Sure the scriptures are God-breathed. Catholics don't deny Sola Scriptura because we disrespect scripture. We just want it in it's proper role. The word "authority" is wrong here. Scripture is a book. It cannot have authority. Authority is defined as "to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine". A book can't do that.All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, forcorrection, for training in righteousness 16; that the man of God may be adequate,equipped for every good work 17 (NASB).First of all, Scriptures are described by Paul as being “inspired by God.” The phrase “inspired by God” is translated from the Greek word “theopneustos” which is literally rendered “God-breathed.” By this Paul is communicating that the very writings were breathed out of the mouth of God. Further, the authority that Scriptures do have is derived from the verity that the very words were spoken by God.
Secondly, notice that Scriptures are “profitable.” No one in this debate disagrees about this statement. However, the text says that Scripture is profitable “for” one kind of thing “in order that” another kind of thing might be true. To put the matter formally, Scripture is profitable for x, in order that y. The variable x refers to “teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.” The variable y refers adequacy and equipping believers. It is the y that Protestants point to as a clear declaration in Scripture of its own sufficiency. Let’s look at verse 17 more closely.This is a big problem. If x is profitable for y that does not imply nothing else is profitable for y. If eating right is profitable for health then exercise cannot be profitable for health? You cannot just focus on what y is and ignore the connecting word "profitable" that open the door to other things being just as important.
Paul says that Scripture can produce believers which are “adequate” and “equipped for every good work.” The TDNT defines “adequate” (artios) as “fitted, complete, perfect.” Bauer defines “adequate” as “complete, capable, proficient = able to meet all demands.” The TDNT defines “equipped” (exartizo) as “to complete, finish, to furnish perfectly, to accomplish” (1:475,80). Bauer also defines “equipped” as to “finish, complete...equip, furnish” (273).
These definitions point to the meaning of our English word “sufficiency.” To make this issue as clear as possible, let’s define and contrast the words “sufficiency” and “necessity.” To say that one thing is necessary for another is to say that without this condition in place the desired effect will not occur. For example, water is necessary for human life. That is, water is a condition without which human life could not exist. To say that a thing is “sufficient” is to say that this condition is all one needs. In the case of water, it is necessary but not sufficient for human life (for we need food in addition to water). If it were the case that water is both necessary and sufficient for human life, than food is irrelevant.
Now, if I say that Frank’s Furniture Farm is complete or adequate to furnish perfectly my house, I mean that I don’t need to go anywhere else. In other words, Frank’s Furniture Farm is sufficient, or good enough; no other store is necessary. In the same way, Paul is saying that Scripture is adequate and complete to perfectly furnish the believer to live life as God intends; nothing else needs to be added.Even this does not prove his point. If Frank's Furniture Farm has all the furniture I need then I still need to find a way to get it delivered. I still need to organize it in my home in the right way. It is complete in one way but not in all ways. Truth is like that. It is there in scripture but it needs to make the trip from the book to my head and my heart. That means you need an interpreter. Interpreters can make errors. Mr Magee just demonstrated that by making a logic error in interpreting these 2 verses. I mean he is a bright guy and he spent a fair amount of effort on just 2 verses. Yet he blows it. He saw what he wanted to see and not what the text actually says. The furniture truck went off the road and delivered a bunch of kindling.
In short, Scripture is necessary and sufficient. Contrary to Scott Hahn’s and Bob Sungenis’ assertion that “sola scriptura is simply not taught anywhere in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly,” 2 Tim 3:16 &17 is as explicit and clear in its support of Sola Scriptura as John 1:1-3 is explicit and clear about Christ’s deity.This one key problem with Sola Scriptura. Not only do people arrive at false conclusions but they have rock solid confidence in those conclusions. Suddenly strained logic becomes "clear and explicit". Now John Magee's opinion has become the Word of God. There are no checks and balances. Any error instantly goes all the way up to the mouth of God Himself. He says he is as sure of his little syllogism as he is of the divinity of Christ. Amazing.
