bad arguments and is misleading his audience, has spent much time trying to swat away James White, a professor in Ancient Greek, as if he knows more without the education, and again he's repeating that rubbish here. Stay in your lane, Patrick.

The Epistles describe themselves as Scriptures and specifically cite the words of Christ and the Apostles as those to obey to the exclusion of all else. So since the churches had in their possession those words of Christ and the Apostles, they then had all they needed on hand to complete the man of God as the Bible says. It's really not hard to put together. 2 Peter 3:16 specifically cites Apostolic letters as Scriptures; see also Luke 1:1-4, Romans 1:5-6, Luke 10:14-15, Ephesians 3:7-10, Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Corinthians 11:2.

So now you can't claim Protestants haven't answered this.

[barelyprotestant]

I think the problem here is the fact that both Madrid and Fradd are working off of a definition of "Sola Scriptura" that means, "All you need is the Bible." That, historically, has *never* been the understanding of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura understands Scripture as the sole *infallible rule of Faith* . That is NOT the same as saying, "We only use the Bible". It is difficult to take such critiques in this video seriously when that simple fact is not understood.

[ijustcamefrombiblestudy]

Look at Isaiah 8:19-20 and Acts 17:10-11 it proves Sola Scriptura.

[HeroQuestFans]

there are also heretical writings that claim to have been writing by apostles or prophets or even claim inspiration within themselves. we reject them based on Tradition. you can say they contradict the canon, but that's also assuming you already have the canon. then there are non-heretical ancient writings used by Christians that are nevertheless not accepted as canonical Scripture by the Church.

[ajwspjs]

I stick to "solo scriptura" precisely because of these pointless, circular arguments (for or against) that do nothing to spread the truth of the gospel. And Jesus IS the truth. 1 Tim 2 says that Jesus wants ALL men to be saved AND to come unto the knowledge of the truth. If you're still arguing pointless things like these...then you may be saved...but you still have that "and" to accomplish...you still have to come unto the knowledge of Jesus, who He REALLY is and the magnitude of what He did to save us. For instance, there are those who STILL insist that the "Elohiym" of Genesis 1 that created lifeless idols in verses 1:26-27 are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These are the ones that walk on in darkness as Psalm 82 says. If I walk into ANY church or listen to ANY pastor that says "men were created image of God Almighty" then I know he lacks knowledge of the truth. He may be saved, but he does not KNOW his Lord and Savior. Jesus was, in the flesh, and is now us is; El=God). Jesus was NOT, is NOT, and will NEVER BE Emmanuelohiym. The earth is EVIL. There is nothing GOOD about Genesis 1. It is the testimony against apostate Elohiym as a collective, and us apostate elohiym as individuals. Read Psalm 82 and UNDERSTAND! Let the scales fall from your eyes.

[Maximusinthehouse]

He literally just gave a false definition of sola scriptura again, Catholic apologists do this all the time

[randycarson]

Sola Scriptura holds that all teaching must be taught (explicitly or implicitly) in Scripture.
Sola Scriptura is a teaching.
Therefore, if Sola Scriptura is true, it must be taught in scripture.
Sola Scriptura is not taught in scripture.
Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false; it is an extra-Biblical, self-refuting tradition of men.

[mattrivera]

Love you guys. However, aren't you guys claiming church authority based on "history" that ultimately pushes you to appeal to the oldest WRITTEN documentation which would be the New Testament documents? You guys say Peter is "the rock" (not Dwayne Johnson) and also claim to have the "Keys to the Kingdom" by appealing to scripture? Also, Orthodox also claim apostolic succession. Who am I to believe? Two lines of people to have a better oral tradition? I get these same arguments from Rabbinical Jews and their Talmud. I also think we could agree that the church especially in Rome has changed A LOT since the 4th century.

[paulyoshida]

All of the same criticisms leveled against these verses in 2 Tim. can also be used to much greater effect against the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matt. 16:18. In both instances, the doctrines(sola Scriptura & the Papal doctrines), which arose from specific contexts, in hindsight, are searching for a Bible verse to support these historical "accidents." The doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot be derived from 2 Tim alone, any more than Papal doctrines can be from Matt. 16:18. These are all ultimately unprofitable, intellectually shallow, and ultimately disingenuous(possibly unintentionally) cheap shots being taken for the benefit of an audience. Unfortunately, much of "apologetics" is a way to convince people who are just looking for a reason to dismiss "the other side." As such Patrick is correct. It is a "spectator sport."

Also, Sola Scriptura does not deny the authority of the church, nor does it make tradition unnecessary. It is simply that the Scriptures are the final authority. So, if the church seems to be doing something that goes against clear Biblical teaching, then Christians can point to it, and correct the error, as the reformers did. This is something that the church fathers would do all of the time. As Gavin from Truth Unites has pointed out: "Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church." ~Augustine, on the unity of the church

[sanjivdungdung]

I have an objection here to catholic position.

The acts 15 example that Church magesterium in seat of elder James is debunking the Heresy that Christians have to follow circumcision to come in to the covenant of Christ is not following Sola scriptura but Holy Spirit is influencing the proceedings but we do have a scriptural foundation.

I looked closely with the old testament background, James was seeing the situation not only through works of Holy Spirit in favour of gentiles but he does have a scriptures also in his decision.

The scriptures here is Amos 9 :11and 12 from LXX . He is seeing that prophecy fulfilled in the scriptures as well.

Though not Sola scriptura but the authority of scripture is placed along with the situations for the correct voice from the church.

[grahamlarmour]

John Mizak....remember John, I am preaching Gods word to you ...you can reject it or accept Him and be saved and know the risen Christ, at the moment you do not know the Saviour as Lord and have no certainty of eternal life!...
Galations 1v8....But if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one preached to you, let him be under a curse!

[grahamlarmour]

JOhn 2 v8. See to it no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men.

[grahamlarmour]

John not all tradition or philosophy is ungodly, but is not equal to scipture or more authorit ive!

[gordonjura]

It is pellucidly clear what 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 means. The written word is fully sufficient to guide us to understand what will please God and how to be saved. If there were any oral teaching or tradition, it would have to harmonize with Scripture. See Acts 17:11.

[jrhemmerich]

I appreciate the attempt to press good questions from the Protestant POV. Much appreciated.

The objection to sola Scriptura (SS) based upon canon is interesting, but it seems to mistake scripture as the “only” authority for scripture as the final and only infallible authority for faith and practice.

SS doesn’t mean that history, grammar, language, and traditions of interpretation are to be ignored. Nor does it mean that we have no canon list if it’s not found in1 Tim 3:16.

Just because the church didn’t grant or even reveal to us scripture’s authority doesn’t mean that the church serves no purpose in relationship to the Bible.

The canon is built by the tests contained in the law: 1) fulfilled Prophesy and 2) continuity. And the law was vindicated by a miraculous deliverance. Similarly Jesus’s authority was vindicated by his miracles and resurrection (fulfilled prophesy of OT and of Jesus), and he appointed his disciples. They also did miracles and prophesied, as did Jesus concerning the fall of the Temple.

All of these things ground and support the canon list, which is primarily based upon Apostolic authorship or close association (e.g. Luke, Mark and Hebrews).

The post-apostolic church is a witness to the self-attesting of scripture as supported by many evidences.

There is no issues with tradition so long as it is not infallible such that the church decisions can’t be corrected.

That is the main contrast between the Protestant view of Apostolic infallibility versus the churches infallibility. But the church never declared universally what books were in the canon (until Trent). So really, this is a beside the point.