re: Much Needed Clarity Regarding the Pope and the Recent Document Regarding Blessings

I wasn't going to get involved in another "Catholic bashing" thread but I can't let this go regarding 2 Tim. 3:16.

quote:

---

a - The passage doesn't say "only scripture" or "scripture alone". It just says that scripture is God-breathed, or Theopneustos, which it is.

---

The passage that "Scripture" (by itself, because nothing else is added to the word in this passage) is sufficient for what the task.

quote:

---

b - The passage doesn't say that scripture is "sufficient". The man of God is made sufficient, not by having the scriptures alone, but through teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Scripture is described as being useful for those things, but not entirely and singularly sufficient for those things.

---

Read the passage again, in particular verse 17. Scripture is what is sufficient for making the man of God "complete, equipped for every good work".

Which good works are the Scriptures sufficient to prepare for? Every good work. That means every type and instance of what is considered a "good work" must be supported by the Scriptures alone, if the Scriptures alone equip for them. Whatever the Roman Catholic Church teaches is a good work must be taught from the Scriptures.

This, combined with point a, shows the sufficiency of Scripture. Paul explains that because all Scripture is "God breathed", that it is the basis for why the Scriptures can and do make the man of God complete for every good work.

It should be noted that only Scripture is stated to be "God breathed", because it is the very word of God. Nothing else has that descriptor.

quote:

---

I would agree if the argument were "material sufficiency", but that's not the argument. Sola scriptura argues "formal sufficiency". If the formal sufficiency of the scriptures alone were true, the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 wouldn't have needed Philip to teach him what the scroll of Isaiah he was reading meant. That passage supports material sufficiency.

---

How can you claim this passage supports any kind of "sufficiency" (material sufficiency) when just before, you say "the passage doesn't say that scripture is "'sufficient'"? In one breath you say that the passage doesn't say "sufficient" while in another, you say it teaches some form of sufficiency. If the passage clearly teaches any form of sufficiency, then of course it doesn't need to use that very word; we can infer words based on context. The sufficiency of Scripture is based on the context, where Paul by the Spirit teaches that the Scriptures by themselves (remember nothing else is added to them in this context) make the man of God complete and equipped for every good work.

Acts 8 doesn't teach against 2 Tim. 3 on this point of the sufficiency of Scripture. What it teaches is that the types and shadows of the Old Testament Scriptures--especially prophetic passages like Isaiah 53--are clarified and revealed through Jesus Christ, as given in the New Testament Scriptures. The necessary works of Jesus Christ that allow us to understand the OT passages like in Isaiah 53 are recorded in the Scriptures for us, so we can use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Just as Jesus had to provide clarity to His disciples on these matters, so too do the preachers of God's word preach the gospel of Jesus Christ for clarity. That's exactly what Philip did to this man. Romans 10:14-17 gives us in paradigm what Acts 8 gives us by example, namely God has commissioned ministers to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ for salvation.

Acts 8 actually supports sola scriptura as the doctrine is actually taught, because Scripture is sufficient for interpreting the Scriptures, acting as the very guide that Philip was now that the Apostles have all died and the revelation of God has ceased. The reason why preachers are so helpful is because study is required, and not everyone has the time for such in-depth study. That's the role of the minister of the gospel.

quote:

---

c - It says all scripture is inspired (Theopneustos), but it does not say that all inspiration is only in the scriptures. This would be like me saying that all faithful and practicing Calvinists are Christians, and therefore, Sola Calvinismus is true, or that only Calvinists are Christians. This statement doesn't mean that Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc are not Christians though, only that Calvinists are.

---

As a Calvinist, I understand what is necessary for salvation from the Scriptures and that Calvinists are not the only ones who meet the requirements for salvation according to the Scriptures. There needs to be good and necessary reasons for proclaiming exclusivity. Jesus said He is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. That statement alone is sufficient to understand the exclusive nature of Christianity. Sola scriptura is based on the exclusivity of the Scriptures as a standard of authority being the only one described as "God breathed" for Christians after the revelation of God through the Apostles has ceased.

If there is another "God breathed" standard, you need to prove that such a standard is "God breathed", because the Scriptures don't provide such a standard as described in that way.

quote:

---

d - It never defines what "all scripture" is. 2 Timothy was not the last book of the New Testament to be written. If we were to take the strong and most often used interpretation of that passage to be accurate, this would mean that at the time 2 Timothy was written, only the currently existing books of the New Testament were enough. This puts the books of 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation all in a very weird spot.

---

Paul doesn't have to define what particular Scriptures because he is speaking of a category, not specific books. Ruth was considered Scripture, but Ruth doesn't teach the same things in the same way or in the same clarity as Exodus, or Isaiah. Paul was talking about the Scriptures as a canon or as a set of teachings from God. Therefore, whatever is considered Scripture--whatever God has inspired and recorded as Scripture--is sufficient for making the man of God complete and equipped for every good work. If Paul's own writings are considered Scripture, that doesn't invalidate his own statement or exclude his own writings from that category. Paul doesn't add anything that contradicts the rest of Scripture, and yet His writings, as Scripture, clarify what came before in God's progressive revelation.

Finally, I believe I should clarify what sola scriptura is, because Catholics frequently describe it incorrectly. What it doesn't teach is that only the written Scriptures have ever been the authoritative word of God, excluding the authority of the verbal word that was given by the Prophets, the Apostles, and by Jesus, Himself. What it does teach is that only those things that are recorded as the God-breathed Scriptures are authoritative for Christians in a post-Apostolic world where those with the authority have gone to glory and new revelation has ceased.

In essence, it teaches that God has given us His revelation through the Prophets and Apostles, and He has preserved it through the Scriptures. Tradition is not a God breathed authority because it was not recorded as Scripture.