Now he goes on to anticipate what a Catholic might say in response. He gets some of it right but does not include the strongest responses. Firstly that his logic is off. That cannot be stressed enough because he builds on this statement he has "proven" through his faulty argument.
But secondly the context really shoots holes in his conclusion as well. When you examine the verses prior it becomes clear Paul is talking about the Old Testament when he mentions scripture. That is a devastating problem he does not mention.
Also, the phrase "man of God" could have some meaning. Some feel it refers to someone who is ordained. Even if it does not it seems this teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that Paul refers to assumes a certain familiarity with the faith. He is not talking about anybody, anytime, anywhere.
I shall stop here and continue this another day.
Sure the scriptures are God-breathed. Catholics don't deny Sola Scriptura because we disrespect scripture. We just want it in it's proper role. The word "authority" is wrong here. Scripture is a book. It cannot have authority. Authority is defined as "the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine". A book can't do that.
I don’t think “authority” is an improper adjective. I did a quick Google search combining Catholic, Scripture, and authority and found a bunch of Roman Catholic publication that use the same designation for Scripture and Tradition (e.g. http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-tradition.html). If it’s good enough for your team, its good enough for mine.
Moreover, I think its clear that text can “determine… settle issues or disputes...commands etc.” In ligation a valid and clearly stated contract (text) will direct a judge to rule in favor of one person over another. The judge himself will make this judgment because he or she has sworn to operate in a way that is faithful to other text (state and federal laws found in books) that are referred to incessantly. If they are not faithful, the judge’s judgment may be challenged in appeals.
Lastly, “authority” seems appropriate given the description given to us of Scripture by Scripture. Here’s one of many passages:
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12)
Any casual word study of phrases like “law of God” produces multiple passages that clearly describe Scripture as authoritative.
Secondly, notice that Scriptures are “profitable.” No one in this debate disagrees about this statement. However, the text says that Scripture is profitable “for” one kind of thing “in order that” another kind of thing might be true. To put the matter formally, Scripture is profitable for x, in order that y. The variable x refers to “teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.” The variable y refers adequacy and equipping believers. It is the y that Protestants point to as a clear declaration in Scripture of its own sufficiency. Let’s look at verse 17 more closely.
This is a big problem. If x is profitable for y that does not imply nothing else is profitable for y. If eating right is profitable for health then exercise cannot be profitable for health? You cannot just focus on what y is and ignore the connecting word "profitable" that open the door to other things being just as important.
Randy, I wish you had read the article a little closer. This was the first objection I directly addressed, as well as addressing this on the back end of the essay. I’ll give you the first passage now and the second passage with the next point.
How might a Roman Catholic respond?
Perhaps the Catholic might respond by saying that Paul doesn’t state that Scripture is “alone sufficient.” He might argue that Scripture is sufficient as a guide, but tradition is also sufficient as a guide. That is, Scripture is not the “only” guide available to believers. Tradition gives us instruction that either spells out doctrines which are implicit in Scripture, or perhaps it gives us revelation not found in Scripture. So a person who has tradition but no Scripture is also “complete and perfect, furnished perfectly for every good work.”
{Instead of your health analogy, I used the compass/stars analogy}
To illustrate this point, one may use a compass to point to true north, or one may use astronomic markers to perform this task. Both rely upon something different in pointing to the same truth. The person using the compass relies on the magnetic field of the earth. The person using astronomical markers relies upon the earth’s position relative to the stars. The one depending on the compass cannot claim to have the only way of finding true north, and vise versa. And so it is with Scripture and Tradition.
However, there are a number of problems with this line of reasoning. Firstly, when Protestants say that the Bible alone is sufficient as a normative guide for Christians, we don’t necessarily mean that nothing else could be sufficient. For example, if Christ appears to a native in Africa who doesn’t have a Bible and reveals the truths about God’s kingdom, this might also be sufficient. So, when we say “Sola Scriptura,” we mean that the Bible, by itself and without the addition of anything else, is good enough as a guide to the Christian life. I don’t need to know what Christ revealed to the native in Africa, for the Bible is good enough for me in America. Yet, Protestants also urge that nothing else is actually sufficient, for nothing else has proved itself to be the authoritative voice of God.
