That's simply not true. He explicitly said that "the Bible alone is the word of God" when nowhere does the Bible teach this.


(Sigh..) And it's apparently a standard which he doesn't hold himself to.

In any case it makes his extra-biblical claim that sola-scriptura is a valid Scriptural teaching invalid.

And to further elaborate on the point, where was Luther's divine imprimatur when he invented "faith alone" because that is another teaching not taught by Scripture? Where was Calvin's when he invented T.U.L.I.P.?

Who did any of the"reformers" raise from the dead to demonstrate their "divine imprimatur" and thus usurp the Church's authority?

There seems to be a double standard that you're ignoring.

You may disagree with Sproul but he didn't say his statement/ position was ex cathedra (the same level as scripture).

Ec2, How did Jesus mentor Paul?

men·tor
ˈmenˌtôr,-tər/Submit
noun
an experienced and trusted adviser.

1.
advise or train (someone, esp. a younger colleague).a wise and trusted counselor or teacher.
2. an influential senior sponsor or supporter.

Galatians 1
11I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

He doesnt have to... He's not claiming to create Scripture... and
He is not arguing that Scripture states sola scriptura... He says that would be tautology. He simply states that he defers to Jesus standard of verification for anyone that says their word is scripture.
His argument is based on the fact that he has found no one to meet that standard. IOW... Eliminate what is not Scripture according to Jesus standard ... and all that remains ... is Scripture.
Therefore the logical conclusion:
"The Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God"

Sproul writes, "Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God."

So is this statement an objective biblical fact or is it Sproul's subjective personal opinion?

If the former then, according to Sproul's own criteria he must have some objective demonstration of the Spirit to verify his authority. If he can't then you're no better off than where you began. Sproul's and your "interpretation" is demonstrably no better, and no less circular, than the 20,000+ other "interpretations and brands of christianity.

If it's the latter, then his whole blog post means next to nothing. And it means next to nothing for you to use it as a prop for sola-scriptura.

Which means citing it was a total waste of time.

If any doctrine has "feet of clay" is the doctrine of sola scriptura, not in theory alone but also in practice. Sola scriptura has negated the objective authority of Scripture and has relegated Scripture to the shifting seas of religious relativism by making every person the pope of their own church.

"'So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by Epistle of ours'(2 Thes 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but also many things unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is tradition, seek no further."
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians

"Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law."
St. Jerome, The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, chpt 8.

I'll take Sts. Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Origen, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine over R.C. Sproul any day of the week.

Two things:
1)As Obi said, nowhere does the Bible say that the standard Sproul lays out is the standard that Jesus set. The "standard" is not Scriptural.

2)Then you and he better toss his/your KJV, or whatever version you have, in the garbage because neither you nor he has no possible way of knowing that what He is assuming to be "Scripture" is even Scripture.

What you have as "Scripture" you have from the care, the witness, and the authority of the Catholic Church which safeguarded the Scriptures through desperate persecutions and trials. Even honest protestants recognize this as fact.

Sproul is not arguing against tradition here. Lots of Christian churches have deeply ingrained traditions.

He is not arguing that Scripture states sola scriptura... He says that would be tautology. He simply states that he defers to Jesus standard of verification for anyone that says their word is scripture.
His argument is based on the fact that he has found no one to meet that standard. IOW... Eliminate what is not Scripture according to Jesus standard ... and all that remains ... is Scripture.
Therefore the logical conclusion:
"The Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God"

Jesus clearly stated that what he did was iron clad evidence of what he said.
Paul stated the same. Both of these arguments are documented in Scripture.

And? All that does is establish that the Apostles possessed divine authority.
That's not at all in dispute.

You're saying that those Scriptures mean that anyone who proclaims or expresses Apostolic doctrine must necessarily "raise people from the dead" as "proof" of their divine authority is completely absurd and is reading that "standard" into the text. Thus the "standard" is not biblical. Its eisegesis. That "standard" is the extra-biblical belief that you have "smuggled" into the texts.

It is also circular because the source of the standard, which is Sproul and not Scripture, is asserting a so-called "doctrine" without any"divine imprimatur".

The problem is in the illogical leap you are making in asserting that "scripture alone is the word of God" when the Apostles, who according to your argument possessed the "divine imprimatur" explicitly said the exact opposite of what you claim.

The only way you can possibly arrive at your so-called "standard" is by taking your conclusion, that "sola scriptura is true because the word of God is the Bible alone," and reading that into the Scriptures you use to justify the "standard" which you claim your conclusion follows from.

Its just one big circle of verbosity.

Sproul quoted Jesus and accepted his testimony.

That is a circular argument. He is starting with the premise that everything Jesus said and did is recorded in Scripture. The simple way to refute that premise is to answer two questions: When did Jesus establish His Church? When was Scripture written? Obviously the Church was up and running before the Scriptures were written. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is to defer to the Church, not the Scriptures.

No he didn't. He in fact goes way beyond that. He inserts his beliefs into the text and claims that it's "Jesus's testimony".

You'd rather take Sproul's tradition over the words of those saints and bishops of the ancient Church. You apparently think you and Sproul have a better grasp of the minds of Jesus and Paul than they did.

That alone speaks for itself.

You are falling into your old habit of forming an opinion about me and talking about that in the guise of focusing on the subject.

I didnt see that anywhere.

There's one thing you are always consistent in at least; reading your preconceived beliefs into other people's words.

You can deny that Jesus actions were deliberately intended to establish the truth of his words and you can certainly deny that it is a Scriptural principle.
My reading of Scripture indicates that the principle is well established in Scripture. Elijah used that same principle to cause the people to choose at Mt Carmel. Moses used it against Egypt as well as to establish the one true God to the Israelites. Gideon used the principle to establish trust in God's word. Paul stated that he specifically followed that principle.

Quote me where I denied "that Jesus' actions were deliberately intended to establish the truth of His words".



Deny that what is a "Scriptural principle"? That Jesus demonstrated His divine authority by miracles? Never did.

That the Apostles demonstrated their divine authority by performing miracles in Jesus' name. Never did.

What I do deny is that belief that you have smuggled into "Scripture" that the Church must "raise people from the dead" to proclaim or express doctrines already established as "the word of God" by "word of mouth or by letter" by Jesus and the Apostles.

Paul, who you claim to follow and whom you have certainly proved had the "divine imprimatur", explicitly said that the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

If Paul taught that the "bible alone is the word of God" then it makes ZERO sense for him to say that the Church is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" when he ought to have said that "Scripture alone is the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Yet that's not what Paul wrote, is it?

If Scripture is so "perspicuous" and "understandable" why do you deny this very simple, clear, "perspicuous" and "understandable" principle: the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

So either Paul contradicted himself, or you have smuggled a principle into Scripture that is untenable and is contradicted by other things in Scripture.

Since Paul had, by your argument, the "divine imprimatur", that necessarily negates the former. So then what's left must be the truth.

In context... 2 Thess 2:15 Paul is referring to what was taught before ( 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm; and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, whether we spoke them or wrote them in a letter) ... the tradition "by word of mouth or letter" specifically pointed back to standing firm in what they had been taught about the second coming which he refers to in the previous verses in that chapter. There is no evidence that his use of the word tradition in that verse can be expanded to apply to anything else.

Read into it whatever you like. John Chrysostom preached the exact opposite of what you claim, as I showed above.

And it still doesn't solve your dilemma in regards to 1Tim 3:15.