Secondly, this line of reasoning must be disregarded by Catholics. For this idea would mean that the Protestant would be within her rights to disregard tradition because she has something which, by itself, is able to guide her in the correct path. But this is no good, for the Catholic believes that the Protestant is missing out by not adhering to the content contained within tradition (whether it is the elucidation of what is already in Scripture, or a wholly separate revelation). That is, the Catholic is clearly saying that the compass, by itself, is insufficient. But then they must again face the clear teaching of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16.
Randy, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to the essay, but would appreciate a more careful representation and response of my arguments.
Paul says that Scripture can produce believers which are “adequate” and “equipped for every good work.” The TDNT defines “adequate” (artios) as “fitted, complete, perfect.” Bauer defines “adequate” as “complete, capable, proficient = able to meet all demands.” The TDNT defines “equipped” (exartizo) as “to complete, finish, to furnish perfectly, to accomplish” (1:475,80). Bauer also defines “equipped” as to “finish, complete...equip, furnish” (273).
These definitions point to the meaning of our English word “sufficiency.” To make this issue as clear as possible, let’s define and contrast the words “sufficiency” and “necessity.” To say that one thing is necessary for another is to say that without this condition in place the desired effect will not occur. For example, water is necessary for human life. That is, water is a condition without which human life could not exist. To say that a thing is “sufficient” is to say that this condition is all one needs. In the case of water, it is necessary but not sufficient for human life (for we need food in addition to water). If it were the case that water is both necessary and sufficient for human life, than food is irrelevant.
But what does "sufficiency" apply to here? To teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. It does not apply exclusively to scripture. For that you have to deal with that word "profitable" that does not imply any exclusivity. So the logic has a hole in it.
I don’t see the logical misstep, and this was addressed in the previous comments. But let me elaborate. The passage says that a man of God can be thoroughly equipped for every good work when something is taught, something is used to reprove, something is used to correct, etc. The passage clearly equates that something with “Scripture,” and nothing more. Therefore, Scripture is sufficient as that which is to be taught, corrected, etc…
You seem to suggest that since this passage implies that there is a teacher, reprover, corrector, and trainer, then we can’t cite this passage as a proof text for Sola Scriptura. But as mentioned in my previous comments, this is to misrepresent the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura.
Consider another passage where I made the same point:
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that Scripture is necessary and sufficient for everything. In other words, we readily admit that even though Scripture is necessary and sufficient for x, it may be necessary and not sufficient for y. For example, we maintain that although Scripture is necessary and sufficient as a guide to live a godly life, it is insufficient as to whether or not I live a godly life. For, in addition to the guide, I must add my will. To use an analogy, a compass is sufficient to guide me to the north pole, but it is insufficient in actualizing my trip to the north pole. There are all sorts of other conditions that are to be met in the actualization of this trip. As it pertains to living a godly life, we don’t believe in Scripture alone (we believe in Scripture + God’s grace + human volition) | “you can add to this list ‘eyes to read, ears to hear, teachers who teach…’|. But certainly that doesn’t take anything away from the sufficiency of Scripture as a guide to live a godly life. In the same way, even though there is need for an interpreter doesn’t take away the necessity and sufficiency of Scripture as a guide.
I’d recommend you looking over the whole passage, as it addresses the RC’s rebuttal that “since the Bible needs an interpreter, it can’t be sufficient.”
Now, if I say that Frank’s Furniture Farm is complete or adequate to furnish perfectly my house, I mean that I don’t need to go anywhere else. In other words, Frank’s Furniture Farm is sufficient, or good enough; no other store is necessary. In the same way, Paul is saying that Scripture is adequate and complete to perfectly furnish the believer to live life as God intends; nothing else needs to be added.
Even this does not prove his point. If Frank's Furniture Farm has all the furniture I need then I still need to find a way to get it delivered. I still need to organize it in my home in the right way. It is complete in one way but not in all ways. Truth is like that. It is there in scripture but it needs to make the trip from the book to my head and my heart. That means you need an interpreter. Interpreters can make errors. Mr Magee just demonstrated that by making a logic error in interpreting these 2 verses. I mean he is a bright guy and he spent a fair amount of effort on just 2 verses. Yet he blows it. He saw what he wanted to see and not what the text actually says. The furniture truck went off the road and delivered a bunch of kindling.
Randy, let’s say Tom Sikes (owner of Frank’s Furniture Farm) submits an ad in the paper saying, “We have all the furniture you need to furnish your home.” Let’s say you come in and buy all of the material to furnish your house (because he has it), but then you begin to challenge the owner with false advertizing because he won’t hang your pictures for you. In fact, you take Tom to court. Of course, you will lose because the Tom’s advertisement only claimed to have a sufficient supply of furniture to furnish your home (no other store is needed supply you with furniture). He never claimed that he would actually furnish it.
The big idea is that Scripture is sufficient as the normative guide for faith and practice, but is insufficient for getting me to believe and live. So it is no argument against SS that there are other instrumental components that are in play.
In short, Scripture is necessary and sufficient. Contrary to Scott Hahn’s and Bob Sungenis’ assertion that “sola scriptura is simply not taught anywhere in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly,” 2 Tim 3:16 &17 is as explicit and clear in its support of Sola Scriptura as John 1:1-3 is explicit and clear about Christ’s deity.
This one key problem with Sola Scriptura. Not only do people arrive at false conclusions but they have rock solid confidence in those conclusions. Suddenly strained logic becomes "clear and explicit". Now John Magee's opinion has become the Word of God. There are no checks and balances. Any error instantly goes all the way up to the mouth of God Himself. He says he is as sure of his little syllogism as he is of the divinity of Christ. Amazing.
I don’t think this is a problem with Sola Scriptura. It appears to be a general problem with humanity. And it appears to be one that you have succumbed to as well. You seem to be quite confident in your assessment of this article, but I haven’t detected the charity and objectivity to read, represent, and respond appropriately to it. The only straining I sense is the one that denies the obvious import of the passage, fails at a serious assessment of the topic, not to mention the crass caricatures my position represented in the above paragraph (i.e., “Now John” – it’s Jake by the way “Magee’s opinion has become the Word of God…). I was very careful in the article to be kind and fair in both the presentation of the RC position and in my response to it. I’d appreciate a similar response.
Now he goes on to anticipate what a Catholic might say in response. He gets some of it right but does not include the strongest responses. Firstly that his logic is off. That cannot be stressed enough because he builds on this statement he has "proven" through his faulty argument.
All I am seeing here is a claim that “his logic is off.” What am I saying here? What are the reasons that I gave for my claim? How are these reasons faulty?
But secondly the context really shoots holes in his conclusion as well. When you examine the verses prior it becomes clear Paul is talking about the Old Testament when he mentions scripture. That is a devastating problem he does not mention.
I’m sorry, please elaborate the devastating problem and how it relates to the particular argument I make (see above).
Also, the phrase "man of God" could have some meaning. Some feel it refers to someone who is ordained. Even if it does not it seems this teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that Paul refers to assumes a certain familiarity with the faith. He is not talking about anybody, anytime, anywhere.
I shall stop here and continue this another day.
Randy, I appreciate your desire for the truth. I’m open to fair and balanced feedback. I look forward to that from you.
Sincerely,
Jake Magee
Randy:
The first objection he deals with is that SS is unbiblical. He goes to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. He actually tries to follow the logic though.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, forcorrection, for training in righteousness 16; that the man of God may be adequate,equipped for every good work 17 (NASB).First of all, Scriptures are described by Paul as being “inspired by God.” The phrase “inspired by God” is translated from the Greek word “theopneustos” which is literally rendered “God-breathed.” By this Paul is communicating that the very writings were breathed out of the mouth of God. Further, the authority that Scriptures do have is derived from the verity that the very words were spoken by God.
Secondly, notice that Scriptures are “profitable.” No one in this debate disagrees about this statement. However, the text says that Scripture is profitable “for” one kind of thing “in order that” another kind of thing might be true. To put the matter formally, Scripture is profitable for x, in order that y. The variable x refers to “teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.” The variable y refers adequacy and equipping believers. It is the y that Protestants point to as a clear declaration in Scripture of its own sufficiency. Let’s look at verse 17 more closely.
Now many Catholics do accept the material sufficiency of scripture. This is as distinct from the formal sufficiency of scripture which would be needed for Sola Scriptura. But we don't believe it based on 2 Tim 3. It is just not there. It is not anywhere in scripture. You can argue for material sufficiency from tradition but then you have violated your own rule. Your task here is to show Sola Scriptura is not self-refuting.
You keep running away from the Sola part of Sola Scriptura. This is a good thing. It is the problematic part. We need an interpreter. The Sola part tells us we can't find one that is trustworthy. None that at least gets the basics infallibly right. Sufficient needs to mean that Sola Scriptura is at least workable. It would not imply it is best but it would be at least one possibility. But empirical evidence shows it is not workable. The interpreter problem seems to be way bigger than people are willing to admit.
How might a Roman Catholic respond?
However, there are a number of problems with this line of reasoning. Firstly, when Protestants say that the Bible alone is sufficient as a normative guide for Christians, we don’t necessarily mean that nothing else could be sufficient. For example, if Christ appears to a native in Africa who doesn’t have a Bible and reveals the truths about God’s kingdom, this might also be sufficient. So, when we say “Sola Scriptura,” we mean that the Bible, by itself and without the addition of anything else, is good enough as a guide to the Christian life. I don’t need to know what Christ revealed to the native in Africa, for the Bible is good enough for me in America. Yet, Protestants also urge that nothing else is actually sufficient, for nothing else has proved itself to be the authoritative voice of God.
The argument is the bible is "good enough". It depends what you mean by that. In some sense the Gospel of John by itself is good enough. Should we ignore the other books of the bible? We don't want to minimize our experience of God. We want as deep and as full a revelation as is available. We also want to avoid error.
When you say nothing else has "proved itself to be an authoritative voice of God". How does something prove itself? What is the standard you measure something against to see if it is the voice of God or not? Isn't it a matter of faith rather than proof? When somebody publishes a list of 100 biblical contradictions, are you surprised they found that many? I am not. I don't believe any of them are real but if you don't approach the question with faith you will find lots. Same with scripture and tradition. Does it require some faith to believe what they teach makes sense? Sure. Is it more faith than it takes to believe the bible alone makes sense? No.
So how does the bible prove itself? It doesn't. Sola Scriptura can't solve the canon question. Tradition flows directly from Jesus so it can be as reliable as it's source. Scripture was not written by Jesus. We need to believe some other revelation that tells us these books were inspired. When you try and describe what that is it sounds a lot like tradition.
I don’t think this is a problem with Sola Scriptura. It appears to be a general problem with humanity. And it appears to be one that you have succumbed to as well. You seem to be quite confident in your assessment of this article, but I haven’t detected the charity and objectivity to read, represent, and respond appropriately to it. The only straining I sense is the one that denies the obvious import of the passage, fails at a serious assessment of the topic, not to mention the crass caricatures my position represented in the above paragraph (i.e., “Now John” – it’s Jake by the way “Magee’s opinion has become the Word of God…). I was very careful in the article to be kind and fair in both the presentation of the RC position and in my response to it. I’d appreciate a similar response.
Sorry if I seemed uncharitable. That was not my intent. I did think it was a bit much for you to compare your conclusions to the divinity of Jesus. But generally you have not been arrogant or dismissive so I should not have replied so smugly. I do think the lack of check and balances in the Sola Scriptura system is a problem. It gives people the choice between being arrogant or being wishy-washy. Catholicism lets you boast in Christ alone. That is in the church as the body of Christ and it's teachings. One can brag about them and not be prideful.
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Randy, I appreciate your desire for the truth. I’m open to fair and balanced feedback. I look forward to that from you.
ME:
Hey Randy, I’ll change up the format a bit to avoid confusion and color blindness.
Let me state the obvious in order to continue the contrast of RC thinking with Protestant thinking you’ve begun. Protestants claim that Scripture makes the church and preaching living, not the other way around. An outlet doesn’t cease to have power because an appliance is not plugged into it. An appliance does however cease to have power when unplugged from the outlet. A church that fails to faithfully preach Scripture doesn’t take away from the life of the word of God, but its own life. Further, I would argue (but won’t for space) that many of the passages that refer to the Word of God with organic metaphors are contextually tied to Scripture, and not tradition or the magisterium (Psalm 19:7-9; 119; etc). I believe this is the case with Hebrews 4 as well.
“I did read the whole thing. I intended to respond to the rest of your article later. In the second section you did take the matter of sufficiency to be proved. It isn't. The text does not say scripture is sufficient. If anything, it says teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness together are sufficient.”
The movement of the article from exposition to sub-head “How might a Roman Catholic Response” is just a different way of saying “some RC’s like Randy will say that I didn’t prove the sufficiency of Scripture for the following reasons…” You raise objections to my claim by citing issue I deal with subsequent to the claim. For example, later on in your assessment you argue that Paul also “gives tradition high praise and the church high praise in other place.” Elsewhere you cite the “canon question,” as well as the relationship of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to the Old Testament. Elsewhere you refer to the problem of interpretation. You offer these as considerations for why Paul is not arguing for the sufficiency of Scripture. And yet, these are precisely the objections I anticipated later on in the article, I’ve considered, and have argued do not militate against my interpretation of the 2 Timothy passage. In fact, I’ve argued that they are very compatible with it (even supportive).
This is why it doesn’t seem like you’re treating the article as a disputation that offers a thesis, argues for it, anticipates objections, and seeks to answer those objections.
Now to the crux of the contention: you say that the text doesn’t say that Scripture is sufficient. Why? “If anything, it says teaching reproof, correction, and training in righteousness together are sufficient.” Elsewhere you say that the content of what is taught, reproved, corrected, and trained “is not equated with Scripture and nothing more…It says that scripture is one thing that would do these things…”
I have argued that Paul says a man of God will be adequately furnished for every good work when he is taught with Scripture. The delivery system (i.e. teaching) for Scripture is an instrumental cause, not a formal. Paul seems to be saying that because of the nature of the formal cause (inspiration), these Scripture-informed instruments (e.g., teachers or whatever) can produced adequately equipped Christians.
Now you’ve repeatedly brought up that the passage might logically allow for things other than Scripture to equip. I’ve argued that the fact that something else could be (in a possible worlds sense) used to equip a believer adequately (my example was the personal presence of Jesus to a native in Africa) doesn’t negate the sufficiency of Scripture to equip the non-native. What it does negate is the necessity of Scripture for the African (or better yet, in the case where there is special revelation). But likewise, it negates the necessity of this divine appearance for the person who possesses the Bible. I have argued that this rejoinder is irrelevant to my case.
I said, “The doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that Scripture is necessary and sufficient for everything. In other words, we readily admit that even though Scripture is necessary and sufficient for x, it may be necessary and not sufficient for y. For example, we maintain that although Scripture is necessary and sufficient as a guide to live a godly life, it is insufficient as to whether or not I live a godly life. For, in addition to the guide, I must add my will.”
I’ve made this point in a number of ways. I used the example of Frank’s Furniture Farm. You argued that you still need a truck and people to arrange the furniture. Applied to the discussion, we still need teachers and churches and etc to get this truth arranged in people’s lives. My response was essentially, “Of course!!!... the doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that Scriptures do all that work for us and so it doesn’t eliminate instrumental causes (i.e., teachers, text, literacy, churches, pliable wills, etc…). But likewise, it doesn’t impugn the sufficiency of Scripture for furnishing all that we need for faith and practice. The passage does say that a teacher can sufficiently equip a believer for works of service with the Bible.
I’ve also used the compass/stars analogy. Your response was that “God’s word needs to provide us with all the essential answers to questions of faith, morals, worship, etc. We don’t even know what all those questions are.”
Well, we’re going to differ on some points here. You feel that there are certain questions that the Bible doesn’t give answers to, and therefore makes it insufficient. We would probably disagree on what one needs to know to be adequately equipped for every good work. Certainly, the Bible doesn’t answer all the questions related to faith and practice (but we don’t include omniscience as a prerequisite of sanctification). But it doesn’t need to. It needs only to answer the questions that are necessary to please him and serve him.
You respond that, “You keep running away from the Sola part of Sola Scriptura. This is a good thing. It is the problematic part. We need an interpreter. The Sola part tells us we can't find one that is trustworthy. None that at least gets the basics infallibly right. Sufficient needs to mean that Sola Scriptura is at least workable. It would not imply it is best but it would be at least one possibility. But empirical evidence shows it is not workable. The interpreter problem seems to be way bigger than people are willing to admit.”
First of all, I’m not running from the Sola part of Sola Scriptura, I’m establishing what it means and what it doesn’t mean. Maybe this doesn’t fit what you think the Protestant believes. Maybe that’s something you have to revise as you work through you critique. Moreover, you say that the problem with the above schema is that “We need an interpreter.” Again you make no mention of my handling on this particular problem.
Later on you say, “So what are we trying to do? You want to show Sola Scriptura is taught in scripture. In response to some texts where scripture tells us to cling to tradition or tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth you give a logic argument why we should ignore what scripture actually tells us to do and stick with scripture alone.”
You write as if I never addressed that. In representing the Roman Catholic position, I began a considerable portion addressing this particular objection early on in the article:
“What’s another route that a Catholic might take? Roman Catholic apologists have argued that Scripture is insufficient because Scripture itself clearly teaches that believers must also affirm and hold onto oral traditions (Staples 224)…….”
You say later on, “When you say nothing else has "proved itself to be an authoritative voice of God". How does something prove itself? What is the standard you measure something against to see if it is the voice of God or not? Isn't it a matter of faith rather than proof? When somebody publishes a list of 100 biblical contradictions, are you surprised they found that many? I am not. I don't believe any of them are real but if you don't approach the question with faith you will find lots. Same with scripture and tradition. Does it require some faith to believe what they teach makes sense? Sure. Is it more faith than it takes to believe the bible alone makes sense? No….So how does the bible prove itself? It doesn't. Sola Scriptura can't solve the canon question. Tradition flows directly from Jesus so it can be as reliable as it's source. Scripture was not written by Jesus. We need to believe some other revelation that tells us these books were inspired. When you try and describe what that is it sounds a lot like tradition.”
Again, I’ve addressed these points in the section on the canon and argued that the RC position is in the same epistemological boat as the Protestant.
You say, “Sorry if I seemed uncharitable. That was not my intent. I did think it was a bit much for you to compare your conclusions to the divinity of Jesus.”
Your initial statement was, “He says he is as sure of his little syllogism as he is of the divinity of Christ. Amazing.”
That is a misquote. What I said was, “2 Tim 3:16 &17 is as explicit and clear in its support of Sola Scriptura as John 1:1-3 is explicit and clear about Christ’s deity.” It seems that you represent me as saying, “take all the Scriptures for the divinity of Christ and put them in a scale, and my exposition of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves Sola Scriptura with the same weight as all of these Scriptures do so for the divinity of Christ.” What I said is that the reasoning that leads one to conclude Sola Scriptura from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is as iron clad as the reasoning that leads us to postulate the deity of Christ from John 1:1-3. That’s not a grandiose or presumptuous statement.
Randy, I find it difficult dialoging over a topic when objections are offered as novel and devastating to my position, and yet there’s never the acknowledgement that I’ve covered those particular objections with considerable effort. What this has led to is no interaction with the bulk of the polemic.
God bless you Jake. It was good of you to take the time to respond.
